King Arthur

I am indeed using a TN panel monitor, but using text that is of the same fundamental color as its background is bad design for readability in any case. And no, "get IPS" and similar lines do not solve the problem and are none of anyone's business but mine anyway.

Aviation accident investigation delves into what caused the accident, why the accident occured, are there any underlying design or operational flaws, and how we can prevent further accidents. The ultimate goal is to save lives, but the number of people dead in any given accident does not by itself govern its severity. Investigations need to performed objectively and scientifically, otherwise there's no point. My condolences go out to the victims of this accident and their families and friends, Malaysia has had a particularly sad and terrible year in aviation. :\ As I understand it was an Indonesian branch of the Malaysian LCC AirAsia.

As a Japanese-American I find myself deeply interested in how this goes, I'm looking forward to it!

Personally, as far as STS-style shuttles and SSTOs in KSP, I've managed to pull off the best of both worlds: SSTO carrier shuttle made of B9 S3, S2, and S2W parts and powered by eight RX-25 SSMEs from the Klockheed Martian space shuttle engine pack. The Mk2 shuttle is piggybacked to orbit similarly to most space shuttle designs. Per-launch cost is approximately 16,000 funds at most assuming a safe landing back at KSC. The album is that of an inaugural test flight, so I carried the Mk2 shuttle back down still piggybacked to stress test the carrier shuttle; normally the Mk2 shuttle undocks and goes off on its own merry way. Sometimes, one can have their cake and eat it too.

I believe that, even with differences in opinions regarding the Space Shuttle's effectiveness, most of us can agree that the Space Shuttle remains a crowning achievement in space exploration and aeronautics that many of us consider to be simply badass even in spite of its various downfalls. The Space Shuttle is more often than not one of the first things that people want to try building and/or flying in KSP and other space sims, it's become iconic of manned space exploration second-only to the Saturn V and Apollo. We definitely should discuss about and learn from the Space Shuttle's problems, but credit should be given where credit is given due and the Space Shuttle has most definitely advanced science and technology and performed missions that simply no other spacecraft, neither before it nor after (for the foreseeable future), could have or will perform. As far as Space Shuttles in KSP, they certainly aren't the most economical nor effective way to complete missions. That said, they look awesome, are fun to design and fly, and give a very nice feeling of satisfaction when you wrap up the mission and return to KSC for a glamorous landing.

Github is also a common and reliable place to host mods (and source code) as well. That aside, shouting "this is broken, fix this" in a very gruff manner is not going to elicit the best responses.

I have indeed noticed that the nose gear on both the KSO and Super-25 are very flaky, under otherwise stable conditions in 0.25. In my case, they never stayed retracted through reloads in the VAB/SPH and in-flight, lemme tell you how annoying that was. I have also found out that removing the landing light on the nose gear in the CFG appears to make the nose gear work properly, though I'm not sure if this is a fix that will work for everyone or not.

http://kerbaledu.blogspot.fi/2014/11/featuring-features.html

TB has always had high praise for KSP in his videos. It probably helps that KSP is one of the few (only?) "early access" games around that is in fact very, very good.

So... what do you say about our KSP stories featuring any variety of mods? Or crafts featuring mods? Or stories/crafts featuring mods that have been modified? Or stories/crafts featuring mods and stock that have been modified? Or stories/crafts featuring mods and stock in any combination? Your argument is senseless and borderline Troll Logic. Yes we share our creations and experiences here on the forums, but nowhere is it explicitly stated that we must all follow the same game rules, nor are we obliged to follow any given set of game rules. And no, simply coming to share our experiences on a forum does not by itself make a game multiplayer. A multiplayer game is a game where two or more players can concurrently play the same game together live, KSP has no such features barring mods like DMP and is thus a single player game. KSP is a single player game, and thus each player is entitled to play the game the way they want to while at the same time having no say in what other players do with their game. If someone doesn't like how Stayputnik (or any given part) works, they can and should go and change it themselves to whatever they want or like since they have the ability to do so. Restating the soup analogy: Everyone's here to eat soup, but everyone has different opinions about soup and the chef also has his own opinion about soup. One person happens to want more salt in their soup, that person should simply take that bottle of salt on the table provided by the restaurant and season the soup to his liking himself instead of calling the chef out from the kitchen and making a big fuss about the amount of salt in the soup, calling for a change in the soup's recipe, and wasting everyone's time. In closing, I feel that this trail of discussion is beginning to derail this thread from its original subject matter. I would advise that perhaps further debate on this subject should be taken to PMs, unless we can somehow manage to drive this back to what this thread was originally discussing.

Because partaking in the forums and playing KSP are two entirely different concepts? I'm not sure where you're going here. I consider it hypocritical to be complaining one way or the other about Stayputnik's SAS and/or reaction wheels (or the lack thereof) when we players have the ability to easily address that and be on our way. In fact the suggestion of just editting the CFGs to your liking did come up back in page 2, but was refused as follows on page 3: When some people don't like how a part works and refuse to fix their personal problem themselves even though they have the ability to, that is pure hypocrisy. Whether Squad changes the CFGs or you change the CFGs, the end result is the same. A comparison would be finding that the soup you ordered doesn't have enough salt in it, and then arguing that the chef take it back to the kitchen and put more salt in when you could just take the bottle of salt on the table and do it yourself for the same effect. If the Staypunik was clearly flawed in a way that nobody could make any use of it, then we have something to be discussing here because that points to a fundamental design flaw. However, the question of whether or not the Staypunik is useless without SAS/reaction wheels is clearly one of personal feelings and agenda; trying to debate something that has no fundamental flaw and which is fueled on both sides by personal feelings on the matter is pointless.

