problemecium

Today I hit Escape at the absolute last possible instant:

If I might use this thread as a place for subjective opinions and requests regarding the ongoing parts overhaul: Please don't make the Poodle into a double-nozzle engine! I admit I'm being a bit selfish, but I have many times taken advantage of the empty space around the base of the engine bell to stuff a few extra fuel tanks. This trick wouldn't work with a double-nozzle design and consequently would ruin my existing designs for things like my single-stage Tylo lander: (Yes this one is a bit clippy, but it'd be a lot worse with two nozzles sticking out.) If you feel you must make the Poodle as shown in the concept art, I'm in no place to demand otherwise, but I'd really like if it could remain a single-nozzle engine.

lol. I suppose I should have made the focus of the image more obvious. Look at the number of visits to the Bug Tracker, which happens to be highlighted in red thanks to my cursor being over it.

Behold my accomplishment!

YES Definitely Space Shuttle or Buran. Much better than neither. So you should definitely build a space shuttle with boosters or a Buran without boosters.

Since nobody's actually said the answer I'm forced to assume that we're all intentionally hiding it, in which case HAHA JOKE'S ON YOU BECAUSE HERE IT IS! When there are too many Kerbals to list in the little info blurb window for a ship, it lists the first few and then a caption saying how many more there are unlisted. The way this works is that KSP, while being developed in Unity, is built on a number of "scene" files, each of which contains a number of entities dubbed "GameObjects," each of which in turn contains one or more "Components." Examples of components include the "GUIText" and the "Text" component. They are functionally very similar, the Text component simply being a replacement for the GUIText component since Unity 4.6. In both cases, when the user interface is being prototyped as a scene file in the Unity editor, in order for the developers to be able to tell what's what, the component is given some placeholder text, which can later be changed while the game is running. In the case of the ship info blurb windows, the text is intended to have a number followed by the string " more" in parentheses, e.g. "(2 more)." However, the actual number is unknown until the game actually runs, so SQUAD had to fill in a placeholder, which apparently takes the form of the letter "N" to produce "(N more)" and due to kerning issues (the spacing between letters) it ended up looking like "(Nmore)" in practice. When the game actually runs and a particular something goes wrong, the game attempts to state how many more Kerbals are present but fails. Normally this would cause a program to crash, but due to smart design by the Unity staff, it instead simply defaults to whatever the placeholder text was and produces an error message or "exception." Since the placeholder text reads "(N more)," the game accordingly ends up displaying "(N more)." N more is not an evil Kerbal, a ghost, etc. but rather a dodgy way the game confesses that it doesn't know how many more Kerbals there are. Of course that didn't stop people from making jokes about a Kerbal named Nmore and this CONFUSING thread from springing up. But rejoice, for your savior parameciumkid has seen fit to bestow upon you all the light of knowledge!

I didn't miss that, hence my request to change the thread title.

Can we either get some people to verify that this applies to the stock game or change the thread title to indicate that it's about RSS?

^ I have no idea how you manage to synchronize within a millisecond, but mad props for that. Regarding bunching, I agree that concerns about bunching over short timescales, i.e. less than 20 years, are no big deal. Even then it can be solved with just a minimal bit of stationkeeping, but I've never even found it necessary due to my saves rarely lasting more than two years (if that) before my having to restart them due to a major game version change.

Welp, I don't see anything about it on the GitHub page or in this thread, sooo... Has anyone been trying their luck running KAC in the KSP 1.2 prerelease? And is TriggerAu working on a 1.2 version? Also, am I an idiot who didn't notice KAC being integrated into the stock game (I checked, but there's all these new buttons and stuff so I might have missed it)?

It didn't work for me either. I just downloaded the full game again. I recommend you keep your existing copies of older builds at least until you know you won't need them again. For 1486, for example, I downgraded back to 1479 (or some number... ugh) to get CommNet working again.

Might as well throw mine into the pot: Dated 21 January 2012; KSP version 0.13.3 (a.k.a. the old old demo). Those were the days! There was basically nothing to do except try to land on the Mun, and once I did I quickly got bored and uninstalled it, not to come back until about two years later xD I guess I can take a bit of pride in the fact that I made an SSTO rocket. Yes, I'm an SSTO hipster who made SSTOs before SSTOs were supposed to be a thing ;P

Troll thread? I think this is a troll thread.

