Hyomoto

I'm already using his fixes; can you point out the specific one you are talking about, Sal? This isn't an issue with the brakes being useless, it's that they are causing phantom accelerations, or at least that seems to be what is happening.

Is a bug that when I set a heading, it constantly counts down? I lock in 180, but that's not what I get. It just keeps counting down until I'm off by several degrees if I leave it unabated. I get the feeling it's trying to compensate for the rotation of the planet since the effect is most pronounced heading west/east or east/west near the poles.

I thought it might be a slope issue, but it seems to happen going both up and downwards. Going down the issue seems slightly complicated by your brakes no working and KSP's lack of friction causing you to accelerate wildly out of control. Of course, trying to land on a downhill slope is somewhat of a misnomer anyways. So let me ask this, have you had this happen with any of the other landing gears?

Jebediah's out in the Badlands again, testing out the KR-1.

I'm trying to pin down a 'phantom' force in the game, but since I haven't isolated what it is yet it seems pointless to put in a bug report. I'm hoping some of you are familiar with this bug and can either point me to a support thread, or perhaps we can gather up the information needed to find out what is happening. The situation is like this; I fly a lot of planes. Recently it seems like that's what I spend most of my time doing. This means that I also tend to land my planes on some pretty unforgiving terrain, and since at least 1.0.2 I've discovered some sort of 'phantom acceleration' that causes me to go from slowing down, or a near stop, to suddenly having about 32m/s of speed and violently pitching upwards. I have a few theories but I noticed something on my most recent landing, pressing B actually caused me to speed up. So I quickly released it and pressed it again, and I resumed slowing down. I think I've pretty much narrowed it down to, if not the brakes, perhaps it is the Fixed Landing Gear. I thought at first maybe it's causing some sort of 'spring' force that propels me upwards, but it may only be happening while the brakes are applied. Has anyone else experienced this type of behavior? It isn't all that rare for me, it happens on pretty much any landing.

Honestly I wasn't looking to suggest anything complicated, I use Antenna Range though.

Proot, I get the feeling you enjoy a very different KSP experience.

Sounds great, adding it in right now!

So here's a totally useless suggestion, is it possible to supress chatter if the vessel you are on doesn't have an antenna?

I can't, but I apologize for the pain blackrack. Might I make the suggestion you take down the download and tease us with images if you want to show off your progress instead? That would probably be far more conducive and less stressful of a working environment. We all want to swoon, but at least it could cut down on the needless spam and pointless bug reports. Obviously taking down the sticky will help somewhat but in the long run it might be simpler to just put the lid back on. If you need testers you might consider asking a few people like proot and keep it out of the public discourse.

The engines still glow, it just takes longer now. It's all based on heat accumulation and dissipation, so you have to keep them running for a while before they begin to glow.

So has this been discussed at all, which files can be safely swapped over to dds? I know the cloud texture needs to readable, and so I would assume that the city lights texture is in the same boat. That leaves the detail textures as basically the only parts of EVE that are good for conversion? I did the memory math and this is pretty much my heaviest mod, a whopping 270mb of memory used, so I'm looking at ways to taper that a bit but the files are large and there's not much to be done for that except to shrink them and I think my clouds files are as low as I want them to go.

So I didn't notice if this had been posted yet, but the pages for the help guide are REALLY large. You can easily cut them down to the 574 size they display at in game and save yourself about 100mb of memory overhead. - - - Updated - - - Geezus.

This is an odd suggestion, but maybe by calculating the difference between the ocean height and the land height. Obviously 0 is where the two meet.

Yes. Hence the large, dedicated community of players who enjoy it daily.

Planes are complex objects, but it's not too bad once you understand a few simple ideas. The first of which is you never want your center of lift, the blue sphere, too far from your center of mass, the yellow sphere. You can think of the center of mass as a pivot point for the craft, and the center of lift is a upwards motion around that axis. If it is too far forwards, your plane with nose up and over, and if it's too far back, you'll never get off the runway. This is why most people place their center of lift just behind the center of mass. The center of thrust works in much the same way. If it is below the center of mass, you'll get a pitching up reaction, above it, you'll get a pitching down reaction. The last, and often overlooked, problem is the placement of your landing gear. You need, for simplicity's sake, to place your rear gear just behind the center of mass. As I said, that is a pivot point, and if your gear is too far backwards, when you try to pull up, your plane will have a lot of issue rotating. Give this a try and let us know how it works.

I know this was already said but the biggest problem is the tech tree. The game is heavily weighted towards space, despite the abundance of science experiments and biomes on Kerbin, and you basically have to supplement your science by doing missions outside the Kerbin SOI, which is problematic because you then need to spend science on rockets to perform more missions for more science. That's not to say it's impossible, I believe there is around 500 science on Kerbin itself, but it's a particularly strict path. However, like any challenge, in the case of a stock career you'll have to upgrade your SPH and runway to at least open up the freedom to pursue less orthodox methods.

Considering KAS doesn't function without KIS that's a dead end. What I'd recommend is you try to reproduce the issue without RealChutes installed, if possible. It may be that KIS doesn't provide information to the modules that they are expecting, or even corrupts it somehow, and hence when you pop the cord the game freaks out. While it's possible you've discovered a KIS-centric bug, the sheer number of mods on your install makes it difficult, even if you can prove KIS is the culprit, to show that KIS is totally at fault here. If you can narrow it down to an incompatibility between two mods, or show it happening on a stock install, that's more beneficial.

