Alshain

Alternatively if all you want is to lower or raise the ambient light, there is the Ambient Light Adjustment mod. This one is especially useful for YouTube and Twitch producers. Link to PlanetShine that @Snarkmentioned. For more specific lighting needs, there is Engine Lighting and but Bulb which are not ambient light, but may help you get the effects you really want.

I've bought like 4 copies now for various people. My Brother and I are both enthusiasts, and my Grandfather actually welded the Mission Control cabinets used throughout the Apollo missions (the cabinets that hold the computers you see in the video clips) so I got him a copy, don't remember who I gave the 4th one to. He didn't know what they were for when he made them, but later he recognized his work during broadcasts. He has always taken great pride that his generation landed on the Moon. (Sorry, back on topic now)

I'd be happy to discuss this elsewhere but I have a feeling taking it much further would de-rail the thread (I have a bad habit of getting lost in that kind of discussion). Suffice to say, I find stock ISRU inadequate so I don't use it. That's fine if that is how you play. I don't like to exhaust an entire planet/moon in a single mission, I like my game to last a little longer than that. That's just personal preference though. Well, I haven't used them much, like I said, I don't do rovers either. However, the wheel/leg stress thing they implemented in 1.1 seems counter intuitive to the wheel/leg breaking functionality. As far as I've seen they are more prone to exploding before breaking, which that in itself could stand to be fixed. Well the issue there is the panels being non-retractable was added to make sure the other panels got some use (and to justify their added cost). Yes, for missions without an engineer they would still be useful but you still risk countering the whole purpose of non-retractable panels in the first place. As for repairing them, you don't have to assume it's the same panels. I don't know if you ever saw any of the video from the first Hubble repair mission (I HIGHLY reccomend When We Left Earth, best NASA documentary ever, well worth the very cheap cost) but they just replaced them with new panels. I can't remember her name unfortunately, but there is a rather famous picture of the astronaut holding the panels waiting for confirmation to release them, and then she just lets go and they float away. KIS/KAX implemented in stock would definitely make this better as you could then have inventory management, but just imagination of that occurring would also be acceptable.

Well, yeah I use Kethane if I want ISRU, though I really don't bother with ISRU at all much anymore, but if I wanted to do mining operations I would never use something as ridiculous as the stock system. But as for breaking things, as the OP pointed out, there isn't much they can fix. Landing legs don't break that often, maybe for newer players but I rarely see that happen (don't they just explode now anyway?), wheels I don't really use because rovers in this game are incredibly boring, and again they just explode rather than breaking. Finally, having an extra seat for them just isn't worth it over adding a second set of chutes IMO. If they could do more as the OP suggested, like repairing solar panels, I would put one on every space station. It's not even unprecedented in realism, solar panels have been replaced on NASA missions before.

Lol, it's hard to go obsolete when they start obsolete. I can't remember the last time I let an engineer in one of my missions. Probably not since 0.90. Pilots and scientists at least have some early game use.

If you do clamshell with more than 2 segments, it could be counted as an 'other' since it's not really a clamshell at that point

I laughed. I shouldn't have, but I did. As for the idea, it's a good idea if it can show you at a glance without being intrusive. However, I don't want my screen real estate taken up by this, so it would have to fit into the UI without blocking the way does in flight mode.

Well in my personal rule set, SAS on a plane is cheating. Of course I use a flight stick, I used to use a keyboard and well my personal ruleset was a lot more relaxed back then. Turning the sliders to max may work for the plane design you are on, and if it did that is wonderful, but it won't work on every design, and as far as I know there is no criteria to use for deciding where those sliders should be. It's not like there is some building knowledge like knowing to have the CoL behind the CoM, these settings seem to be random and have no real description of their functionality. I've yet to see any tutorial that validly explains how they work to do what you want, and I think that is because very few, if any, know the answer to that.

I never did figure out what the 'shimmy' description referred to. I think that term was used to describe several issues. There is a spring/damper issue that causes the small gear to oscillate and the sliders don't really help much. I think that was reduced or fixed in 1.1.3, though. I think the biggest wheel issue that most everyone playing 1.0.5 is waiting to get fixed is the fact that the plane either veers off the runway on takeoff/landing or just does donuts on the runway, usually resulting in wing strike. This issue can't really be worked around very easily, what workarounds you can do to reduce the problem with the friction, spring, and damper sliders seem to follow no logical progression (none that I have seen anyway) so you have to guess randomly with each plane at what the settings should be. The "issue" @Snark is referring to is a new design requirement that requires you to 1. Use appropriate wheels for the size of the aircraft, and 2. Land at lower vertical speeds.... like real planes do (i.e. glide it in for a nice smooth touchdown). Of course I never think of that as a bug, it's not really, as Snark said it's a rule change. I'm just guessing, but while there may be some complaints about it, I don't think that is the biggest reason for the people that won't use 1.1.

I see what your saying, I thought he was saying that his plane was landing out of control and blowing up, but I haven't played 1.1 in so long, I forgot they added that stress thing that makes the landing gear explode. The way he words it, it still sounds like he's out of control and slamming into things/rolling over though, which is definitely not an intended change.

Oh come on now, the problems with the wheels in 1.1.x are well documented. To try and claim it's simply a change in the rules is absurd when Squad has said themselves that they are a problem. I know you have been around long enough to know these are actual issues, whether you have them or not.

StarMade SpaceEngineers (This does not invalidate the argument for multiplayer, but since you asked.... )

Completely agree.

Lol, well I don't hate it in all games, some games cutscenes work well, but they are designed for it. Blizzard and Final Fantasy games are well known for it, and they do it fairly well. This game however, I can just imagine the problems of touching down on a planet, the craft isn't quite stable so you use RCS to .... CUTSCENE!