OP is asking why you need to select two parts to change your root part. Contrast SelectRoot which only asked you to select once which part would be the new root. I'm actually curious about this myself, wondered how this worked when I tried out the VAB/SPH in 0.90 (I'm still on 0.25 ).

That translation is So Bad It's Horrible.

What you did there, I see it.

The problem is you keep wording your statements in such a way that for you it's apparently a foregone conclusion that AIs and robots will eventually turn against us or otherwise not be our friends and allies, up to and including more extensive unmanned space exploration as such a conclusion. On the other hand, it would seem that we both agree that humans and advanced AIs can act together as friends, so that only furthers my confusion as to why you seem to lean on the side of "evil robots". For the record, when people argue for more extensive unmanned space exploration programs it's not because we as humans have given up on space exploration. We're arguing for unmanned because it's far more practical to send unmanned crafts such as probes, rovers, and space telescopes on long-duration missions than it would be to send humans or other forms of life.

I would argue rightfully so, one can't even launch the stock Kerbal X properly without the decoupler fix.

No it is not. KSP is a single player game (barring things like DMP), the only rules you play by are the rules you lay down and follow. KSP is a single player game and thus "playing by the same rules" is completely and utterly irrelevant because you are only playing with and by yourself. The opinion of the OP was that the Stayputnik is useless without SAS, he is more than welcome to this opinion and I don't actually disagree with his evaluation. What is not worth anyone's time is flinging personal opinions about whether the Stayputnik is useless or not at each other for an inevitable zero-sum game that has so far resulted in 8 pages of chatter with nothing constructive coming out. If someone feels that a certain part (stock or mod, doesn't matter) is useless or otherwise somehow "wrong" they have the ability to completely fix or change that to make the part function in their image for their game. Personally, rather than complain about the lack of bigger landing gears in the 0.90 update I just took the stock landing gear we've always had and made a double-sized copy so I can start having fun with the Mk3 parts; rather than being annoyed at the placeholder IVA for the Mk3 cockpit I instead went and linked the B9 HL cockpit's IVA so I can have more fun. I thus restate: If you don't like how a part works you have the ability to change it yourself. Furthermore: You are under no obligation to play by anyone's rules but your own. And lastly: Nobody* has any right to push their playstyle over someone else's playstyle. *The only exception to here is Squad since KSP is their game, but at the same time we have no obligation to follow the gameplay mechanics they have set forth.

See, this is what I simply cannot understand: Why are AIs being independent bad? Why is making/having another "species" (good grief that wording...) seemingly superior to humans a bad thing? So far as I can tell, all this talk of "SUPER AIs BAD BAD EVIL DANGER TERROR" seems only to be based around an irrational superiority complex where some people simply can't stand the idea of not being on top of the food chain, not being "the chosen one". Huge ego much? I personally think we will find a new priceless friend and partner in super AIs that are intelligent and sentient.

MODULE { name = ModuleReactionWheel PitchTorque = 0.3 YawTorque = 0.3 RollTorque = 0.3 RESOURCE { name = ElectricCharge rate = 0.015 } } MODULE { name = ModuleSAS } That is all you need to place into your Stayputnik CFG to have SAS and reaction wheels, one would think that simply adding that in and getting back to playing the game would be preferable to 7 8+ pages of opinion flinging. Also, you completely misunderstood what I meant when I said that stock parts are no different from mod parts. Stock parts are no different from mod parts in that they both are stored inside part CFG files and model/texture files. Anyone can modify any stock part to their liking at any time, which renders a large part of this thread pointless; if you don't like how a part works you have the ability change it yourself.

Replace "AIs" with "living beings" (or "humans", if you prefer) and suddenly all is usual and standard fare. The argument is invalid. I don't see where the problem lies there. --- I apologize if I sound like I'm trolling with my replies, but I am simply and utterly failing to grasp what is behind the idea that advanced robots/AIs are bad.

Something I've never personally understood is this irrational fear of robots and AIs that some people seem to have, why do you guys think like that? Why are advanced robots and AIs immediately "EVIL BAD TERROR NO NO NO"? I'm not even sure where to start asking or talking regarding that opinion, because it's not built on anything logical or scientific so far as I can tell.

Given that stock parts are no different from mod parts, anyone can modify stock parts to their liking easily if they're unsatisfied. One would think that simply going in and adding the appropriate code for SAS and/or reaction wheels to the part CFGs would be far preferable to endless opinion-flinging over the course of 7 pages and counting.

Quoting this because it hasn't been fixed yet.

Be sure you are abiding by forum rules and license terms.

I share this sentiment. With all due respect to newbies and the ignorant out there, it pains me everytime I see "planes" spammed with control surfaces everywhere as it signifies the person who made the thing doesn't understand the fundamentals of aerodynamics at all. I think this is better with rockets though, most newbies still have the sensibility to at least point rocket engine nozzles down and aim up for the sky. Planes though...