Tau137

My day job is, in part, IT infrastructure support, thus the classification; essentially, "severe" (priority) translates to "game-breaking". I understand your comments regarding auto-throttling, although I disagree about complexity of the problem (it is not complex at all when only a single reactor/engine is concerned; it only gets uncertain when/if you consider multi-reactor and multi-engine NFE+P setup, but I was referring to KA engines only (independent entities, except perhaps for potentially shared radiators))... yet, since I am not going to "go and code my own mod" (thank you for doing that for all of us, btw), I will refrain from further comments on the subject. Yes, I will try to reproduce the GUI right-click issue and supply logs when I have time.

Suggestions: 1. Would you consider implementing automatic reactor throttling (throttle-up is already there, but what about throttle-down?) to keep reactor at optimal temperature while avoiding (if possible) overheats? This will make life easier for players, eliminating an unnecessary "busy work" of balancing reactor. 2. Same as above for all reactors? Although this part is not nearly as critical... Ok, may it is part of the fun to fiddle with reactors for the purposes of balancing consumption, overheating and EC production, and extra/unnecessary work for you... It is different for engines though, as outlined above. Bug reports (KA+NFE+LFO patch, no CryoTanks): Everything listed below is easy to reproduce on the launchpad. 1. [SEVERE] Reactor fuel consumption is constant, no matter the reactor power setting (except if reactor is OFF); If it is not a bug but "a feature" to cut down on "1% power" cheat, it would be a lot more rational to enforce minimal reactor throttle (e.g., 25-35%); Also please see above. IMPORTANT: This does not apply to normal (non-engine) reactors - those consume proportionally to power level set. 2. [SEVERE] If reactor is out of fuel, it is still listed as active, and, more importantly, will start producing power again if throttle is applied 3. [MEDIUM/LOW] No reactor info shown in right-click menu unless engine is activated 4. [May be unrelated to Near-Future SEVERE] Loosing right-click info and functionality after non-physics timewarp (menu is there, but there is no control over tweak scales and options, and no reactor/engine options or info at all); somewhat random, but vey quick to replicate; may or may not be related to trying to start the reactor while engine is still in shutdown state); reactor still works and control panel (if opened prior) still works. IMPORTANT: This has never (in my testing) happened to a regular (non-engine) reactor. Conclusion: you might want to take a closer look at FissionFlowRadiator and/or FissionEngine code. P.S. Eagerly looking forward to further updates, as so far your mods provide the best (in my view) combination of accessibility, realism and refinement (Karbonite is a fantasy-land, Interstellar is a big tweak-scale-dependent mess that still employs "waste heat"). P.P.S. Still cannot include the picture without uploading to a third-party resource, sorry.

My apologies, I should have explained that in the KA thread instead of saying that, but at that time I kinda "lost all hope" and did not want to bother/bug you, and instead started looking for alternatives (none found)... I had a bunch of issues, such as: 1. BUG. Reactor in a nuclear engine stops functioning after some time warp. Just stops, all control options (right-click) are gone. Could not find the exact point when/why this was happening, but it was pretty reliable in failing (each individual engine independently and seemingly at random, so it was not a plugin crash). Save/load would not fix it. Weird, but I did not see similar behavior with normal (non-engine) reactors. 2. BUG/under-thought? Reactor fuel consumption is constant no matter the power setting (i.e., if I start reactor, waiting until it heats up to optimal temperature, then drop it to 5% just to keep it hot - it will at the same rate as if it was running at 100%) Not sure if any of the above was fixed in latest version, may test today. 3. Wrong math or bug? Cooling by exhaust is ridiculously low. Being able to run LNV for an hour after reactor was shut down with decent ISP is... well, ridiculous. It should be adjusted so that both ramp-up and cool-down were relatively quick and resulted in corresponding temperature changes. I may play with this a bit more today, and may report back top KA thread. Effectively, I think applying the same mechanics to nuclear engine as those for reactor/generator simulation is a wrong approach, there should (imho) be more direct integration with throttle control, or, at the very least, automatic power control (i.e., power on demand) as well as (3) above. Just my opinion. I understand why you took this route (using existing solution), but it just does not work for me. I was looking for a reasonable, low-medium maintenance enhancement for stock/AE/KA nuclear engine that would give them fuel and need for reload (and only because I really want to use NFE+P, but having reactors that use fuel, and engines that do not does not compute; using hack Propellant=EnoichedUranium also fails due to mass and a few other factors) Again, sorry for the words you quoted, I meant no disrespect, just was frustrated due to yet another broken career. EDIT: Tested a bit more, posting results in KA thread.