I wouldn't mind have a button or other control that creates the node slightly in the future. One of the other big problems with the current method I've had is accidentally clicking the "Warp to Here" button. It's just terrible button placement, and clicking it accidentally can ruin a mission.

If it were something like an achievement that popped up in the corner and you could click on it to read the 'newspaper', that would be fine. However, we already sorta have that because of the missions. But anything that interrupts the gameplay without warning... even if you can click through it is not good. That is why I say no cutscenes. They are distracting, and after the first time, irritating.

I wish we could have control configurations similar to Elite Dangerous. They are so incredibly flexible and you can define your own modifier keys, which is very useful when using a flight stick. The way E:D does it, it accepts any combination of keys for any assignment. So if you want a modifier you just hold a key/button and press another, then you can use it for as many assignments as you would like. The modifier key shouldn't be forced to a specific key (though it can be defaulted). Just to show what I mean, you can see in the screenshot below, Joy 8 is configured as a modifier key. I can have as many or few mod keys as I like.

No, you tried to give a way to make procedural parts behave like the piece together parts and I told you why that wouldn't work, plain and simple. What exactly do you call them? Piece together parts is what I call them, I've heard them called lego-like parts also, but if I had used that it would have been the same. I described the parts so you would know what I was talking about, not their gameplay functionality. I never mentioned any specific reasons why they were preferred till after you made the suggestion of merging the two. I'll express my opinions if I feel like it, and you have no right to tell me I can't. If you fancy yourself some kind of teacher, you are really bad at it.

You can't remove the old non-procedural parts because people and/or Alshain want the piece-together style. Answered by me, having default sizes for procedural parts - As I said, this does not solve the texture blandness and/or stretching problem which is one of the main reasons we like the piece-together parts. Your answer isn't acceptable. This is in fact point 1 of my list But then various sizes wouldn't look different anymore and Alshain likes them looking different. - This still point 1 of my list. It's one of the reasons for liking the piece-together parts. Everything from Squad says this just won't happen, and - This is point 2 of my list. Squad won't do another artwork redesign after Porkjet's recent updates. - This is still point 2 of my list, Squad isn't going to do procedural parts. As I said, I made 2 assertions. You took those assertions here and split them to look like 4, but it's still only 2. No false negatives from what I can see. You did try to come up with a compromise to my compromise of adding both, but your compromise won't work for the reasons I outlined. I mentioned no gameplay issues at all before stating aesthetics, which are very important, go back and take a look. I said there is part of the community that likes the piece-together parts, I didn't say why until after you offered your 'compromise'. Both the construction and the aesthetics are the reasons why, FYI. However I never went into that detail before you offered your compromise. So it's not possible for me to have moved a goalpost that didn't exist. Adding additional points (as Squad not wanting proc. parts) is part of discussion, which I covered later. You seem to not understand what discussion is.

It's not that I do SSTO wrong, it's that I do standard lifters very right. My standard lifters, can compete quite well with SSTOs, to the point that the SSTO's benefits become not worth the time spent recovering them.

I never actually said it shouldn't happen, I said two thing 1. It most likely will not happen because Squad has always been so vehemently against it. You can say it isn't relevant, but you know it is very relevant, and I think you also know it will likely never happen. 2. If in the incredibly unlikely scenario that it does happen it shouldn't remove the existing parts, just add new ones because people enjoy the other style. It was you that tried to come up with reasons why both procedural and non-procedural shouldn't be implemented together and I countered those reasons as not acceptable for those of use that like non-procedural, but I never said procedural parts shouldn't be implemented, nor did I move any goalposts. In fact I specifically stated some instances in which I would welcome procedural parts. As to the forum, I am often confused at why so many people treat these forums as "I want a bunch of people who agree with me to reply" instead of what it actually is - Discussion Forums. If you post here, expect people to discuss, if you want a bunch of 'likes' I recommend Facebook.

Sometimes. Depends on what I want to do. You don't have to write scripts at all to use signal delay. You do however have to know how to use the flight computer to send commands, which can simply be "perform this maneuver node I just created". You just have to program it to perform before it leaves communications range. The two things you can't do easily are unmanned ascent and landing on a atmosphere-less body and unmanned ascent and on an atmosphere body. You can still land on the atmosphere body provided you don't care where, you just have to deploy chutes.

But they aren't going to do that right after they have PorkJet re-design everything.

No, that wouldn't solve the problem of them all looking like the same part. It somewhat depends on what the new upcoming textures look like, but I like having different designs, at least between the diameter sizes. Perhaps you could do this for the tank heights, but you won't be eliminating many parts in the long run, and if they all use the same textures as non procedural parts (between diameters) then it won't affect anything anyway. Really, this is all a moot point or hypothetical discussion anyway, all of us who have been here for a while know darn well we will never see procedural wings and tanks. If we did get it for wings, there would be a much higher chance of it being like tweakscale, just so we could have a Mk3 sized versions of the piece together wings, but it's never going to be like PWings/Procedural Parts. Everything we have heard from Squad says there is just no way it will happen.

IF (and that is a big IF) it were to happen It would actually be adding one or two (per type), not reducing it to one or two. You can't remove the old ones, because plenty of people (myself included) want the piece together style. So your option is to keep what we have or have both, you can't go to exclusively procedural wings and tanks this late in the games development without angering the half of the community that enjoys it the way it is. So, adding procedural parts will not reduce the part count, it will just increase it. They could certainly add new parts as procedural, like they did with the fairings. The structural parts really need a lot of help in the varying size department (girders, hubmax, structural fuselage, panels, and radial attachment point especially) , I always thought those would be the perfect candidates for a tweakscale-like procedural parts implementation. Though I do agree with you on engines, any type of procedural parts would hurt the gameplay there.