little square dot

I welded a bunch of custom capsules sans buoyancy...totally by mistake, as I prefer capsules that float. I also inadvertently made parachutes that work underwater, haha..

Good day folks. Does anyone know if there's a way to both disable player control of landing gear state and have them retracted by default? Simply being able to disable the GUI would be enough to keep me happy. I ask because I made a nice set of pontoons by rescaling the large landing gear, but it's only pontoon-like when the gear is retracted, obviously. Removing the gear module reference is the easiest way to disable player control, but that locks the gear in the default (deployed) configuration. On the other hand I can set the default state to retracted using the gear module, however that enables player control of gear state/GUI. I'm hopeful because I see that other part modules allow something akin to: allowManualControl = False So, who's going to ruin this rare bout of optimism? *facepalm*

Have you tried the workaround? Stable 64-bit KSP is but a few steps away for folks running Windows 7 64.

You can either remove the surfaceFX reference from the engine .cfgs, or deactivate it like so: //MODULE //{ //name = ModuleSurfaceFX //thrustProviderModuleIndex = 0 //fxMax = 1 //maxDistance = 80 //falloff = 2 //thrustTransformName = thrustTransform //}

I don't disagree on point A, but I'm not so sure about B. The universe is finite, which is infinitely more restrictive than infinite. *edit: and don't you dare take this down the multiverse path.

For this to be necessarily true, that "long enough" period has to be infinite. Jus sayin'. =)

I don't mind that people get frustrated and look to vent on the forums, but what does annoy me is how many people are going on like, "I'VE TRIED EVERYTHING", when it's quite obvious that they haven't really tried anything, nor even bothered to read what others have already said on the issue, repeatedly. It's one thing to vent frustration when you truly can't figure something out, despite your best efforts, however if you're complaining simply because things are different, and you haven't even tried to adapt, I think that's called whining. - - - Updated - - - No it wasn't. Ask Sal.

I haven't visited Laythe in quite a while, but isn't it close enough to Jool and the other moons that it would have some pretty wicked tidal action? That would all-but eliminate the possibility for land-based (visible) life, and probably any sort advanced sea life. The conditions would be far too volatile. ...or maybe they're not actually as close as I remember them being, in which case I was never here. It would be absolutely amazing if KSP had a weather/tidal system that could mimic such conditions, but that might have to wait until KSP 3 or 4..

The VAB nails comparison may be a wee bit extreme, but I hear what you're saying. Where do you draw that line between fun and grindy though? I'm with you insofar as disliking many of the grindier elements of gathering scientific data, although I don't considering having to exit the lander in order to grab a soil sample to be particularly grindy, but when it comes to something like scanning a planet, I think this introduces more of a challenge to the fun processes of building/flying. For example, in order to enter into an optimal orbit for scanning, you'll either have to pack more dV into your vehicle, get creative with your gravity assists, or do a little of both. You'll have to ensure that your probes have adequate battery capacity and sufficient generation potential, perhaps you'd feel inclined to design your probe with some sort of propulsion system to allow it to skip orbits and do a secondary scan of a moon or whatever... who knows, but the point is that you have more to think about when building/flying if you have a specific task that nudges you outside of the box.

It may need some tweaking, but trash? Why do you think it's that bad?

Perhaps it would help some people to visualize their rocket as a kayak pointing upstream and the airflow the current of the river. What happens if you abruptly angle your kayak into a strong current? All of that fast-moving water will slam into the leading edge of the kayak and spin you around your CoM like a mofo, ie. flip your rocket.

Absolutely. Whether or not it's a real-time progressive scan, the ability to acquire limited data based on orbital inclination is a progressive system, and at that point it might as well be made into a real-time thing because people can just warp through the process if they don't like it. How is this idea appealing to those who dislike instant scanning? I think the two major camps in this debate are instant vs. non-instant people. Adding multiple layers of instant scans only appeases the instant-scan-but-no-polar-orbit-requirement crowd. Agreed. But again, if the game is going to make those calculations to reveal a certain amount of information based on the capabilities of your craft / orbital inclination, it might as well be a real-time progression...it simply doesn't make sense that everything else in the game involves a simulated process on one kind or another, but scanning a planet doesn't. It's akin to allowing soil samples to be collected from within a landed lander. Presumably those who dislike the idea of "needlessly" time warping to collect data similarly dislike the notion of having to climb down a ladder in order to grab a soil sample, because it's exactly the same principle.

