jefferyharrell

@linuxgurugamer Excellent. Thanks very much for this.

Wait wait wait. @OhioBob, that's YOU? I never noticed the link below your messages. That web site is fantastic. Thank you so much for making it.

Is this just the heap padding part of Memgraph pulled out into a standalone mod?

Agreed 100%. I have a short (or, well, not actually that short) list of mods that I categorize as "Why bother playing KSP without these?" and Alternate Resource Panel is among them.

That's Alternate Resource Panel. It was made by the same guy who made Kerbal Alarm Clock whose name I totally cannot remember right now.

Yeah. Here's what I was getting at: You have two planets orbiting the sun. Each planet has an SOI, and outside that SOI you're in the solar SOI, because the sun is the parent body of both planets. But what happens if those two planets move such that their SOIs overlap? Since both planets are parented to the sun, my guess is that the game won't know what to do, and either the results will be surprising or it'll just crash to the desktop. Just guessing, though.

What happens when two spheres of influence overlap? That is to say, when a spacecraft is at a point where there are two applicable spheres of influence? My hypothesis is that the game crashes and kills a puppy.

It's y'all's mod and you guys should do whatever you want. That being said, I would personally vote no for city lights, or at least hope for an easy way to disable them. It's just weird to me that Kerbin, a planet with no surface structures but the launch sites, should have lights visible from space. Maybe I've just been playing the game too long, since back before there were other planets, but I'm quite fond of the idea that all of Kerbin is untouched wilderness except for these half-dozen buildings or whatever.

Just in case, did you for sure install the version of Kopernicus for 1.7.3? It just came out a little while ago, I believe. If you installed an older version it simply won't load at game startup. (It also blasts the screen with error messages, so you surely can't have missed this one, but I just thought I'd ask in case it helps you out.) The other thing is that I believe Kopernicus has a dependency in Modular Flight Integrator. I didn't see you mention it, so again, just thought I'd ask. I may also be wrong about the dependency. I'm just stabbing in the dark here.

Looks like a 1.7.3-compatible version of Kopernicus dropped this morning. The changelog is very minimal. Any reason to doubt that JNSQ will work against the new Kopernicus without modification? (I obviously don't expect anybody to answer right away. Just thought I'd get the question out there so when you guys have a chance to look at it, it'll have been asked.) Thanks!

Easier than adding "**" as an operator to kOS? Well yeah. But when you copy-and-paste a lot of equations with the "**" notation in them, even find-and-replace becomes shockingly tedious after a while.

I haven't had a chance to check this out yet, and unfortunately probably won't for a minute, but if this means what I think it means I think I love you.

I have another feature request! I hope it's more plausible than my last one, but I suspect it's probably not really a very good idea. It's this: FORTRAN syntax for exponentiation. In kOS, you raise a number to a power by doing x^y which makes perfect sense. It's the C-language exponentiation operator, and it's used in a ton of other languages. But FORTRAN uses x**y for exponentiation, and for what it's worth Python uses this operator too. I've been copy-and-pasting a LOT of code from a Python-based symbolic algebra system into kOS, and it's great but for having to change all the "**"s to "^"s. Would it be possible for kOS to support both the ^ operator and the ** operator? It would of course be terrible to switch from "^" to "**", but it'd be terrific if either one worked. I have absolutely no idea how language parsers work, so this could be anything from utterly trivial to completely impossible. But I thought I'd ask! While we're on the subject, a built-in EXP function wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. It's trivial to include your own by writing DECLARE GLOBAL FUNCTION EXP { DECLARE PARAMETER x RETURN CONSTANT:e^x } but it'd be nice not to have to. Thanks!

@Jognt All very good points. I just think it's a shame that unless you're very self-disciplined, the thrill of discovery is not part of playing KSP at all. Which is why I like JNSQ so much — more than any other single fact about it, it's new. It's different. I have no idea even yet what any of the planets look like because my game has been entirely in cislunar space so far. Part of that is because I haven't had as much time to play lately, but also I'm deliberately drawing it out so I don't see everything new all at once.

@Jognt You laugh, but I think one of the best improvements to KSP would be procedurally generated solar systems. Years ago the developers said they didn't want to try this because they wanted players to be able to have the same game experiences, but that's trivially achieved by having a seed number that players can share to generate the same solar systems. I imagine that procedurally generating gravitationally stable solar systems might be a challenge (I haven't done the math), but with everything on rails the boundary conditions aren't that constraining. In my dream KSP, every time you start a new game you get a new solar system (only the sun, the "earth" analogue and the "moon" analogue are constant), and all the planets look like this until you send fly-by probes or orbiters to them. Get a particularly good solar system from the procedural generator? Just share the seed with your friends. Then there's like a 900-page forum thread of awesome seeds people have found.