problemecium

OMG! I've seen this bug loads of times before, and even experienced it myself (nota bene: do not attempt to use a Klaw as a landing pad), but only now did I just realize this explains EVERYTHING! The seemingly impossible masses of Kerbol and its satellites that is - they're actually all hollow spheres with substellar black holes inside! Sure, these wouldn't be as long-lived as larger black holes, but a few thousand years shouldn't be difficult. Perhaps long ago in Kerbal prehistory, an advanced (Kardashev 2+) civilization built a system of miniature black holes with Dyson spheres around them to uh, collect energy or whatever. Obviously they're made of unobtanium, but aside from that everything seems to hold water... xD

The Unity engine. Specifically Unity 5. Without it KSP would be literally unplayable ;P

Val's pronunciation reminds me of this: WHY IS THE EMBEDDED VIDEO SO BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIG ahem.

Yep. More times than I'd like to admit xP I pride myself on not killing Kerbals, but that's saying nothing of the desperate measures they had to take to survive.

I built it there. Not to derail the thread, but check my signature for something similar.

Oh okay. Sorry. I try to not be one of those idiots that comments without reading the thread, but not reading the thread is so much easier than actually reading it xP MLIA

This poll consists entirely of leading questions. Kod forbid one person on this forum actually considers 1.1+ a solid upgrade.

I choose option 3: No, because I'm fine with wheels the way they are already. No offense meant to anyone, but it is missing from the poll ;P

If the fourth wall breaks, does that mean we humans can march in and toss the Kerbulans about like nine-pins? Or would that be a bad idea?

0 I admit I have, on occasion, reloaded a quicksave after an accidental death. But because of said quicksave those deaths are not "canon" and therefore don't count ;P

Kerbal Alarm Clock, definitely. I also get decent use out of HyperEdit when I need to run a quick test or the Kraken starts playing dirty, but having or not having it doesn't have a major impact on my "normal" gameplay the way KAC does.

I have been unhappy with this change as well, but alas, I find it unlikely SQUAD didn't think about it when they changed the GUI, so I can only assume they wanted it that way and that we'd need a mod to change it.

Yeeeahhh, um, it's gotten hard with the changes to KSP's underlying mechanics. I may well have to rebuild most of this thing from scratch, and that might take some time. Sorry!

You can also save up to a few hundred m/s of delta-V by setting your desired periapsis during the transfer maneuver. By using the Oberth effect from the origin body, and sensitive dependence on initial conditions, you can easily adjust the eventual periapsis and inclination and then only have to make a single insertion burn during the flyby.

I've gone into depth about the theories and hypotheses involved before and I'm not in the mood to do so now, but as a matter of opinion, I doubt it. I doubt first that warping through space is going to actually result in anyone traveling backwards in time relative to anything meaningful. Perhaps a reference frame could be constructed in which someone's ship goes back in time, but I don't foresee much likelihood that such a reference frame will actually apply to any of the stars or planets anyone's visiting. I also doubt that if it does result in massive time discrepancies, that it will be an unsurmountable problem for communications or result in egregious causality violations. One thing I've learned about the universe is that it's a lot less fragile than Hollywood science or people in general make it out to be. Just like you can't destroy the universe by looking up "dictionary" in a dictionary or dividing by zero, I don't see much real probability that trying to warp places is going to spawn dramatic time loops and universe-breaking paradoxes. And on the topic of communication in particular, people have already demonstrated that they can handle information being sent and received out of order. Quite often people send chat messages that end up being listed before the messages to which they were responding, and thus they have to decipher the "real" order of communications. Before we had that, similar events frequently occurred in the mail system - letters would be out of date by the time they arrived, or people would arrive at destinations before their letters arrived to announce them. While I understand that differences exist between these examples and real relativistic problems, I have a good feeling that people will figure out a way to get past it all. P.S.: The Grandfather Paradox isn't real, by the way. It results from an easy and all-too-common misunderstanding of the basic concept of time. Always remember: the past happened first, the present happens next, and the future will happen afterward. Period. So: - Some important guy exists. - MYSTERIOUS THING - Some important guy dies. - With the important guy dead, a time machine is made to save him, but since the important guy is dead, we can surmise that he did not survive (since, uh, he didn't). There is no sequence of events following a loop of "he un-dies, then the time machine is un-invented, so he re-dies." That would require time to pass, and therefore would occur in the future. We could of course invent a machine to travel into a parallel universe in which he lives, but that wouldn't do anyone much good in this universe. What this problem really is is a philosphical one - if we have free will, why can't we time travel and save him, or murder our grandparents? But the laws of physics aren't concerned with our free will and work just the same with or without it.