You'd have to implement a progressive system in order to give players the ability to acquire limited data based on their orbital inclination. With the instant-scan mechanic in place, it makes perfect sense to require the player to enter into a polar orbit... it would be far too cheat-y otherwise. - - - Updated - - - Joking, not accusing. =)

That works too. Although to clarify, making copies of .cfgs doesn't change the original part, nor do the changes require a plugin in order to work. Six of one, a half-dozen of the other really. I would ask you what a drag sphere is, and how it differs from a cube, haha.. I'm pretty sure your guess is bang-on though.

Right, but I think this misses the point, because it's a ridiculous way to achieve orbit. Thankfully, it's also unnecessary. People will learn, and in the meantime some folks are bound to get frustrated...growing pains.

You can just make a copy of each wing .cfg, remove the ModuleLiftingSurface reference, and add a custom non-drag-y drag cube to override the default one. Even if you're not familiar with .cfgs it should only take half an hour or so to make the changes, and you'll have decorative wings for life. =) *edit: You'll have to change the part names as well, and you'll definitely want to alter the titles (the name displayed in VAB/SPH) in order to avoid confusing the non-lifty wings with the liftier ones.

haha... thems be fightin' words. Music to my ears. =)

RoverDude, please don't mistake my criticism for something it isn't. I appreciate all of your hard work, and for the most part I think you did a bang-up job. I understand that this is your baby, and it's regrettable that some folks weren't overly tactful with their comments, which clearly upset you, however to be fair, I think you were a tad dismissive of opinions contrary to your own, and probably could been a bit more tactful yourself. That said, I'm going to have to side with those who strongly dislike the much-maligned instant-scan, as I feel that it's far too unrealistic, which significantly cheapens the experience for me. Most people who have spoken out in favour of the mechanic have said something to the effect of, “it's merely eliminating a tedious process from the gameâ€Â, or, “what's the difference between instant-scanning and warping for a few seconds to gather the dataâ€Â, but it seems to me the answer is both obvious and in the question. Having to warp for a few seconds is the difference. More specifically, the existence of a process that can, but doesn't have to be, warped through is what sets them apart. Those who find it too tedious will warp through the scan, while those who don't won't. I mean, the same sort of argument could be used to defend the implementation of HyperEdit into the stock game, because what's the point in waiting to get to Jool is you can just press a button and be there. You're going to get there eventually anyway, so why not speed things up a little bit? The problem of course, is that it cheapens the experience when you can simply jump around the solar system with the click of a button. You haven't done anything to 'earn' that Jool encounter, and you can come back to visit whenever you want at the push of a button, so there's nothing special about it. Fair enough, but what you're a fan of isn't necessarily indicative of what others are fans of, and given the popularity of those mods, presumably a huge number of people do enjoy progressive scanning. This isn't to say that I think you should have designed your system in line with this or that popular mod, however I don't see your personal dislike of progressive scanning as a reasonable defense against criticisms of the instant-scan mechanic. ISA MapSat, and then ScanSat, were/are my go-to, absolutely essential mods. I love scanning planets, and I thoroughly enjoy just sitting there watching my probes go about their work. That probably sounds awfully boring to a lot of people, but it sounds pretty great to just as many. For me, progressive scanning simulates a process by which one 'earns' the data that one is collecting. Much like drilling for ore, gathering science, collecting soil samples, etc., it's an in-game activity that gives many players a sense of purpose/accomplishment. A major criticism of KSP is the lack of things to do, aside from whatever exploratory goals one sets for oneself, so I don't think it's necessary to provide these sorts of shortcuts for players, particularly when it involves something so unrealistic as an instant scan of a planet, and extra-particularly because players have the ability to warp time. It's also important to note that a large number of people enjoy the process of seeking/finding much more than the process of harvesting/refining. Horses and courses. Firstly, one does not need to consider the system as a whole in order to voice criticism of a particular aspect of it. Secondly, you're being dismissive and a bit rude yourself. Least significant to you does not mean least significant to others, which should be pretty clear given the context of this thread. Ground-truthing and flybys don't make the initial scan less-instantaneous, more believable, or more likable to those who don't like