LadyAthena

Sorry if there is a thread on this, which I'm sure there is. I'm heading to work and don't have time to do any searches, but I wanted to write this quick so apologies in advance. I haven't played KSP in over a year, however I played tons of it before it came to steam, and well before its 1.0 release. I played about half a year after its release on steam, but stopped after. Anyway, as of re installing, and playing the game I'm finding the wheels, and landing struts bounce me like they're on hydraulics. The fixed wheels especially bad, bouncing even while parked. Nothing I do seems to fix it. Landing on the Mun, or Minmus is a nightmare (especially minmus, landing even at 2-3m/s bounces me up no matter how light or heavy my lander is, I've tried many figurations). I can't fathom how people play the game like this, its practically unplayable (I know its an over used meme, but for me it quite literally is because of it). So I'm wondering if there is something I'm missing, or some new mechanic I'm unaware of to fix this. I also noticed that locking landing struts is no longer a thing, which was very helpful pre 1.0 when landing on uneven ground, and to stop bouncing (if you came in too hard on accident).

Problem is, I did read back, but how far back do you have to read before you figure you have checked enough? Apparently I didn't, and its easy to miss. How is that my fault that the files provided to me by the modder were out of date? I understand that, just saying. If you're telling people to download those dependencies anyway, no reason to have them combined with the mod itself. Just taking up space at that point, and becomes confusing when either the game is updated, and someone new downloads it, and or your directions to update, or that the files are out of date get buried in page x 9 pages back from the most recent. This isn't a bash on you. I'm just saying it would help you remove that confusion for others, in turn you and others dont have to worry about people getting confused, or coming to you for things you've already explained 9 times. ----------

Glad to see B9 is still being updated. Though I'd like to point out a few things. 1) I use Ckan almost exclusively now. (It's just easier, less hassle). The problem though is that B9 does not appear on Ckan. Only B9ANimationModules, B9PartSwitch, and B9ProceduralWings or some such appear. The base core of B9 and HX etc. does NOT appear on CKan because it thinks the mod is out of date, therefore you cannot even download it from CKAN. 2) After downloading B9, etc. I copy pasted over all the folders with the most updated Zip. Problem is, you have a mass load of out dated, null, or trash files in your zip. Namely, all the dependency folders in your B9Aerospace zip are out of date.. Why even have them? That is highly confusing for people, downloading the most recently updated zip folder from a modder you assume all the folders in that zip are relevant, that's why the modder put them in there. I'd suggest removing all the useless dependancy folders from the main zip, just have the B9 stuff. That's all you need, and is far less confusing. You already tell them both in the readme, and on the main page what other mods to download to make it work right.

^ This. Shame on the community.

Well, a tiny few punctuation's random here or there, or 1 letter missing is usually just a tiny little hiccup. If you're going to go apesh#$ over that and say the entire game sucks because of it, you have personal issues you need to work out. That was my point. Good grammar and spelling doesn't make you a good game developer, nor does it actually make you smart. I've seen plenty of people who had perfect typing skills and were some of the dumbest people I've ever met. If you're basing spelling/writing on how good a game is you need to seriously reevaluate your life. I'm with you if its like serious screw ups constantly, but nowhere ever have I seen anything worth getting a hissy fit over in anyway. Lets pretend for a moment their grammar and spelling was epic bad, and their game was suffering due to bad management, illiterate developers. Would you proof reading anything change anything? Not at all. Besides, is you doing grammar, spelling checks with a fine tooth comb going to magically make anything better? No. Seems more like an ego epeen jerking to me than anything else. My point was, their game is awesome. Squad is an awesome developer group making damn near every right call they should be, which is insanely hard in todays age with such opinionated A hole gamers running around, and their press releases, and content they release have well within the acceptable range of tiny little grammar, or punctuation typos. Again, if you're going to judge them and the game on that... You need to seriously get the stick out of your rear. I don't want to start an argument or cause drama, but a few people earlier in the posts were prodding Squad about this, and I wanted to comment.

If you're getting your panties up in a bunch over some spelling errors, you're missing the big picture, and you kinda deserve all the agitation you're giving yourself. The errors are within reasonable range, it's not like they have extreme grammar issues, and massive spelling mistakes.

