John FX

I had the same thoughts, I now use a simple guide to see if a feature or suggestion has the slightest chance of happening. Will these actions bring more profit? If not then they will not be done. Even if more profit can be brought, will these actions bring the most profit if done for KSP 2 as opposed to if done for KSP 1? If so then they will not be done for KSP 1.

The end reminded me of this

I think that every method of solving the time warp problem moves KSP away from the core gameplay Squad want for the game and as such, there will never be stock multiplayer for this version of KSP. If/when there is a KSP 2, with possibly different goals, at that point the question `will we get multiplayer` might be worth asking.

I like this idea. As with all good ideas there are edge cases where it does not make as much sense but you will always have those in a game where you can place parts anywhere you like. This is no reason to not implement this idea. It's never a good reason in a game like KSP. Like with the Dv readout, there will always be cases that confuse the algorithm. People obsessing over these edge cases have, to the detriment of the game IMHO, stopped us getting that feature. This is not a good thing. So, if we could all avoid excessively criticising suggested features purely because they do not deal with particular edge cases, then we will all have a much better game moving forward. And that would be great. This game NEEDS more information given to the player both during construction and also during flight. It is all the poorer for not having it. Sometimes, I think they are storing up all the best ideas to put into KSP 2...

I like rovers, I like to do stunt jumps on other bodies. F5 is my friend.

If you find bugs, make a bug report, supply your logs, they will be addressed.

Just to say that KSP can use up whatever you throw at it, there is no magic PC that can handle any craft. I have an [email protected], 24GB RAM, SSD@500MB/sec and I am having to be careful just how many mods I load because I am running out of RAM (sometimes KSP is using 20GB out of 24GB), visiting some stations in my save slows my computer to a crawl. I do not imagine moving to a newer Unity will affect this very much because I am just supersaturating KSP, it is an issue with how I am treating KSP as opposed to KSP not being efficient enough. I am thinking of moving KSP to the 32GB machine just to get a bit of headroom. I think my point is, however large your glass, it is always possible to fill it. That said, I think the minimum spec for KSP should be a machine capable enough so that a user can fly a 30 part craft anywhere without slowdown. Of course it will run on lower spec but you should not expect a green timer if you do.

It is not on CKAN. You can find it here Just install it like any other mod (put the folder into GameData) although I would suggest that you read the documentation very carefully as it changes some things (like making a manoeuvre node and how the map works) which are quite important. As I say, I would get used to RSS and RO first if you do not want too many changes at once.

To be honest the biggest challenge is going to RSS/RO. Principia just makes things work how you imagine they should in RL which allows things like ballistic captures etc I would suggest easing into it all at your own pace. Maybe just go RSS, then add RO when you are used to the scale. Add extra realism as and when you feel like it until you are happy. That's the main thing, getting enjoyment from the game.

One extra step that can be taken after installing Real Solar System and Realism Overhaul, is Principia. It gives proper n-body physics to KSP. This sounds scarier than it is. Mostly it works very similar except you can make all those crazy orbits impossible under normal KSP physics. lagrange points for one. You can properly recreate all those missions like Voyager etc because the craft will act like it should. I would suggest getting used to RSS and RO first, they add a lot of different stuff compared to stock sized system. It is mostly the same, but different enough to be very interesting.

I have wanted this for years. I do not have much hope left for it though. It might happen with KSP 2. I support your suggestion. My preference would be for kerbals to be able to go from a craft to science experiments, check them all then return and repeat. It would allow science over time, something sorely missing from EVA ground based science.

Gotcha. Have voted.

looks interesting. In KSP I would like to see engines that can be upgraded on a part by part basis, which would exploit the same code and allow upgrading as well as making engines from scratch. I like this idea.

There will be no multiplayer. All the signs are there to people who see them. Heck, we have yet to see any progress on a relatively simple Dv readout. Still, these threads pop up every now and then and they play out and fizzle by themselves when nobody agrees how to deal with, or whether to even have, warping. Crack on.

I do not understand the second voting question. Until it is made clearer I cannot vote. EDIT : Every time I play another game and all I have to do is press escape, then `exit to desktop` I am reminded of my extreme frustration in just leaving the game when I have to press escape, click to leave the game, wait for assets to unload, click to go back one menu, click again to select exit, then click AGAIN TO CONFIRM! escape, click, click, click, click to confirm should be escape, click. I would accept an `are you sure` at this point. Of course what I actually do is F5, ALT-TAB to desktop, select `close window` to shut down KSP. The menu system is so frustrating and slow I simply do not use it.

Yes it has and I am not responding to the ever more desperate attempts to make it worse. I agree with the OP. We should be able to delete the node we can make when we have no comnet access.

