Ippo

You are right. I don't get to choose what happens on your machine: you do... by choosing to install my mod, and I get to choose what my mod does. If my work doesn't suit your tastes, uninstall it. But yes, I'll adapt very soon. I won't be using Compatibility Checker anymore: I will implement the same exact thing inside the mod, instead of using CC. I'm sure many other will want to do the same.

The problem with this "explanation" is that it doesn't make any sense. 1) The pilot of a spacecraft cannot choose freely how to handle the vehicle: he has to follow the mission profile, which in KSP means "the player's input". If the player asks for 100%, why on earth is the pilot giving 105%? He'd get his ass fired as soon as he steps back on earth. 2) The space shuttle's engines cannot go above 100%: the truth is that, after the first missions, the engineering departments were able to improve the design and construction of the engine. The new engines (which are not the same model as the old missions) were more powerful: their thrust was therefore more than 100% compared to the previous model. And anyway this amount of thrust was not made possible by the right guy sitting in the pilot's chair, and it didn't disappear when another pilot took his place. 200 m/s can make the difference between going home and being stranded in minmus orbit, though. For me it is an absolute requirement that it is *at least* toggleable. If it couldn't be disabled, I'd just stop playing. Furthermore, I honestly believe that KSP is lessened by the simple inclusion of the system as described so far, even if I could disable it: in my eyes, SQUAD has lost a big amount of reputation even just considering the idea. So if you want it, go ahead: take it and have fun with it. But in my eyes it is so bad that it really makes the game worse just by existing in the code.

Well, to be fair, it seems you can't grasp the concept of respecting the modder's choices.

Sound notifications are planned, ETA: whenever. Nah, there's no problem with FAR, other than the fact that control surfaces don't fail anymore. The reason is that FAR replaces the stock ModuleControlSurface with its own implementation: I have some code that can apparently work with FAR too, and some of you may recall that it was included at some point in Alpha 3, but it was buggy and inconsistent so it's been postponed. Not providing a log But yes, in theory you just need to merge GameData. You'll need CommunityResourcePack, CrewFiles, and module manager, but they are all included.

Gues what mod put a part module on *every* part in the game, and is considering making them explode if this plugin is found.

I wonder how many people would have installed a reduced-scale mod, if realistic planet size had been the default for stock. My guess is "not many".

In english, "you" doesn't necessarily refer to the person you are speaking with but can be used in a broader sense. I don't see how you draw this conclusion.

If you feel like that a tiny, tiny bit of difficulty and studying is being "shoved down your throat", maybe you shouldn't have bought a game about astrodynamics. It's kinda like buying battlefield and then complaining that you don't want to shoot people. 1) KSP is not, has never, and never will be, a realistic simulator: it is a very simple, but correct, simulator. The only parts I complain about are those that are wrong, not those that are abstracted. This is wrong, because it doesn't abstract anything, it just adds arcade for the sake of arcade, which is not a good element in a game about astrodynamics. 2) The solution is to have better tutorials and in-game explanations and readouts, not to give bob the "Socks of Major Control Surface Moving". 3) This is, imo, neither a deviation from realism (it just breaks it, period), neither interesting (it's just lazy game design). 4) An idea this stupid should have never been proposed in the first place, and given their record so far, they would never improve it, it would just encrust and stay here forever. Just like planet size: people keep defending the small planet size because it makes the game quicker and more fun... but the reality is that it was a forced necessity in the beginning, and then it stayed forever because of habit, not because of a design choice.

And what makes YOU the authority about the future of ksp?

It's good that they removed the engine perks, it still stinks that they are still thinking about modifying other parts. I'll still have to mod it out of existence, I guess.

No, it doesn't make sense, neither logically, nor physically. You say that they have been astronauts for longer, flown more missions, and therefore can make stuff perform better. I ask you: how? Specifically, in what way could the flight experience of a pilot have any impact on the physical design of an engine? I am asking seriously for a specific answer. Unless someone can provide a procedure that would allow the pilot to increase the thrust of an engine, you are just moving the "it's magic" explanation one level down: "It's not magic! It's the pilot that is improving the engine... using magic."

Well, if you ask me... or just anything that doesn't screw up the physics. I have to go, bye everyone! Oh, right, I forgot. Forgive me, for a second I still thought about a physics based game, where the vehicle is built in the VAB (like NASA), rolled to the launchpad (like NASA), fueled on the pad (NASA), has NASA-like space suits, and NASA APPROVED HARDWARE. But yeah, I'm pretty sure that a game with an official add-on made by NASA probably brings no resemblance to NASA.

In fact, those modifications or different uses or anything you can come up with to justify the system would likely be discovered by the engineering team on the ground, then commanded to whomever is on board to be executed and would result in the same exact performance boost.

I think you misquoted there. Yes: Kerbal XP, in its current form, has no point. THEIR experience affects MY performance: that's unfair and dumb. There have been 30 pages of suggestions on how to make the system better.