it. I don't like cantaloupe. If I'm served a fruit salad, I don't need to eat the whole thing to know that I won't like the cantaloupe. My dislike of cantaloupe does not preclude enjoyment of the fruit salad, nor does the deliciousness of the other fruit preclude my dislike of cantaloupe. If, on the whole, I do enjoy the fruit salad, this suggests that the non-cantaloupey elements managed to redeem the salad, however cantaloupe is still cantaloupe, and I still don't enjoy it. I think you need to shake this notion that those who dislike the instant scan are comparing the resource system to Kethan/MapSat/ScanSat or whatever. It would be one thing if people where comparing the resource system in its entirety to the Kethane mod in it's entirety, but that isn't the case... at least not here. This isn't comparing apples and bananas as you've suggested; it's a comparison of scanning mechanics. Many people, myself included, don't like instant scanning because it seems absurd. In my opinion it detracts from immersion, it's arcade-y, it cheapens the process of building and transporting a probe when all it has to do is show up in order to get the job done. Worse still is the fact that the scanner doesn't work unless you're in a specific orbit.. it all just seems bizarre and out of place to me, and it feels as though the data is being handed to me as a reward for achieving a specific orbit, rather than being something to achieve in and of itself. Moreover, in eliminating the process of scanning, the possibility of failure was all-but eliminated. One of the things that I love about progressive scanning is that you can get burned by not equipping probes with enough batteries to allow for a full pass of the dark side of a planet, or not affixing adequate solar panelage to fully charge the batteries while on the sunny side, and even if you do construct the probe with sufficient panels/batteries for the task, rough launches, messy separations and other such accidents that could jeopardize the mission are always a risk. I also like the fact that the scanners work at any inclination, so if you screw up and run out of fuel in a sloppy or equatorial orbit, at a weird inclination or whatever, you can still gather a limited amount of data, thus missions can be partially successful. To be clear, I'm not comparing the resource system to a mod, rather I'm comparing the initial scan mechanic with what I believe to be a much more enjoyable and realistic scanning mechanic. He's judging a mechanic that he did use. Again, enjoying 99% of the resource gathering process does not make the instant scanning less instant, more realistic, or more enjoyable for those who don't enjoy it. You seem to be suggesting that the rest of the system will make up for it, but that's not really the point. Why can't people dislike instant scanning without first having tried the non-instant-scanning aspects of the system? Look man, I have all the respect in the world for people who selflessly donate their time and energy in an effort to improve the KSP experience for everyone, whether I happen to enjoy their contributions or not. As I've said, I appreciate all of your hard work and like the vast majority of what you've done, but the instant-scan is a significant drawback for me, and clearly many others, and no amount of ground-truthing or flyby-ing is going to change thiis. Our criticisms arise from our own subjective preferences, and I don't think anyone is suggesting that the mechanic is flawed in any sort of an objective sense. Rather, some of us just don't like it, and with good reason. Others do like it, and with good reason.(<-I'm being diplomatic ) Hopefully we can find a middle-ground.

I think most of these threads are started by people looking to vent their frustration at the changes, hence the lack of specifics. People know how to get help if they want it.

After giving 1.02 the ol' college try for the past few hours, I would have to agree. It's quite a different beast now though, and it probably would've taken me quite a while to figure it out on my own...thankfully I'd picked up a number of key tips in the forums, however I still managed to flip my first few attempts. I think part of the problem is that some of the changes are counter-intuitive to those accustomed to the previous aero model, ie. pre 1.0 it was advantageous to make rockets extremely bottom-heavy, whereas that's an excellent way to start flipping in 1.02. The tips that helped me out the most: 1. Avoid excessively bottom-heavy designs. To steal someone's analogy, flying a bottom-heavy rocket is like trying to throw a dart backwards. 2. Watch acceleration/speed carefully in the lower atmosphere. It's certainly not the MOAR BOOSTERS free-for-all that it used to be. Too much speed + too much atmosphere = tons of drag on the nose and a very unstable rocket. Flipping often ensues. The terminal velocity ballpark is a good place to be. 3. Use nose cones at the top, fins/winglets at the base, and restrict the number of radially-attached components used. Apparently aerodynamics matter now. RIP sledgehammer rocketry. **sniff**

haha.. love the honesty. I'm pretty sure we all go there from time to time.