Nice, thank you! I will test how this works (w/ Kerbal Atomics/NFE custom patch)... EDIT: Everything seems to work fine in stock (thank you again!).... NFE/KerbalAtomics, although extremely cool and somewhat realistic, is still bugged beyond belief and not usable in career.. Damn, do I really have no other option but to move to the fantasy land of Karbonite+? P.S. Anyone capable of working on 3d model, please fix the NuclearTurboJet throttle animation.

THANK YOU, installing now! P.S. What about ScanSat pack?

Contract configurator has been ready for awhile, so, can the Anomaly contract pack be used now with updated CC? Please note that I am not asking "when it will be ready", just saying that there is still interest in this (LOVE hunting anomalies for a purpose other than simple curiosity).

I am experiencing extreme forceful disassembly (we are talking about debris flying off at lightspeed) of my vessels in orbit on load, sometimes on vessel switch (from within and from outside of physics range). Only other physics-related mod is KJR. Removal or PR mod resolved the problem. P.S. I see that it has already need reported... PR in Dynamic mode for me. P.P.S. MJ... 1.1* version had a feature to stop PR when SAS was on during timewarp - it does not work in this version Just adding this comment to confirm the info from the post below.

Common actions and keyboard shortcuts are fully re-bindable in the settings. EVA report/surface sample are not though (they do not have a shortcut at all), but it is (IMHO) is not a big deal... would be nice, but not critical, IMHO.

Funny... But I disagree, as it is still a "game", so there is a set of conditions and rules that can and do affect the game in terms of being both engaging and educational (latter is optional), as well as enabling higher player retention and global interest. Sandbox provides "a quick fix" for some people, but also quickly kills engagement and desire to continue playing, so the progression balance is essential (and there is none, currently... not even close). Agree on the second point though - making everything optional and adjustable would be the way to go. Yet, there still should be a few presents balanced for those unfamiliar with the game - experts will tweak the game as they want it. The problem is, there are not enough options - for example, I do want science progressions, but the current options include only no science (not interested), full science (too easy and dumb, easy missions are more efficient that hard ones), and scaling down science gains (does not help, just forces more grind). I wish devs would consider making science progressions SMARTER (non-linear), but that is another topic.

Why oh why can I not play KSP? Because it is an endless cycle - new release, wait for mods, then there is patch (or two, or three) to fix known bugs, wait for mods again, realize that the main release is still screwed up too much to be playable despite all updates and advances, wait for next release, repeat... Damn! Ferram4, this criticism it is in not in any way directed to you, I greatly appreciate that you still keep working on your mods (which I consider essential) after all this time. Looking forward to the new KJR release, whenever it comes!

I rely on KAC and KIS/KAS and MJ and IR and DR and SS to be updated reasonably fast (great thanks to the people working on these mods and the developers to making the game open to mods)... I still want stock clouds though

Of course. I love the game, and I am sure that developers have plenty of opportunities to pick the people they want to work on translations. Just saying that I am here and available if needed/selected. If that is considered a breach of forum, rules - I am sorry, feel free to delete my posts in this topic.

We do need different game modes. "To each his own": some prefer Sandbox for free-form exploration and tomfoolery, some hate managing budget but like the idea of progression (science mode), some prefer "the full monty" challenge (career). Same with antennae. Choice is good. The balance in science and career modes should certainly be tweaked, yes, but the modes must remain. Mainly because most players cannot or are not willing to police themselves in how they play, and need external restrictions (a "GM" to control how the game is played), yet they should be free to chooser these restrictions in advance. If you want to remove the choice of "sandbox/science/career" and replace it with a set of options - that is fine with me (but I am an experience player; I would argue that such change may make it more confusing for newbies, that's all). Your choice, your game.

Get the main game fixed first, PLEASE, then we can talk about DLC.

Set the number of debris to infinite in game settings and face the consequences yourself. What other penalty do you need? P.S. And never use the "terminate" button.

Volunteering my services to translate to Russian, feel free to contact me as/if needed.

There are mods for that. Unfortunately, it takes about two years for developers to implement most reasonable and popular (and not in any way controversial) ideas/feature in stock game. So, see you in two years!