[quote name='Van Disaster']Hm, well your version II parts *are* new parts, they have different stats - so what you want are lots of different parts that just look like versions of the same part in the editor - which I guess might trivially be done with filters, although that would be a whole lot of tabs... how moddable the editor views are I have no idea. You could have your V2 part just replace the V1 part completely, but that will upgrade all your existing spawned craft too.[/QUOTE] See, I know the logic behind programming and what you can and cannot do. I just don't know how to actually do it you know? I know that if I were to replace the part out right, it would essentially either break craft already in flight, or replace the engine itself. Which is a no go. The easiest thing I could do is instead just have every part hidden until you unlock it. On the left of the VAB screen, I'd have tabs for each tier. So you'd see a tab with I on it, and II on it, III, IV, etc. Clicking those tabs shows you parts you've unlocked at that tier, this would keep things seperate and not replace anything on crafts, or break the craft. My goal is to also allow for even more immersion. It's not just "oh cute a probe with a a LV 45 engine XD", but "Ok, here's my Unison 4 Mission to Eeloo with a Tier IV Nuclear engine, when I've just launched a new manned mission to Dres with a Tier VIII Nuclear engine". Going back to ships that are in flights for 8 years, and seeing your old engines that are the same but lower tier, is more like looking back in time, than just looking at an earlier tech tree node in a way, because you know all the time and experience and science spent in those last 8 years to get to where you are now, from where you were when the mission took off from 8 years ago. [quote name='Insanitic']I love the idea of tiered part upgrades, especially for engines! It parallels what really happens in real life engines. NASA really does upgrade existing engines and their stats because of the gaining of "practical knowledge" as you say it: better manufacturing techniques, improved engineering designs etc. gained through years of flight experience. Although I could imagine that the coding part of this proposal might be a pain in the butt.[/QUOTE] That's what I'm afraid of, the coding is going to be a royal pain if I want my first idea to go through 100%.

[quote name='Findthepin1']Great job. Can it orbit Jool and Eeloo at the same time? :D[/QUOTE] XD you know what I mean Edit: If you kraken enough you can....

[quote name='KasperVld']Rocket Builders is a place that actually breaks our community rules constantly, in particular the 'thou shallt not roleplay' rule. You're still welcome to offer the craft you make, or even take requests in the Spacecraft Exchange forum though, the only thing that will change is the 'company' part of it, with the employee/director/ceo roles and inter-company drama that comes with it.[/QUOTE] I've never understood the "Thou Shalt not roleplay" rule. In a game like KSP where roleplaying is nearly essential, and bringing that fun little tid bit to the forums for those who want it and having its own little corner doesn't hurt anyone, and makes the forums more friendly and open to everyone. Slapping peoples hands with it is like saying "shame on you for liking our game". Loved the idea of "companies" who will make a ship for you, and people who have a passion to do that, while role playing it. Drama aside doesn't matter where you are in life, or what you're doing, role playing or not, drama is gonna happen. If you don't like drama, go live in the woods in a box. Only way to stop it. [quote name='TheCanadianVendingMachine']User A starts roleplaying as a nice guy. User B starts roleplaying as a really rude person. User B Insults User A, claims it only Roleplay User A requests User B to be infracted. User B gets infracted. User B claims they were only roleplaying. Moderators ban roleplaying, because slippery slope[/QUOTE] There's a difference between role playing a rude person, and straight out insulting the role player. If a person doesn't like your role playesque rudeness, than you as a person should stop, or switch personalities for your character, or... just stop role playing with that person. If it does reach those heights, than the moderator has every right to ban the rude person, role playing or not, seeing as a its a very real lack of respect from the real person for continuing when the other person doesn't like it. Which is a real non role play rule infraction. It's not difficult, or a slippery slope in anyway.

