passinglurker

Well on my end considering this is in addon dev its always safe to assume updates may break something and make plans and backups accordingly.

No worries I'm in the process of brushing things off, finishing a few todo's that accumulated, and bringing things inline with localization and stuff. But to make up for the wait I'll share that the next update will definitely have the batteries, and drones as previewed before, a porkjet/C7 style inline docking port as teased on reddit, a set of gimbaled SRB's to cover the need for high thrust in the early game, and a 1 seat crew cabin

The key thing to flying Federatsiya on a Zenit replacement made to use zenit infrastructure is that one of the zenit launch pads has a crew access tower already built as part of the numerous failed attempts to replace soyuz so it saves on construction. As is often the case with launch vehicles and spacecraft the cost of launch pad construction supersedes all other design considerations.

Take two is a publisher not Rockstar. Technically even mod friendly titles like civilization also fall under their umbrella. To me I don't see ksp any better or worse off than they were before if they are really better off and flush with cash then I expect 1.4 to be the long needed art and balance polish pass and I expect them to stop making comprises of quality to fit in with old parts. If that doesn't happen then nothing's changed its business as usual with me not buying dlc cause I'll be too busy managing my modded installs to make time for anything new they add like mission editor's.

Does this include quality art or are we still pretending that programmer art is acceptable for the indefinite future?

Ok but [excrement]posting aside seriously what is going on here? I just checked the parts/misc/potatoroid folder, and the only mesh file is Cube.mu yet the part.cfg for the asteroids points to a potatoroid.mu Has anyone else gone asteroid hunting in 1.3? Edit: Oh and I brought Cube.mu into blender and its definitely just a cube

Trying to streamline this to a yes/no list is a waste of time any worthwhile modpack/modpack curator needs to be able demonstrate that they can dedicate the time to add value and provide support for thier pack otherwise they will be met with the same rejection every other modpack effort has met in this community outside of a select few like realism overhaul. That means they actually need to talk to the mod authors. The concept of modpacks largely appeals to the users that bring them up as a means of getting internet points via low effort content. Afterall Kerbal is more robust to mod than something like minecraft, or a bethesda game where such packs are very popular, but because of this robustness there really isn't a need to merge mods for compatibility in kerbal. Things more often than not just work, and that means a mod pack curator will need to put in even more effort than other games to justify thier packs existence. The curators who realize this soon quit modding or step up to add value/make original mods of thier own. The curators that don't realize this inevitably release a buggy pile that draws the ire of everyone involved making them even more hostile to the idea of future modpacks.

I'm not talking about pusedo-mods like cheat menus and save hacking that make modding a dirty word. I'm talking true mods that add new content. also the map issue I refer to is how in recent titles you can't change one thing in a cell (say add a weapon spawn, or a door to a new map) without overwriting the whole cell making it hard for modders to operate without stepping on each other's toes. Bethesda isn't accommodating every new title makes it harder to mod than it used to be they are just making a token effort to milk their reputation, and they've dragged their feet cleaning up mod theives on their official repository too. It's not a high bar to find a company that communicates better than squad but Bethesda ain't it.

PFFT AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You've never seen the convoluted hoops people have to jump through to mod thier games have you? Imagine a big game that's rough around the edges the writing has some holes, the balances is sloppy, and its not the most stable pile of code either but its big selling point is moddability. Now imagine that game despite advertising this selling point providing no official tools until over 6 months after release, The toolkit is only compatible with expensive pro level software, and there is absolutely no documentation, and the game doesn't handle map changes all that well to boot... Bethesda is worse in virtually every way.

You have no Idea how wrong you just thought

Public relations. Something squad is consistently bad at for a studio that spawned from a marketing company. Think of how many customers this port has burned how many that are fed up with squad and kerbal that won't come back, won't recommend the game, won't buy dlc, etc... all because not only did squad screw up but they didn't own up to their mistake.

but they caaaaaan... Issue an apology Issue refunds Issue free PC copies of the game through their inhouse store to affected console users Issue free DLC vouchers to affected console users Pull thier product from the stores to prevent customer confusion When your product is a dumpster fire you can only say "hold tight be patient" up to like 3 months before you lose any shred of a moral high ground you had left against your enraged customers at which point concessions need to be made to save face. Instead Squad knuckles down and reinforces its policy of sticking its fingers in its ears and pretending everything is fine and has always been fine. You see it everywhere from thier art previews to thier development priorities, they aren't fixing the console port because they owe thier customers anything they are only doing it for the same reason they fixed all the bugs in 1.2. It's because sony europe caught them, and stopped them, and since they really really want to break into the european console market they had no choice but to stop and do half of a right thing to pass inspection. You can say some of this is speculation on my part but if I'm wrong how come we haven't seen any of these concessions yet after almost a year of these shenanigans?