Yes, Sir, I am perfectly aware of all the arguments on all sides, and all new and past developments in the stock game, as well as most popular mod developments. Just could not hold the emotions, sorry. Generally, stock implementations are lagging at least two years (and that is A LONG time) behind the mods, and the release versions usually show no more that seriously trimmed (read - castrated; and more often than not seriously bugged as well) versions of the original ideas (Deadly Re-entry, FAR, RemoteTech, ISRU... ScanSat is not even fully there yet). Surely there are "gameplay reasons" (i.e., "aim for the dumbest client"), and there are also those "pesky issues" such as permissions etc. (hm... I wonder how many modders would refuse that, but it is just my curiosity, nothing to do with "reality" and copyrights). Anyway, the point is - I think KSP dev team is not paying enough attention to the the community, and in this particular case - community mod usage and how those mods could further improve the success of the game (including financial aspect). It is quite clearly not mine but their business, but I thought that I might be allowed to voice this concern here on the forum.

If anyone on the DEV team cared even a single bit, this topic would not have even been created... So suck it up, kerbonauts, and thank the developers for at least making the game open for modding! And give praise and support to the creators/keepres of your favorite mods!

it's been so many years, any yet most popular mods are still mods? Why, for the love of ***, are the most popular mods are not in the base game yet? Where is KAC? Ok, may be not MJ, but at least KE? Why E.V.E. (and/or scatterer) is not in the game yet (imagine how many more new recruits that would bring, just for the sake of visuals)? Why not KAS/KIS? Or Infernal Robotics? Life Support is a different story though, but the list can go on and on. I understand that producing a game like this is not a trivial task, but... SERIOUSLY? What the <Jool> is going on in your heads, dear developers?

1. Perhaps, but that is not the point. BTW, I was with KSP since release, too, and went through no science to science but no biomes (loved it, btw, as it gave just about the right balance for science progression), to current iterations (cool but utterly useless and game-breaking). 2. It is not a waste of effort - all the mechanics are there already and are working, it is just the balance that is screwed. Tweaking that will be a minimal effort with major results. 3. You are still not getting the math. My idea is that you can get full science from the first experiment, but any subsequent biomes will give you only 1/2 or 3/4 of the first result in terms of science gain (e.g.: first surface sample - 100; second surface sample on the same planet but from a different biome - 50, from a third biome - 25, etc) That means that you will not be able to get more than x2 (with 1/2 multiplier) or x4 (with 3/4) no matter how much you grind a particular planet, and results are diminishing with every mission (as opposed to current constant and reliable totals of x9 for Minmus and x15 for Mun). Grind will become inefficient very quickly, and the player will be forced to try extraplanetray expeditions instead of being assured that the next technology level lies just behind yet another Mun landing (boooooring... first time is exciting, second time is ok, third time is a routine, forth time... "no, thanks", unless it is an anomaly or a surface base mission). People who want to use science multiplier can always do so... or just play sandbox. This change would not affect this category of players. 4 ("Why do we need game modes"): Absolutely irrelevant to the subject being discussed here. 5. We already have a system (however broken) in place. What are the chances that it will suddenly be scrapped and replaced with a totally new, "better" one? I'd say just about ZERO, especially considering that it is obviously not a priority for developers at the moment. On the other hand, tweaking the existing system (minimal effort, see above) to satisfy a certain (non-negligible) subset of players while not affecting the others, and yet potentially driving up the interest and retention of players (including new/casual, KSP fans/oldfags liker myself, and those coming from the EDU branch) is a totally different story, IMHO, with significantly higher chance of ever seeing the light of day.

Yep, I had the exact same suggestion, thread ongoing (moderators - merge the threads, perhaps?). Using 1/2 or 3/4 multiplier for subsequent biome experiments (on the same body) will: 1. Make sense (rock from Polar Crater might be different than a rock from Midlands, but is it is not likely to bring a revolution in Munar geology); 2. Make grind inefficient and thus undesirable (for those playing Career/science; others can play Sandbox all day long if they wish without being affected by this change); 3. Gently guide players, old an new, towards exploration of new planetary bodies instead of making it easier to grind the same old Kerbin SOI, and yet will allow some grind if absolutely necessary or desired. Thumbs up! P.S. Considering that this thread is more than 7 months old, it does not look like developers care much about this particular aspect of their game, ether though it does not take much effort to implement (as opposed, to, for example, implementing castrated remote tech equivalent, or fixing landing gear, or implementing planet cloud cover, or implementing planet axial tilt, or {list your idea here}). Really sad. I really want to finally PLAY the game, but with every update I see the same story: either the game is majorly broken (<1.1 with limited RAM, or 1.1 with screed surface physics), or the mods that I consider "must have" are not updated yet... then another update comes is and the cycle continues (C) ME