You did not post a picture in your post in the Picture War thread. A thousand years bad juju.

Well this thread is about to get locked for being all about one person's videos, but before it is, can I mention that I don't care for the title? Spiders are your friends! The least you could do is not fly into a murderous rage at the sight of them.

What all the previous posters said. This is literally a missing feature from the game. The fact that it has yet to be made stock is almost worthy of being called a bug xD

I too always considered this a useful feature. Not only does the automatic system often mistakenly name ships as landers and stations as debris, but planting a flag at KSC and retyping it to "base" allowed me to have a convenient indicator of where KSC was on the night side of the planet while hiding the numerous flags I'd placed elsewhere. As far as I could tell, retyping flags never caused any problems for me.

I too can confirm that this was available in 1.1.1 but is not functional in 1.1.2, although with the above dev post it feels a little pointless now... Here's to the imminent release of 1.1.3! ('Course with my luck it'll come out in six months)

Anyone else noticed that the "fix" for that issue seems to be disabling renaming via the info panel completely? Both in flight and in the Tracking Station, the info panel now does nothing when I click or double-click on the ship name, whether it has a command part or not. The only possible way I have to rename vessels now is by directly clicking the probe core or command module, which is really inconvenient when the vessel doesn't have one!

My money's on it being a mod, because I've explored the Mun extensively in 1.1 and seen no such anomalies. :\

I wouldn't say "less stable than prerelease," but I too have noticed a lot of instability in all three versions of 1.1 that have come out. Most disturbingly, I've experienced multiple CTDs, which is something that as far as I recall never happened in an previous version. They seem to occur at unpredictable times, and even from something as simple as plopping down the first part in an editor, which makes them hard to avoid or report.

Everything I've built since somewhere around 0.21 is fully recoverable and reusable. Some things are meant as "permanent" installations, and thus don't include parachutes, but I always make sure these can continue operating indefinitely, for example by including retractable solar panels (ever since the unshielded ones were made non-retractable I haven't used them once), so that eventually if I decide to decommission it I can just use a Klaw and a wad of parachutes to recover it. I don't like three- and six-sided symmetry on my ships for some reason, and thus always go with two, four, or eight sides. I tend to overuse the Offset tool if for no other reason than to make sure all surface-mounted parts are aligned to "the grid."

Good news everyone! I identified and fixed the bug with Kidonia. It turned out to be a thermal bug, like the one I had documented before. When first loading the vessel, apparently some parts spawned at ridiculous temperatures and blew the whole thing up. By momentarily turning on the "Ignore max temperature" cheat and giving the game a few seconds to recalculate the proper temperatures, I was able to save the ship. And if I might say, I'm quite pleased at the increase in framerate ^^ That said, I'm still facing a minor dilemma. KSP 1.1 has introduced a number of changes in Science functionality, and also changed the model for the small landing gear, which was in use on the Laythe plane. If I continue the mission, it looks probable that I'll be unable to perform the planned Laythe landing due to the plane not working (gear blocked = probably true). Also there is some uncertainty as to whether my other landers are still properly equipped for Science harvesting. For example, the atmospheric spectro-variometer now requires several hundred units of ElectricCharge for each transmission, the power consumption of rover wheels has been multiplied, and the small landing gear seem to be more fragile than before. I'll try and keep this thread updated on what I decide to do. In the end, I might still end up restarting the whole mission after all >_>