Ser

@p1t1o, I don't understand you. Where does it contradict? The model allows the game to be modified. But once it happens, we are playing another game, the modified one. My definition is based on that rules should be invariant. If you take two guys competing who gets to the Mun faster and one of them uses Hyperedit, would that be fair? In my definition no, it's cheating. You say if it isn't explicitly forbidden than it is allowed, I say that competition supposes equal conditions and if you're going to use something you should discuss the standard rules alteration. Thus if it isn't explicitly stated that KSP + Hyperedit is used then using Hyperedit is cheating. Of course, while you're playing alone you define for yourself what is cheating, and that doesn't contradict my definition because in other words you define the rules, all other simplifications are considered cheating. Also In case of Hyperedit the act of cheating is reaching a certain point momentarily without using up any resources, thus doesn't matter if it is done with the menu or with the mod. Like you cannot say that it's stealing if done with right hand and not if dine with left one.

So you are tryng to tell that cheating only exists if it is explicitly declared to be it? Like "There's no sign stopping me from taking anyhing from the shop via the back door, so I'm not stealing". Come on! Agreed.

I won't start searching for all the dates when the developers refused to implement dV readout in the game, explaining that it would go against the idea how the game is supposed to be played. But they did for several times. You play your own game, I play my own one with its own rules. How can we can tell who is cheating and what cheating is if the rules are different? It's obvious that we should talk about the same game to apply my definition of cheating. Or else what is "going against the rules" in that case? Whose rules? I say that you just replace one word with the other, talking about same thing. Rules are there. They are harder to break than card board game rules and that's why don't need to be explicitly written because the developers limit the things that we are able to do (i.e. implementing rules) by the program code. But not all of the possible scenarios can be/are feasible to be limited by the code. You see, when Roverdude creates unofficial mods that aren't in touch with the official idea what the game should be, he creates means to alter the game, so using those mods you don't play the same KSP game. It's another game with its altered rules and it's another question what would we call "cheating" there. By modifying the game you get another game. It's very different to play stock game and KSP with TAC LS. And it doesn't make sense if you make yourself infinite food in stock game because it just doesn't matter, but it's cheating in TAC LS modified game. And yes, using calculator is cheating to some extent, as I understand the developers meant KSP should be played. But it would be better to ask them.

May or may not. Your words "unfair advantage" may also exist only in your mind. One of the implicit rules is the game balance. If you mod an engine to have 10000 Isp, that's definitely a cheat. You may pretend and not call it so but everyone understands that it by far out of the intended balance of the game. And I just call it cheating. Who talks about stock elitism? I use tons of mods, though most of them are making the game harder, but I use KER also which I've called a cheat a pair of posts above. Yes, I'm cheating against the idea that has been put into the game by developers, just because I want to play according my own rules. And in my own rule system having a dV readout is not a cheat, but having infinite oxygen or a closed cycle life support is. But to call them so I must admit that I'm playing a different game. Obviously, we should talk about the same game to tell what is cheating, right? That's why I'm talking in relation to pure stock game, which is Kerbal Space Program. You talk about playing a different game with altered rules. Cheats aren't subjective, subjective is our understanding of rules. But there are some common and obvious cases of cheating, not so obvious and really hard cases to judge. The most obvious are the ones that break explicitly expressed rules like "not to have a dV readout".

That's a question is that much of a simplification over the trial and error method to manually estimate dV every time. But using a mod that does it automatically is a cheat. It's like using an aimbot: it does nothing more than you can do manually but times quicker. So it's a cheat even in a single player game.

I thought that's quite obvious. Well, my definition of cheating is Whatever that intentionally goes against the rules or "around" the rules, explicitly or implicitly defined by the model's developers, in purpose of simplification. Thus your example is not cheating as the rules were simplified. So the justification is just in going against the rules or the intended use of the model. If KSP developers implement a dV reading someday, having it would stop being a cheat. Sometimes game developers intentionally implement ways to circumvent their own rules but they call it explicitly the "cheat codes", so that's not an exclusion too.