Ok, so here's my thing. I wanted to mod KSP back in the day with an over top mod idea. Problem is, I didn't know how to program in Unity, or mod it in a way I needed. I know how to mod KSP in the most simplistic ways.. Tweaking engines, altering stats of things already there, but no real knowledge of adding things that don't exist, or tweaking elements already there and adding them to something they don't exist on yet, but before I get into that... Mod Idea: One problem with KSP, is the progression feels tacked on. By that, I mean, you do a few things, unlock a node, ton of new parts.. rinse and repeat. Many of those nodes you grab things you don't want, just because you need them. There are tech tree mods which break up the tech tree into much more intuitive ways allowing you to go down the path you want. I really like these. Want all un manned missions, and focusing on probes? You can do this. But there was always 1 thing inkling me that I couldn't put my finger on. Something was still missing in that progression. One day I was playing Hearts of Iron, and realized that fine point KSP was missing, that is both realistic, and allows for nice progression. "Practical Knowledge". Practical Knowledge is basically the experience your little kerbals have in using a piece of equipment. This is realistic as well. Only way to truly upgrade something, is learning how it acts in all situations, and when and where it breaks, where it's the strongest, and weakest, etc. and only then can you finally sit down and upgrade that part, or make a better one. I'm not sure the limitations of the coding in KSP, so I have 1 of two idea's. If the first one isn't possible. Idea 1) Nearly every single piece of equipment in KSP will have its own "Practical Knowledge" or PK gauge. As you use the piece of equipment in real time this PK gauge slowly fills. When it hits 100% you can spend science points to "upgrade" it. So as an example: LV-45 engine. You use science to unlock the node which has this, and spend a few missions using it. On its little card in both the tech tree and in the hangar/VAB you'll see a roman Numeral I in the top right corner of its card. This means the LV-45 engine is the stock Tier I version. However after using it several times the Practical Knowledge gauge is at 100% (which you can see by looking at the additional info on the part). By going into the Tech Tree at the research center (I'd like to make a whole new tab for this). You can click the parts you've unlocked, and click "upgrade". What this will do, is boost the parameters of the engine slightly in all categories. Making it slightly better fuel efficiency, and slightly better power. On the Card in the VAB, you'll now see a roman numeral II on the top right and its new stats. This can be done all the way to tier X. and the cost of the upgrade will double each time, as well as how long it takes before the Practical Knowledge bar fills each time its upgraded. This can result in parts usually deemed redundant or useless, to be practical depending on your play style as well. If you hate super big parts like myself, but want a powerful launch base, you can upgrade the parts you like. Normally the Tri coupler, which allows for 3 fuel tanks to be placed next to each other in a triangle configuration is more or less useless. As once you unlock that, you also get the mega big fuel tanks and engines, which are more efficient and powerful anyway. However, if you've already spent time upgrading your LV 45 engines to tier V, and single base fuel tanks to tier III, 3 of your tier V LV 45 engines may give you 4x the boost that 1 big engine at tier I will give you. Allowing you to skip the parts you don't like, or want, and not feeling like you're only limiting yourself by doing so. This upgrade system can be especially useful for new players, or players who have difficulty using specific parts. Such as Ion engines. After spending time learning and using Ion Engines, and getting it upgraded to tier V or VIII, may result in the engine having more than enough kick to boost that ship you were so wanting to put on it. This can be done with every part, and maybe even fuels. Antena's could get a slight boost to how much electricity it consumes per tick, and how much data it can transfer, (For mods like Remote Tech I could even add how far it can connect, etc.). For science modules, it simply boosts how much data is recoverable by sending the data through antenna's without bringing it back. Or maybe even adds boosts to the total amount of science you can get, as the part increases in complexity, allowing for better science tests. Fuel tanks allowing for slightly bit more fuel in the tanks each tier while keeping to its same size. Even tweaking the fuel specs themselves. Realistically our knowledge of fuels to power rockets is advancing as well, allowing for more volatile, yet efficient fuels to power our ships longer distances and faster. By having a gauge for each fuel type as well which you can spend science to upgrade decreases the fuels weight, and adds more "kick" the engines get from using it. However, even though I know only the most basics of modding KSP, I know this idea would result in many tweaks of the games initial mechanics, so I'm not even sure if its possible. So onto Idea 2) Idea 2 is a simplified version of Idea 1 which simply keeps it more "stock" like. Each Tech Tree node will have its own seperate "Practical Knowledge" gauge. As you use any part in that Tech Tree node, the Practical Knowledge for it goes up. When it reaches 100% only then can you spend science to unlock the next Node. Much more simplified, but more stock like.. ------------------------------------ My second request... Any good sites, or ways to really learn how to mod KSP for absolute noobs and beginners... I've looked at sites for Unity programming tutorials, but they are all written in C++ coding, which KSP does not seem to use, so I'm thinking is more or less useless to me, since I'd like, and I'm assuming need to stick to the same base type of programming Squad is using, which I can't seem to find..

[quote name='Captain Vlad']Congratulations! I bet that felt good: the first time I got one into orbit (and not just space) then took it back down and landed it on the runway after many failed attempts was...an awesome feeling. Serious gamer's rush, there. Edit: What mod is that cockpit from?[/QUOTE] Thanks, it was quite a rush when I re entered and realized all was well, and it glided smoothly down to the runway. The parts I used were all from this: [url]http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/97525-1-0-4-WIP-OPT-Space-Plane-v1-7-1-8Test_ver1-available-30-09-15[/url] OPT Space plane pack.