Yay, a new patch! 1486 was hella bugged out for me, so here's hoping SQUAD noticed all those exceptions and fixed them up ^^ Can I just mention here that my favorite feature in 1.2 might well be that error messages pop up on screen in big, obnoxious red text? No, I'm not being sarcastic! A: It lets me know when something has gone wrong and started causing log spam (which can ruin performance, destroy ships, and even break saves), and B: Me seeing it means that SQUAD is seeing it too, which means when exceptions arise (as they always seem to do in multitudes for every KSP version ever) while playtesting, they quickly get informed so they can catch and fix the underlying problems. It gives me hope that 1.2, or at least a later version soon to come, will be much more stable and free of dumb null reference exceptions than the previous editions.

Try typing something like "KSC" or "SRB" in one of your posts and it appears to be the case that the forum now detects the abbreviations and automatically adds in explanations that appear when you hover over them.

Aha. Makes sense. I was noticing a weird phenomenon wherein it took about the same dV to get to orbit, but for some reason my ships would hit the ground at over 1km/s on the way back down (the poor parachutes never got a chance to open). I knew the original souposphere was "gone" as of 1.0, but it had partially returned in 1.1. And no worries - I did solve the problem. It was indeed that the rocket in question had a pointy front, which was not helped by the near-weightless empty SRB behind it. Changing the design to include a liquid fuel engine eliminated the issue, which was no big loss since I'm one of those blasphemers who never much cared for SRBs to begin with. SPEAKING OF WHICH, if Porkjet happens to see this, might you consider as part of your ongoing part overhaul making the Flea a Size 0 SRB rather than that fat trash can looking thing it is now? P.S. WHOA THE HOVER TOOLTIP THINGY IS AUTOMATIC OMG BBQ I JUST DISCOVERED THIS AAAAAAAAAAA

The store worked fine for me. Make sure you look below those buttons at the little links to the Windows x86 and x64 builds. And speaking of aerodynamics, are other people noticing that the souposphere is far less present in 1.2? Is there a discussion about this going on somewhere, or is it in the patch notes?

I like the engines overhaul in concept as much as anyone, but I hope that Reddit picture doesn't represent the final rulings on selection and appearance. For one, I think a few of those (just a few) are redundant, and I really hope the Poodle doesn't morph into a 2-nozzle engine or it'll outmode my current Tylo lander designs :\

*comes back to life just to rejoice*

Both of them are outmoded. While I think the Shader Loader plugin will still work, it was based on a feature of the Unity 4 engine that was deprecated and likely to be unavailable in upcoming KSP versions. And my black hole shader has been completely rewritten, so while it can probably still be made to work, I had plans to make my own mod with it before releasing it to everyone else. Sorry!

"Black hole" you say? Perhaps we could help one another out. I made this a while back and have been waiting for some time to stick it in a KSP mod. But perhaps you would have a use for it as well:

Sure I do! - For any journey longer than a few hours, send more than one Kerbal. My Mun and Minmus missions usually have three or four, and while the lander only seats one, I make sure to keep at least two in the mothership at all times and not leave the lander on the surface or orbiting alone for longer than necessary. - For long trips, even to the Mun or Minmus, never confine the poor crew to a single pod or lander can. I make liberal use of the Hitchhiker module and leave more than the minimum seating space; for interplanetary voyages I tend to have at least three seats per Kerbal. - When launching a crewed vessel, don't let the G-force get above 3. I used to confine it to 2, but that cut into my fuel efficiency too much. 3.1 is acceptable for a second or two, but I imagine even if they survive, Kerbals can't be enjoying being squished into green pancakes against the backs of their seats. Maybe Jeb... - The obvious rules: Kerbals are not expendable and neither are the buildings. Building and hiring costs aside, death is bad, m'kay? - I used to accept all rescue contracts under the assumption that if I didn't do something, the poor victims would starve in space, but... with the change since 1.1 such that accepting them makes the game flood your Mission Control with more, and my suspicions regarding how Rockomax manages to strand a Kerbal in retrograde Munar orbit within minutes of my first uncrewed fly-by, I've decided to just make it my headcanon that someone else will go get them.

Why not both? Sometimes I use the clamshell option and sometimes I use the potato chip option. It depends on what I feel like doing and the shape of the fairing in question.

I like it the way it is. Much better to needlessly have an option to turn something off than to turn something on and have half of us want to turn it off and not be able. Surely everyone in here has been to a popular website or used a popular app or OS and raged when the devs took away the option to turn something off...

That hardest thing to do in KSP is stop playing ;P Someone already said this somewhere, I KNOW it... I just managed not to see the post xP