I've intentionally made an accent on simplification aspect. If while playing with a toy truck on the ground a kid sees that he have to drive around the room to get to another corner and decides "My truck has a special ability to fly across the room", that's cheating. Planes are a part of the game for a long time. What do boats simplify? I can say that again: cheating is a shortcut intentionally made for simplification purpose. If you ignore the fact that fuel is limited in some way, that's cheating. But I ignore KSP strategies because I don't like what they provide and that isn't cheating because it doesn't simplify anything, though both are the ways of playing the game not exactly as it was intended. EDIT: by the way, taking into account what developers have said for several times, using MechJeb is cheating too And (I don't want to say that) KER also is. Despite they both are actually more realistic for a space program than the way of trial and error.

The name says that at least it is a model of a dump truck, not an airplane. The same for Space Program and the obvious properties implemented by the developers.

A toy is a model of something. That means it contains rules in itself to be used in consistence with what it models. For example, if you have a toy dump truck, you cannot pull things with it by definition. But if you unscrew the dump body from it, it becomes a tractor. And therefore it is cheating, IF it is done for simplification purposes. So we should always talk about simplification aspect when speaking of cheating. Otherwise it is just a modification. So removing funds from KSP career mode is cheating too. But if funds are replaced by some other mechanics, it is a modification. Exploits are also cheating. They are not modifications but are abusing the imperfectness of the model. Thus asparagus designs are cheating, as well as Kraken drives are, and also landing EVA kerbals from orbit alive is, despite the game allows these.

I've never messed with CKAN manually, just checked CKAN option on Spacedock and hoped it adds everything itself. Not sure if CKAN really has that feature. You could just download 2.1.2 version of the mod from here manually as 2.1.3 is most likely isn't compatible with KSP 1.3.+. UPDATE: There's indeed some wrong info in CKAN metadata for version 2.1.3. I've submitted an issue to CKAN, hope that helps. https://github.com/KSP-CKAN/NetKAN/issues/5824

There's no such setting. The INS waypoint is always shown in the HSI when waypoint navigation is activated. But what's the problem? If you need directions to a runway just deactivate navigation via map view or Waypoint Manager mod.

@ImGr8M8, @MiffedStarfish, guys, you rock

1. Right click the flamed out engine. Sometimes the flameout reason is written in that window. 1. Don't you forget the air intakes? 2. What mods do you use?

Try Alt-click

It should be on CKAN according to Spacedock.

Couldn't reproduce that. I've created a custom runway, moved it into a separate .cfg file and removed custom = True line and it still appears everywhere it should. So I need exact steps to reproduce your issue. Another bug I've found is if you have a removed runway by an MM patch and create a new custom one, it gets saved to customRunways.cfg without the removed one so that runway just gets deleted permanently. Well, the runway save system still isn't perfect.

There's no such an option currently as I never had any troubles to return the view manually to its initial position. I think that shouldn't be hard to implement, besides it needs to mess with KSP cameras again, so I've got your request.

I thought about that. Yes, it would be awesome and not only for NavUtilities. But it may be tricky to implement. If we recognize a row of similar parallel objects as a runway then there's a lot of such things around KSC including taxiways/roads. How to distinguish runways from roads? And not all the runway tiles are similar, e.g. I suspect that runway sides and ends are different types of objects. Fortunately, stock runway tiles have the word "Runway" in their names but I doubt that it is common for mods. So this remains an interesting algorythmic problem. As a compromise, the mod has a tool to mark custom runways in semi-manual mode, it's explained here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/162967-130-navutilities-continued-ft-hsi-instrument-landing-system-v070-2017-jul-06/&do=findComment&comment=3114753

Do you mean the new runway selection window or the list in runway editor window?