It's nowhere near as natural as flying with a joystick but it gives that extra control I want that flying with the trim doesn't provide and for the record, the trim setting is EXACTLY what I wanted, it's awesome you can simply tap ALT while holding the stick to set trim. Fantastic implementation. I also really like how the stick holds to the center lines just enough to keep you from wobbling. Not as good as an actual joystick but much more enjoyable than the keyboard! The only thing I saw that might use a bit of adjustment is I think the UI could use some transparency. I sort of want to place it on top of the nav ball or just below the craft, it has a more accurate feel that way, and it would be nice if it didn't fully obscure whatever is behind it.

Proot, you are walking proof KSP could use some visual love. I want everyone's KSP to look like that.

This has literally nothing to do with EVE.

DangIt just got featured in a PCGamer article, so apparently this idea is at least a mildly popular one, but I think there's a lot of us who would love to see one with integration for KIS. It has the capability to turn your 'rocket parts' into actual parts that we would then use to repair the craft during EVA. This could lead to all sorts of really cool launches and missions. After all, instead of just using some anamalous rocket part to repair the alternator, why not use an alternator? It would be an excellent way to differentiate your mod from DangIt since they are functionally similar, and add a layer of 'next level' functionality that represents pretty much what everyone probably hoped for when they thought 'wouldn't a repair mission be cool'? As an aside, it would also be nice if the problems were more visually represented. For example, let's say there is an issue with the gimbal. You might be able to use something like the sparks in Collision FX to show that the gimbal is moving but maybe with reduced range. If the player continues to use it without some sort of repair, it might get stuck in whatever position it was when it finally gave out. Without repair parts it might be possible to still adjust the gimbal to zero it out, or as you've already done, perform more proper repairs. In the case of something like a fuel tank, an effect that shows it's leaking, like a wisp of smoke out in space, just a visual indicator that you may or may not catch, would be cool. Perhaps something like a fuel line is leaking, rather than the tank. The issue I have with problems in KSP is they simply occur and a big contributor to any issue is the human factor. Whether it have been improper maintenance, improper installation or maybe just improper operation, we're pretty much responsible for all our problems. That said, in a game like KSP you have no control over that element and are pretty much relying on the factor of Kerbals being a bit absent-minded or parts being fished out of a river to be the culprit. As such, I think it's important there has to be a wide distinction between malfunctioning and broken so that the player can be somewhat in control of these problems. For example, what if your landing gear sticks? In an actual plane there are several options available, such as back-up hydraulics, manual extension, gravity extension, or the most dangerous option someone once suggested 'see if it could be knocked loose by a touch-and-go'. In KSP those options aren't really available, so I think if you want to take the malfunction route you should really consider ways in which the player is able to work around these emergencies, especially in situations where they are rapidly running out of options. Does the parachute that tears have a back-up chute? Perhaps there is a way to fire the engine but once started you'll have no throttle control and it's going to go until it burns itself out. Can you close up a leaking tank? The player can really only be required to plan for these contingencies so much, how many chutes do I have to put on my craft just in case? Having to manually deploy a reserve chute is plenty stressful without simply rolling the dice to tell the player they lose. The best example I can give is the 1.0 release trailer. That thing is dark. The rocket explodes, but Jebidiah and Valentina are like, whatever, pop the chute. Then the chute flies off. Everyone dies, the installing technician is like 'crap!'. Unless you get to perform some sort of total diagnostic to let you know your rocket isn't full of problems waiting to kill everyone on board, there should definitely be some built in safeties.

Snark, you realize that's sort of a weak argument, right? Everyone is going to have a different take on it isn't a reason for or against anything. So let's look at this a different way, if you want to build rockets, the game is tuned for you to do just that because all the science is beyond Kerbin's atmosphere. The issue with that is that if you happen to be someone who enjoys building and flying planes, you have to use a lot of science building rockets to go to other bodies in order to do science to unlock the parts to go to other bodies, so you can gather science to unlock parts for planes. The same can really be said for anything, if you want a retractable ladder, why are you forced to unlock solar panels first? If the emphasis is on player design, this is a part where it doesn't really work out that well. The parts ARE categorized into a loose idea of technical achievement, but at the same time the major gatekeeper of progress isn't science, it's exactly what you said, funds. After all, later parts do make certain voyages easier, but a 30 part limit is what keeps you from going to Duna with a starter kit. Even if you do have enough pieces, the launch pad might not support your rocket. So you are right, funds are more of a restriction on your progress than science, since most competent players can pretty much make it anywhere with unlimited resources even if they only have a handful of parts. That lends support directly to my point about the tech nodes, they hold back your technological progress for not particularly useful reason. Just as some players don't want to do any Kerbin science, some players like myself really enjoy doing science on Kerbin and visiting each of the biomes and locations to perform contracts and independent research. Hell, I love building craft to go and retrieve splashed down rockets! That being the case, the nodes arbitrarily limit your progress down a path, even though the building upgrades already perform a similar function. Science is more a measure of having gone and done things than a measure of the value of the things done, and that being said, as an unlock currency, it seems many destinations are over-valued when they simply represent progress in general for the sole purpose of conflating progress with higher numbers.

Figured that was the case, I'll just pop in periodically during the day.

Hah! I usually play WITH a joystick, but sometimes I travel and don't have it with me. I'll give it a try, I pretty much just fly with trim but this seems like a much better solution! Actually, scratch that, is there any way you might also consider a way to set trim more easily? Being able to quickly adjust it would be really helpful when I do have a joystick available.