But that's not how KSP works: you don't give them directions and they try to follow your instructions, you are piloting the ship. And you are going to answer that this is an abstraction for the fact that you give them orders and execute them, but I will reply again with what I said earlier: this does in fact break physics. Even if Bob is not as accurate as Jeb at following my commands, this won't ever - ever - justify a different thrust or Isp. So basically the point is that when you fly, you are playing the role of the pilot: you are not a disembodied entity giving directions to the kerbal, you are the kerbal. And if you can't follow your own directions, well, you have some other problems. EDIT: Neither of them would actually be in direct control of the craft, as noted by ObsessedWithKSP. And why does the engine consume more fuel per second when Bill is piloting? Literally: you just turn you engine on, you don't care about the direction: Bill will consume more fuel than Jeb. Why? He's not as good at "throttle up and wait for the fuel to finish"?

Probes. Probes said that. Now, Would you mind telling me how a pilot can escape physics? Refer to this:

Also, let me add a small remark: even if the devs animated the kerbals to make them actually execute the commands you are giving them, there is still no way around the fact that the engine's throttle (and everything else) is still decided by YOU. So either you are telling me that my commands won't be executed correctly, or you are telling me that somehow 100% thrust depends on who is holding the lever in that particular position. And this makes no sense: if I give the same exact sect of commands to the ship, it HAS to perform the same, because the commands that were given does not depend on who executed them. You can tell me all you want that an experienced pilot flies better than a rookie, but as long as the commands are given by ME, they are effectively flying just as well as I can, and therefore the buff is magic.

The problem is that the experience of a kerbal somehow affects how parts that have not been designed, built and tested by him, but by an unseen and implied engineering / manufacturing team. Additionally, please note that this doesn't solve the "kerbals have nothing to do" issue: their list of possible activities is still limited to "they can float around on a jetpack". That's why many, me included, consider this to be a magic buff: regarding your specific example, do you think that there has ever been an electrical engineer on the ISS that was specifically tasked with making sure that the solar panels tracked the sun better? The point is that the hardware is simply not in control of the crew, since most of the functions are automated. Again, no one is there on the ISS to tweak the solar panels, they are there because they are trained scientists that are usually there to perform some experiment. Even when new hardware comes in, they are not going to tear it apart and optimize it magically on their own, which is what would happen with engines in KSP.

Sorry, captain: this is nonsense. It is not an abstraction for anything. If you take a spacecraft of a given mass, with a given engine, and perform a burn of a given duration in a given point in its orbit, you can only have ONE resulting orbit. You can't argue with that: it is a fact. Any game mechanic that breaks this fact is also breaking physics: period. You can't justify it in any reasonable way. I've seen an argument tossed in this thread a lot of time, "an experienced pilot knows better where the safety limit of the engine is". No: an experienced pilot will just do what mission control (i.e, the player) is telling him to: if mission control orders a rookie to overthrottle, he will. I will repeat it because to me it is the most important thing about this discussion: this game mechanic is not an abstraction for anything that can be done in real life, and it opens up holes in the physics simulation where the trajectory of the vehicle is not purely dictated by the physics of its component. And that's worse than bad. As for the second point: I see your point, and I too would like kerbals to matter more at an individual level. That's why my mod is (afaik) the first mod to implement a perk system that makes kerbals non-interchangeable, and I also intendo to make that functionality available for other mods. RoverDude has already expressed support and proposed some very interesting applications of that to MKS. What I'm saying is that yes, kerbals should matter a lot more than numbers, but no, this is not the way to do it. So much this. This is going straight to my signature.

Friendly reminder that, if you follow the main quest from the start, in Skyrim you kill your first dragon at level 3, lever 4 tops, since skyrim uses an even dumber system than this. It *does* violate physics. If you perform exactly the same burn, exactly in the same spot and at the same time, but using different pilots, you'll get different trajectories. This does in fact violate physics, period. And it looks like I really need to get working on the perk system now, since my worst fears have come true in the latest devnote.

I thought about it, and I have no idea: can I see your log?

AWESOME! Now we only need a mod that will disable that by default, void all its effects, and also erase the memory of it ever being in the game. Really... NO. I am absolutely serious when I say that I won't play one single minute until this thing can be disabled. P.S: I can't wait to hear regex' opinion on this.

YAY, it's happening again! :'( You are probably right, thanks for the feedback

I'll readd the annoying click fest soon, promise

That's very weird: timewarp stops when a failure occurs, it has for a long time (since alpha 3, precisely). Can you try to reproduce the issue? Has anybody else encountered this problem? We already talked about it some time ago, we decided to postpone until after he did the integration with remote tech. Considering that now we got to that point, maybe it's time I get in touch with Athlonic again IMHO, the science cost is even more important than the funds cost, since science points represent scientific advancement in the game and so you can "spend" them to obtain more knowledge for your kerbals. Anyway, feel free to set the science cost to 0, it's just a matter of changing the Training.xml file (it's in DangIt/PluginData/DangIt/Training.xml), you can do it with any text editor