I haven't played enough of 1.02 to have much of an opinion, however given the number of complaints I've seen about rockets flipping, people having to wait until 15000m->20000m to begin gravity turns, etc, I'm inclined to think that the new aerodynamics are significantly different, and not necessarily for the better...certainly not across the board anyway. Regardless, clearly a lot of people are frustrated, and frustrated people don't need condescension, eye-rolling emoticons and uppity attitudes, and I'm seeing a bit too much of that here. If complaining annoys you, don't read/respond to complaints. Sometimes people need to vent...this shouldn't be news to any of us. I'm not trying to single anyone out, but ^^this^^ sort of attitude ruins forums.

Evidently PartDatabase.cfg needs deleting after changes to chute values, so figuring out buoyancy is the last of my major issues. (Don't mind me...I'm just going to talk to myself until this is sorted.)

Rigid joints and reduced memory footprint (new parts without adding new models/textures) are nice perks, but I love welding because you can build whatever the heck you want, in as much detail as your imagination will allow, without requiring any third-party assets, .cfgs excepted. Your parts retain the stock look that we know and love, and believe it or not, welding parts can be a lot of fun...if you can handle staring at notepad and a calculator for hours on end. They're generally quite hassle free as well, major aerodynamic overhauls notwithstanding, and .cfgs can be modified, updated, manipulated, etc. with ease by anyone who so desires. Most people think of welding as a way to reduce part counts and strengthen joints, but stacking and fusing truss segments, struts, tanks etc. is really just the tip of the iceberg. Highly detailed manipulations are possible as well...same principles, more imagination. I threw together a couple of albums of 100% stock welds to show you what I mean. Welded 3.75m capsule + launch escape system: 3 parts in total, capsule has fully functioning hatch, antenna, docking port, IVA etc. Various odds and ends including rovers, habitation modules, engines, landers, spherical tanks, etc. - - - Updated - - - Can a mod please relocate this thread elsewhere? I'm not sure why it was moved to the support forum for modded installs...cfg edits, while technically modifications, probably shouldn't qualify for the modded installs forum, and regardless, I'm not looking for tech support. I'm interested in learning about how KSP determines part buoyancy and drag, so a move elsewhere would be much appreciated.

I'm a little late to this one, but I just wanted to add that I feel as though the SRBs have not only become much less useful, but much less fun to use. It's not that they're useless, but relative to actual SRBs, with their high thrust/TWR, and relatively lengthy burn times, KSP's SRBs don't act like SRBs anymore, and they aren't really worth messing with as they currently stand. Having your SRBs assist you through the first 8-10,000m is helpful, however having to jettison BACCs 25 seconds into flight, completely burnt out at an altitude of perhaps 3-4000m, with 66,000m of soupy atmosphere left to punch through, not so much. Furthermore, the models and their stats simply don't add up. They're all over the place really, and it's not just the SRB's. A notable example off the top of my head is the recently increased fuel capacity of the Oscar B tank...according to it's physical size it should have roughly 1/7 to 1/8 the volume of the T-100, but it now boasts fully half the capacity of the T-100. As for the SRB's, I'm not sure why they've been assigned such arbitrary values, but this coupled with the recent nerfing has totally killed them for me. Just check out the wildly varying fuel capacities...evidently fuel capacity and physical dimensions aren't related. According to their physical size, the RT-5 is roughly half the length of an RT-10, which is roughly 40% as long as the BACC, and the BACC is slightly more than half as long as the KD25K. Therefore, as you can see, the values assigned to them are seemingly rather arbitrary. Perhaps the smaller 3 can be forgiven their relatively minor inconsistencies, but the KD25K is just plain nuts. In fact, it seems as though all of the NASA parts were just thrown in to the game without much thought. They're better now, but given that it doesn't really take that long to balance part .cfgs, I don't know why they were/are such a mess. Anyway, I'm adding my voice to the chorus of boos over the handling of solid boosters. =)