I think you may be taking this a little too seriously. Try to separate `game` from `reality` a little, it will help you keep some perspective, eh? But to rebut, and point out where you contradict yourself. This could allow destruction of a manoeuvrer node, the precise topic of this thread. It would not allow instant control, manually, of throttle. Of course the situation being described in the OP means even that signal cannot be sent. But they cannot execute them, which is what I said. Executing is 99% of the job. Point at what you like, without execution you go nowhere. It would appear you do not otherwise you would realise that the limited control, oh sorry, Limited. Control. can not possibly operate using the mechanism you say it should follow, I notice you conveniently ignore the word `instant` as well. So, first you say that a single bit can be transmitted then this single bit can let a user control a craft but not send any information to the craft or have any control except the ones you like, instant throttle control for example. How do you propose that the signal which both sends and does not send information and can control and not control the craft gets around the planet which is causing the signal to be blocked? I will give you a clue, it cannot. There cannot even be a single bit sent when you lose connection to KSP. Maybe have a proper think, sort out what it is you actually think, then if it makes sense and does not contradict itself come back to the thread when you want to discuss rather than have a row. EDIT : Before you return, remember this thread is about the fact you can make a node without a signal but not destroy one and a call to allow a player to destroy the node they just made with no signal...

Yeah, modern tablets and phones knock the socks off some of the potato based equipment some players currently use.

I have long wanted semi-autonomous Kerbals. It would be good for them to have the ability to check experiments regularly over time, which would be a nice new game mechanic. Also to maintain working equipment, wander between preset areas etc. It would bring missions to life. Especially longer base missions.

Using your Juno example, there should not be that. If we take the suggestions from Juno fully on board then we should have a way of the computer executing the burn, which we do not and never will without a mod. They sent various commands to prepare the craft for insertion but the craft performed the burn itself and we have reached the point where this metaphor runs out of usefulness. This is what actually happened, as I am sure you can see to do things the way Juno did them would require Mechjeb or similar... Look, this is a game. For gameplay purposes, it makes no sense to have instant manual control over throttle but not to be able to cancel a manoeuvrer node, especially one in the past. You can still have control limited at the same time as being able to make or destroy a node, it does not make your craft more or less controllable, just allows you a marker for a burn to be made or removed. I have long been in favour of KSP having the ability to automatically execute a pre-planned burn like Juno did. If that were implemented then it would make sense to not be able to change burn markers without control. As it is, we can point our craft in any cardinal direction we choose, and execute manual burns of an arbitrary length which we can decide at the moment. When you have that much manual control, to restrict adjustment of node markers makes no sense.

Then either the flight computer can make and destroy regardless of connection or a connection is needed for both. Makes no sense to do one but not the other. Whatever the mechanism, you should be able to do both, or neither. I would say both.

I am away from my PC until the weekend but I will try to reproduce the issue with debug logging switched on and post some logs as soon as I can. It is probably one of my many other mods not doing something properly. EDIT : What I will also do is try putting Ampyear back then removing other mods to see if one of those removes the issue, if it is another mod not playing nicely it would become apparent. Since noticing the issue, I have installed Pricipia. I am interested to see if that solves it as it takes over craft movement on launch. If the issue so gone I will remove Principia to bring the issue back to check the other mods for interactions. All on a copied game folder of course. EDIT : OK so after getting back to my machine I have realised I told you about the wrong bug. I had two and have mixed them up. The bug I reported here goes away when I remove tweakscale... The correct bug I experience with AmpYear is missing pod parts, specifically procedural probe cores and fairings. I suspect a MM conflict of some sort. I will post a log tomorrow when I get some time. Apologies for the confusion. EDIT 2: Here is a KSP.log where I load KSP, load a game then go into the VAB, notice missing parts then quit.

*sigh* If you had read the thread then you would have read the post where I relate how neither of them are suitable and why... To save you time, if you use mods then fusebox picks up on so few of them it is worse than nothing, if you use mods then (in my case right now) mod interaction means if Ampyear is installed, my root part cannot be moved by gravity or thrust, a bit of a problem if you want your craft to go anywhere. If you do not use mods then a mod is not a solution for your problem. As such, `there`s a mod for that`, especially after I have explained why I am calling for a stock solution and have explained specifically why neither of those mods is good enough, is more trite than usual. Please read the thread to stop me having to say this too often...

Is there a known bug for people using RSS/RO/RP-0 where the root part becomes unmovable by gravity or thrust? I have tried removing mods to see the minimum change needed and by removing or adding Ampyear, I can make the bug go away or reappear. Of course this does not mean Ampyear is the cause but it suggests I should see here first if anyone else suffers from the same issue.

Well, I am pretty sure that complicating things with volts and amps on batteries, changing if connected in series or parallel, will NOT make EC make sense to most people. What would, is KSP adding up your usage and presenting it as a number, and also your generation and presenting that as another number, possibly with a third number showing if you are generating too much, enough, or not enough. The way I would like units of measurement to make sense is to have the same timescale used for every part. Either per second, per hour, or per day. All are fine but choose one, not a mix and match of whichever units you decided to use when you wrote the description. Also, how am I supposed to know if I am making enough power when parts do not tell me usage/generation if I right click in the VAB or in flight? Should I be right clicking on all the parts one by one in the parts list then adding up the various amounts, so much in EC/s, so much in EC/hr, multiply one to get numbers that make sense together then add them up. Then repeat the whole process for generation? Idiotic. Minimalism taken to the point of being unusable. Without going into volts and amps etc there are some more basic, obvious, ways to deal with EC could do with being implemented.