Porkjet doesn't work for squad any more (better job offer iirc) But his style and standards live on in our modding community even if squad wants to say "Ambient occlusion isn't kerbal"

Crew pod mass balance is tricky. Like with fuel tanks there are two approaches either a flat rate based on capabilities or a scaling rate based on volume. if fuel tanks are being balanced based on volume it would stand to reason so should crewed parts to an extent. Personally I'm partial to simple flat capability based rates in both cases but scaling with volume can have its merits

I support this

Oh thank god I'm not the only one that feels this way deep down. Ripping off the bandaid would be ideal, but good luck selling that to a lot of users who are content in mediocrity. The only other solution I could think of this is to put rebalanced parts under new part names and just hide the old parts in the part catalog so old craft still load but all new craft are made with the rebalanced parts. (and when you "uninstall" you just flip it to show the old balance parts and hide the new balance parts)

I support this the mechanics of career mode could use more overlap and synergy like this.

Details are a bit sparse but it's probably the kerbal equivalent to minecraft adventure maps. A scripted story basically

The upgrade system is key to getting squad to rebalance the stock game without breaking existing craft, and saves. It needs to be embraced so that it can be refined.

Probably best to test it and how upgraded parts carry over when sharing craft files before jumping to conclusions. Not a lot is known about the upgrade system so far because the UI is a bit of a bear, but the system is getting some quality of life refinements in 1.3 so it could be wise to design with the system in mind from the start. If you ask me I think it's more important to make a set of rules and stick to them than it is for those rules to be an accurate reflection of real life. Both ways have merit a scaling mass ratio would give you incentive to progress through the tech tree, and a flat ratio is more intuitive being easy for new players to wrap thier heads around and at least be justifiable to veteran players.

as he said the rocket equation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation mo is total mass including propellants(wet mass) and it is divided by mf which is just the dry mass.

9:1 mass ratio means for every 9 tons of gross mass 1 of those tons is dry mass so when you divide your fuel mass by your dry mass it should come out as 8. This figure is consistent across the main conventional fuel tanks (jebs junkyard, rockomax, and kerbodyne) odd shapes like space planes have a different ratio and its hard to say if any intelligent design went into finding thier figures or if they just went "as long as it's worse than rockets we're good" Yup its a mess and the ratios don't even cleanly scale up, but instead fluctuate up and down never mind the volume issues. It's a wild west so you can either do what you want, or you can raise the issue on the bug tracker and maybe squad will fix it for 5 minutes before reverting it again like last time cause it breaks a tutorial they can't be bothered to polish. Yeah I made sure to account for that in my own consistent mk1 monoprop tanks. It would be cool to be like real life when its not overbearing (overbearing as in uliage requirements, limited restarts, light signal delay, etc... bleh...), but if @Streetwind's account is anything to go by you'd best be prepared for an influx of support requests as users don't read, don't notice, and when they do they don't realize its the mass ratio, or that mass ratios are a thing and think its a bug, but to be fair a mod like smurff seems to get by without complaint just fine probably because mass ratios is all it does so users know whats going on and what they are getting into when they download it.

lol ok now that is a multiplayer I'd buy into not "I want to fly my ship separate from someone else and crash into to that someone else also does BD armory have multiplayer support?" that everyone else tends to envision

You make the mistake of assuming the tanks design is intentional. Kerbal has never had a proper balance pass its part stats are more fractured than its art styles making excuse for kerbals oddies just doesn't work beyond your own personal play. Also if xenon tanks used 9:1 you could bring down dawns stats to closer to realistic levels while still keeping it balanced and practical to play with except now it can be compact enough and cheap enough to actually be worth more than a gimmick @Streetwind (the guy who balances near future propulsion) worked this all out just before 1.2. Where have they said anything like this ever? Squad gives no insight into its part design and balance process and making baseless excuses helps no one but yourself in feeling better about this games sorry state. Anyway if they were assuming all monoprop tanks are for pressure fed engines then all monoprop type tanks would still be consistent between each other which they frankly are not even in the slightest. You're just making excuses for squads negligence of production quality and you should stop. Ah the old "I'm just here to sink the discussion so it doesn't get in the way of my own agenda" argument. two things as you make your exit. First not everyone on staff is a coder who can work on optimizing the code base some one has to do balancing and playtesting. Second modders shouldn't have to clean up a developers mess a modding community is not a crutch to be leaned on and when you try it'll suddenly buckle out from under you as the modders leave and try and find a developer that values them instead of just uses them.

It would make sense but its not what ksp does. Cubed square law would dictate that even with structural supports the bigger you go the better mass ratio you get but lfo tanks are generally a flat 9:1 across the board (aside from oddballs like the mk2 tanks) it would make sense to be consistent about this because it's more intuitive to the player to just compare the engine stats alone. Not that it would be bad if squad took the engineering approach to this and reflected mass ratios accurately it would be a good learning experience for many players, but unfortunately when you see differing mass ratios in the game it's not because of some grand design, but because the part was thrown in as a place holder to be refined later and never was. So mass fractions become less educational and more "how can I best cheese the part catalog for internet street cred?" As a result monoprop tanks are all over the place with no rhyme or reason in almost every aspect, and xenon tanks are so terrible the ion engine needs massively inflated stats to compensate and even then still loses out to an ant engine stack of equal or lesser mass in all but the most dizzying 10min+ burn time missions. and that's not even getting into the volume ratios can of worms