Cannot agree more. And this saddens me greatly. (1). Most certainly, it appears that the developers are too busy thinking of other things. (2). No and no - it will not not make things worse (as those not wanting to play proper science/career will crank things up or switch to sandbox anyway), and developers' time just might be spend on engaging more people into playing the game for longer without being encouraged to do repetitive tasks, while instead being guided to do something new every time. (3). It seems like you are missing the whole point of regressive science gains. It is not scalar, it is geometric (or logarithmic, depending on how you look at it). Do the math. (4). Thank you, I will check it out (have not yet) (5). I am not trying to take anyone's freedoms away, I am trying to encourage developers to implement a meaningful, grind-free (unless you REALLY want or have to grind) career-game progression.

First experiment - full data; subsequent experiments (same body but different biome) - diminished gains. And quite quickly the next Mun landing will bring too few science points for the price (and play time) of sending it there, and mounting a Duna expedition instead will become a more cost-efficient proposition. So, NO "scalar reduction is science gains" - either limit subsequent science gains (more fun, some grind still possible is needed), or make a hard cap on total science from a body (less preferable - less flexibility, less fun). Science labs present another exploit, but that is a subject for a different topic. All opinions are welcome. The original proposal was, it short, to limit science gain from grind (repeating the same mission in different locations), while NOT limiting science gain from exploration (full data from new worlds, limited data from new biomes from worlds already explored). If someone wants to send first Mun lander with NERVA engines, there could be several options still: 1. Play Sandbox (no limits, do whatever you want); 2. Tweak settings, enable/disable limited science gains as an option (what would be the point though, compared to #1 above?) 3. Grind... perhaps not enough to get Warp Drive, but, if thorough enough, enough to get NERVA. And the whole point is to make this latter option possible yet totally unattractive from cost (if playing career) and time (if playing science or career) perspectives. My proposal does not totally eliminate grind, it just makes it INEFFICIENT, and as it stands now the grind is extremely efficient - you can get full science from just Mun and Minmus, even without abusing Science Labs... it is efficient even with CTT. Am not the one to push for obligatory "hardcore gameplay", but effectively funneling players towards grind is NOT COOL, and is not fun - no matter if it is for an experienced player or a new recruit (there is just no incentive to explore, it is easier to grind and then... switch to the f-ing sandbox! And then realize (surprise!) that there is nothing really new to discover, just different flavors of the same cake. Or, one can just watch Scott's or another Youtube channel instead of playing the game... Developers, please consider this!)

Sorry, but I disagree. What you described are easier ways, not better ones. We do not need dumb nerf (I can do that in the options menu already, and it only makes the game more tedious), we need incentives for exploration vs. grind. Please see below. I think you are missing the point. 1. Science cannot be "worth X amount, full stop" - it is a process of discovery, it is dynamic, and you cannot expect to gain knowledge sufficient to construct a fusion reactor by visually examining your **** ten thousand times (even if, similarity to performing the same science experiment in different biomes, you visually examine ****s of ten thousand other people, that will still not be sufficient). 2. The idea is to subtly force discovery and exploration by limiting the maximum amount of "science" (aka XP) available on each body, otherwise most sane players will opt for the easier route (which is to grind Mun and Minmus for 100% tech tree)... I felt into this trap myself quite a few times - why should I launch this crappy and heavy probe to Dune when I can run a couple more missions to the Mun, and get enough science to construct something with an LVN engine... The actual limits are up to a debate or can be made an option (1/2 will give the maximum x2 initial science (seems reasonable), 3/4 will limit grind to x4 (for players affected by low math and physics scores, as well as other space-faring disabilities), etc.) but there must be a limit, otherwise grind wins (it is easier and more efficient). And afterwards, will the player really want to utilize all this advanced technology to go to (and may be even return from) Dres, after doing exact same thing about 20 times already on the Mun? P.S. Just in case you don't remember: KSP got Science way before biomes were introduced, and even back then the career mode was DOABLE and FUN.