If you keep your runway configs as a separate .cfg, I'd recommend to remove those custom = True lines. In current implementation they make your runways editable with custom runways editor and saved to customRunways.cfg file whenever Create runway button is pressed.

In IRL those speeds are provided in the landing chart like here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/5kdqq8xfug7u27g/Kerbin_AEROCHARTS-09-feb-2017.pdf?dl=0 (see the page 4-2, 4-3, lower right corner). Actually it's not that hard to keep on the glideslope even not knowing what your vertical speed should be. Here are some hints: It's hard to control both ground and vertical speeds at the same time, that's why you want the reading that would show you the VS whatever your ground speed is. The trick is to "fix" the ground speed. Keep it just above the speed you start stalling, when your aircraft is still controllable. Try to keep the +/- exact value all the time. "Inverse" your habits from high speed flying: use throttle to increase/decrease vertical speed and pitch to control your ground speed. It is more difficult with stock engines because the time the thrust reacts on throttle but it's easier with AJE with more realistic engine responses. When you need to adjust VS, the throttle should go first, then make fine corrections to the ground speed with pitch. Then a little bit throttle again, then a little bit pitch. Approach at the proper altitude: see the landing chart 4-3 on the above link: you should be on 600 m altitude when passing DME 10 km. And already be close to your landing speed. You may start your descent a little bit earlier to keep up with moving GS indicator. Increase your vertical speed gradually until the GS indicator stops moving. Look at the current VS value and remember it. Then increase your VS a little bit more - the GS indicator will move up to the "center". Once it gets close, set the VS you've remembered. If you go below the GS, don't chase the VS needle by going up. Just set a minimal (or zero) vertical speed and you'll intercept the slope sooner or later. Then repeat 4. The closer you get, the more sensitive the indication gets, so after the middle marker you don't have to keep it exactly centered. Once you cross the end of the runway (the inner marker sound helps you to hear it) forget the GS and look only at vertical speed to have a safe value on touchdown (assuming you've followed the GS properly). Of couse, it would be much easier to follow flight director by just keeping your nose in the FD cross but that's not for the evil hardcore pilots (Doesn't ASET HUD have this?)

I have HOTAS and pedals, but in KSP I prefer to use Analog Control and I feel it's enough for this game. It doesn't require set up, trimming, dead zones, no FaceTrack problems. But yes, it will never be a joystick + pedals + TrackIR because it is only a single mouse.

You're right, in IVA this is a little messed up because of stock way the mouse look works there. Once you release the RMB, mouse is fixed in the center of the screen thus centering the control point. So I've just got used to use it that way: first RMB press and hold activates stock lookaround and fixes controls. After I've done looking around I return the view to the present position, release the RMB and click it once again. That releases the stock mouse view mode. But more often I just press the [O] key to freeze the control point, look around and after that press it once again. It works well unless you're dogfighting and need to control your plane and view simultaneously.

You can just hold the right mouse button, the marker point will become red indicating that the controls are paused at the present position, and look around absolutely for free while still holding RMB. This is shown in the OP video when looking around while inverted and when turning to final approach.

I didn't touch it, so it is still included in the mod but there's a probability that some refactoring could make it malfunction.So if you find any bugs with it please report them. I don't know the way KerbinSide stores its runway data. Looks like @Beetlecat is doing just that. As for some custom runways that haven't any data at all, there is a Settings window opened with [Alt]-click on the Toolbar button. From there you can go to the custom runway editor. Place a vessel on the runway's end, match its heading with the runway, check all the "Auto" boxes, press "create" and the runway will be created and saved in the Runways/customRunways.cfg. Then you can copy and paste all of your runways from there into another .cfg file, placed anywhere in the gamedata. So they will be automatically loaded everytime KSP starts. I guess you don't even need Module Manager for that. Module Manager is needed if you alter some runway. For example, I don't like to be guided to the Abandoned KSC so I've created a patch: !NavUtilRunway[*]:HAS[#shortID[KSC2]] { }