Enceos

He could as well ram your station instead of docking. People have an option to choose who they play with. But, in case this was accidental, it is preventable, the shadow copy will glow red if your vessel intersects one of its colliders, and timewarp will be locked in this case.

@Magzimum Simple enough, the game should project a shadow copy of another player's base when Player 1 approaches its location. The visual representation of the base will allow careful positioning so that when Player 2 warps to Player 1's timeframe, his newly landed ship doesn't clip into other vessels. @regex in my model each player has its own reference frame, not crafts. In map view he will see the same orbits as the Player who warped to future sees, but the position of the orbiting craft will be adjusted to the timeframe of the player who's looking at the screen, and will probably see a dimmed icon of the actual position of the craft in Player 2's universe. This way the Player 1 can launch and rendezvouz with the station of Player 2 who warped forward. Imagine this scenario: Player 2 constructed a station on Y1 D1 and warped forward to Y1 D5. Player 1 launches a new module to the station on Y1 D3, performs all renezvouz maneuvers, during the final approach the game will load a non-colliable non-interactable shadow copy of the station in the state it looks in 2nd Player's dimension. After Player 1 cancels the relative speed the game pops up a window which tells: "The target exists in Y1 D5, warp time forward for rendezvouz?". If Player 1 clicks "yes" the game warps forward and synchronizes the timeframe with Player 2, during this warp the relative position of the 1st Player's vessel to the station will be frozen. After the warp he can dock with the station. Ownership is not a griefing protection, it's just a marker that defines which crafts warp forward with the player, leaving a non-interactable shadow copy behind, and which don't. Synchronizing the timeframe with the Player who owns the craft will make it interactable.

@Space20 You can see these buildings in Scott Manley's first KSP vids from 4-5 years ago.

@Space20 This is the KSC from the early versions of KSP before the full remodeling by @bac9. The old KSC models were relocated as an easter egg to the other continent.

@Magzimum The problem in your scenario is that Player 2 meets Player 1 when their timeframes are out of sync. Plus it's also a question of ownership, if Player 1 owns the mining base and has the full control of it, Player 2 should see this base only when he's in the same timeframe as the Player 1.

It has not been implemented yet, I'm glad you joined the discussion about the diminishing returns on science. I even think that the first samples should give 300% of science, I believe you will agree with me that the first landings on the Moon, Venus and Mars gave the most amount of data about the planet, only when new experiments were brought to the surface in the following landings did we find out anything new. The purpose of this proposal is to limit the biome hopping. People will decide for themselves if they just want to grab science from the planet or do it in style by visiting vastly different biomes and taking pics of their travel. I believe it should be possible to accommodate the settings to a user's preference. For some a linear drop-off will be fine after the first samples, for others a capped reduction in science return to all remaining biomes, for the third party it could be set so that after the first samples the next X number of biomes will yield 40% of science and all the remaining will yield 20%.

The "Player X wants to warp time forward" message is for players who are in the same scene, it can comfortably accomodate the right side of the screen instead of popping right in the middle. For players who are currently in different scenes the time will split into several dimensions during time warp: If PLAYER 1 wants to meet PLAYER 2, he will need to warp forward to sync the timeframe. Same with PLAYERs 1 and 2 if they want to meet PLAYER 3 who warped time quite forward. Of course it will require a new comprehensive GUI tab where players can see each other's timeframes and can sync with a click of a button. Tagging you @regex since you're quite a critical thinker. P.S. @HebaruSan I didn't find any arguments against the second runway, would you cite please?

@Sharpy When we launch stuff, we do it in style @Kerbart 100 points, dude!

I agree that there's not much to do in orbit together aside from orbital construction. Most of the fun stuff happens on the ground and in atmosphere: racing, flying, roleplaying.

Outermost edges are not hard to determine via coding. VAB already does that to calculate the width of the craft.

Bellisimo!

Not anything nifty like the awesome drawings above made a sign for one of my models

MP is not about dividing tasks, MP is about having fun together.

Yeah? Then you're in the wrong thread, we're discussing possible eye candies here.

You're wrong on that. Unless stock reentry effects are too laggy for you... I explained in my post above that ksp devs can do it with stock AeroFX, just needs some extra coding.

Let him go, let him go! He doesn't love kerbals anymooore. Let him go, let him go! He turned away and slammed the door.

@HalcyonSon You're right. Thanks for reading wiki

Joystick is your friend. Try it, you'll never fly aircrafts with keyboard again.

Those are called "Wingtip vortices". I believe with KSP devs can use the current AeroFX to simulate them on the outermost edges of the crafts. The same which is used for reentry and supersonic speed effects. They'll be straight though, no bending, but they can be shorter and that will still look awesome.

@HebaruSan If I had the steering wheel the new runway would appear in a week with remodelled buildings to fit. Not a big deal actually. We were discussing why the second runway would serve the game well before: The Multiplayer feature of timewarp can be implemented with a popup message "Player X wants to warp timpe forward for ## days/hours/minutes". If everyone agrees - the timewarp happens. I believe some stuff for better controller/gamepad support will be adapted from the new console version of KSP after it's made by Blitworks. Yep, the career mode needs more stuff. Some economy and management from strategy games wouldn't hurt. And there's an option to make tech research work like it does in Stellaris, that would be fun.

@JPLRepo I still have a glimpse of hope: http://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/13555 And you know me, I love everything you do )

@RoverDude May I also ask to shift the ladder collider a bit outwards on the 'Salamander' capsule. It's too close to the mesh collider. Kerbals' hands are clipping in and they start to slide. https://github.com/BobPalmer/MKS/issues/1093 Also the ladder collider on Duna modules is of the same size as the airlock collider, which makes it impossible to click in flight.

What was the reason behind such a drastical price change of the 'Tundra' Manufacturing modules? All big parts in the 'Manufacturing' category cost less than an MK1 Lander Can...

I see. Yep, that works.

Looks super awesome, but I can't believe you reentered and landed it. Did you use chutes? Because I don't see control surfaces or VTOL engines.