godefroi

@DMagic I'm just landing modules next to each other with the docking ports pointed together. They have legs, not wheels, so when I deploy the docking port, it pushes the adjacent module away. The magnets aren't strong enough to pull them together. The one time I got it to work, I had the port deployed as it came down. When it attached, the module I was landing wasn't quite on the ground yet. Sorta awkward.

@DMagic The current system is perfect for in-space docking, but essentially makes ground-based impossible, unless you're docking things on wheels. If I extend the port before moving it into position, it ends up docking before I've got the module where I want it.

I really like the idea of using the flexible docking ports to connect modules for surface outposts, but there is currently one major issue which makes it difficult or impossible, and one minor issue that I think would improve the experience: First, the major issue is that while deploying the docking port, it has colliders enabled, and fully extends itself before "seeking" a mate. This combination results in a base module that is shoved away and out of range before the port can connect itself. If either the collider were disabled until a connection was made (probably the less good solution), or the port began seeking before fully extending (probably the better solution), this would be the absolute best option for building bases currently available. The second minor issue is that the ports become rigid once the connection is made. If the port were to remain flexible, some of the explodiness might be avoided, and building outposts on ground that is not perfectly flat would become less of a risk. Anyway, I really love your mods, @DMagic, and I think you do fantastic work. Thanks!

Thanks. Forgot to mention I was on Windows.

As title says. Left shift works, right shift does not.

There's a longstanding (but maybe not related) bug on Windows where if you look straight down at the floor, the markings disappear.

If the world worked like RemoteTech simulates (with signal delay), unmanned space exploration would not have happened. I don't play with signal delay, because in real life, computers on the spacecraft execute the burns, and RT's flight computer isn't powerful enough to replicate the capabilities of real-life unmanned probes. Therefore, I am the probe's flight computer, and the probe's flight computer doesn't suffer from signal delay.

You're assigning meaning to the numbers where there isn't any. Squad doesn't (strictly) follow SemVer, so you can't derive any information at all from any of the components of the version number. We're at 1.1.2 because Squad thought that would be a nice number for where we're at now. All the people who couldn't launch (or land) a rocket in 1.1.0 or 1.1.1 and who can now do not agree that 1.1.2 was rushed.

There is no difference between a patch and an update. They're two words for the same process. Regardless of what you call it, code changed, was recompiled, and released to the customers. If a specific mod depended on the exact implementation of the code that changed, then the mod will be broken. Squad is under no obligation to maintain backwards compatibility for mods no matter how minor the change.

You don't like how the game's produced, feel free to produce one yourself.

You're honestly complaining that a patch broke a mod? Should I, who does not use that mod, be prevented from taking fixes or enhancements to my game, because those changes break some mod you use? Game updates break mods. Mod authors know this. Intelligent players know this. Stop complaining about it. Squad graciously makes their game very moddable. They are under no obligation to avoid changes that break those mods.

There's two kinds of people. Those who bought after the game was available on Steam, and those who can transfer their keys to Steam. Me, I bought on Steam, because the platform makes downloading easy and fast, and guarantees that I'll have access to the game even if the Squad download servers disappear. Squad clearly believes that this functionality is worth the cut that Valve takes, and I trust their judgement.

Ditto. Curse, spacedock, kerbalstuff, who cares? I check the box in CKAN and bliss happens.

Because they have a contract with you to provide a pre-release versions of 1.1? I don't think so.

I like VOID for the HUD, though I don't like VOID for much else. I've set up KER's HUD much like VOID's, and it's ok, but VOID is nicer, in my opinion. I use MJ for VAB dV display sometimes, and for planning interplanetary transfers sometimes.

A good suggestion would be at least one new category - communications satellite. With the new comm-sat stuff coming after 1.1, it'll become quite useful.

Vector is overpowered like RS-25 and RD-180 are in real life... Powerful, efficient, complex, high technology, expensive engines. There's room for powerful engines, that are very expensive and show up at the end of the tech tree.

What I think I heard you say is, "TANKBUTTS NEED TO GO!"

A CPU core back in the old days, among other things, comprised an FPU (for floating point math) and an ALU (for integer math). At some point, Intel started putting two ALU in each core, and noticed that one spent a lot of time doing nothing, because everything was waiting on the FPU. So, they invented hyperthreading, which split the single physical core into two virtual cores, so that programs that mostly needed the ALU could double their performance (provided they use enough threads to keep all the virtual cores busy). Games generally don't benefit, because games generally do mostly floating point math.

That is *not* what hyperhreading does. Don't add to the confusion.

I think solar panels are a valid use case...

Well, yeah, but it seems a little pessimistic to me. I know nothing about Unity and how it works, but I would wonder why not have three sets of collider and RigidBod, one for closed, one for open, and one for transitions/animations. You'd have to go through and move attached parts from one to the next as you went from set to set, but I would think it's possible...

You'd want to compare the EC/LF to the fuel cell array; if it didn't compare favorably, I think it should probably be treated as a bug.

I was thinking the ASRock H170M Pro4, for which I can't really find a downside. I'd be doing it for space reasons, but I don't want to make the kind of sacrifices that would get me all the way into mini-ITX. Next question; has water cooling "arrived"? Seems to be more and more mainstream; is it time to consider it for a normal non-overclocked I-just-want-it-to-be-quiet PC build?

I have a 212 cooler on my 2500K, I love it. While we're on general build subjects, what's the general feeling on micro ATX builds?