[quote name='DunaRocketeer']Good going! It's a great feeling to fly SSTO's, refueling them and sending them up again.[/QUOTE] It's certainly difficult to build one that works well in all conditions. You wouldn't think it would be one of the most difficult things to do.

Been playing this game for.. what? 1.5 to 2 years on and off. Been to every planet, seen all the sights, even made a station orbiting Jool and Eeloo for god knows why. I never bothered to make space planes though. This time I decided, dang it.. I'm gonna do it. It's something I've always failed to do and have enough fuel left over to come back down, and not have it expldoe, or be so imbalanced, or just plain not enough fuel. After much frustrating testing, and balancing and yada yada... I did it! I have to say, it looks pretty wicked too <3 Thinking about adding some big boosters and propping it vertical though to land as a plane on Eve, or Duna, with some small drop tanks under the wing etc for the jet fuel to get out of the atmosphere, dropping the tanks once the engines die from oxygen. [IMG]http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/397803147467521758/AE0E501B66EEA4243810ED0F8DA3CF8EFFCE27E6/[/IMG] [IMG]http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/397803147467600170/0BB3A69A3FFF156097A86518D3B270DB47A032AE/[/IMG] [IMG]http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/397803147467600398/C041675A2EE6C9F0AE9A262B208BAB6A6BEA9D0A/[/IMG]

Yea I learned the hard way how much of a trap it is.. Small body, low gravity, plenty of transfer windows, perfect I thought. Way better than Eeloo or Duna right? right?... Aha.. boy was I wrong..

This answered it. It's just the game being confused, I fixed it by adjusting where the wings are. It corrected itself. Thanks

Check your picture again very closely with mine.. Yours is correct, mine is wrong. My elevators are not bending the right way, they are facing downwards, which will push my nose down. (I'm not talking about the back ones) - - - Updated - - - This is wrong... The elevators on my wings should be directing the air flow up to cause nose to go up as it pushes down on the wing. How do I know this? besides flying planes myself, when I click on them and click "Deploy" they'll bend upwards instead, which quickly causes my nose to go up.

The Ailerons or flaps or whatever on the wing bend the wrong way. This is me pushing S to bring the nose up. Hence why the rear wings are pointing down. But no matter what I do, how I mess around with it in the hangar, the wing ones always go backwards fighting what I want to do. This happens even if I flip the Ailerons around in the hangar, they still bend down....

Soooo when is 1.0.5?

Soo... he attached an "escape pod" to a super small science station in orbit, and then decoupled it and launched its engines.. you guys must be really scraping the bottom of the barrel, at least call it what it is "An Amateurs science station" then I'd say cool, nothing impressive, but would bring me back to my early KSP days. But astonishing? really? I remember a video, idk who it was, but they launched a huge awesome looking ship to EVE, after orbiting, he had something that folded up sorta like a cargo bay, with multiple tiny little planes inside, and shot them all down towards the surface for science scans, etc. They even had enough juice to come back up into orbit and re dock. now THAT was astonishing.

UUUGGGHHHH I was afraid you'd say that lol Thanks for the info ^.^

Thanks for the response! I already removed crowd source, and Dmagic, it did fix my initial science problem, Xscience is nothing more than a pop up screen to show me science on my module so I don't forget, I don't think that's screwing with anything. RemoteTech, Scansat, were installed via Ckan automatically for Realistic planet mod, that makes all the planets like our own solar system with much larger planets, etc. Remote Tech makes it so there are plenty of ground installations all around earth for probes. Should I still un install it? - - - Updated - - - Oh, I was under the impression that suggested mods were mods that were okayed to being stable, and could enhance your game if you had space for it, but weren't necessary to run it.

Sure, here's my Ckan Installed mods list (It's all the mods I have installed). http://www.filedropper.com/installedmods Edit: I removed Crowd Sourced Science, and Dmagic Orbital Science, but if there's anything else on that list, please let me know. Or if those are ok, please let me know that too.

Thanks for the reply, so does that mean I can still launch it without? Secondly, why can't I toggle, or activate any science stuff on any of my probes, or ships?

Isn't the Sounding Rocket Avionics supposed to have.. you know.. Avionics?

^ says it all.