Alshain

I don't think it's a bug, or a phenomenon. Everyone sees it that way. The game engine technology renders shadows that way, I wouldn't count on it getting fixed unless Unity 5 added something they can make use of to improve it and they just haven't researched it yet.

Well, in the DMP mod each person is on their own 'instance' so players can time warp all they want without affecting other players. However, any vessel in the 'future' can not be accessed. At any time a player may choose to 'sync' to any player that is in the future, basically time warping them forward very quickly. There is a downside to this however, if you leave the game (including unintentional disconnects) you jump forward to the latest time frame which may be problematic if you were sending a long distance vessel off somewhere and miss the capture window or if you were waiting on a specific planetary alignment for a burn. It's certainly not a perfect system but I have no doubt if Squad does this officially they can come up with ways to deal with those problems.

I suppose. But if I take the trouble to go all the way out to Laythe, I'm not letting a drone have all the fun I'm gonna land a Kerbal and get some real science.

AFAIK, ScanSat simply has a pre-programed list of the coordinates of known anomalies. If no one has found the anomaly and reported it then ScanSat will not show it even if you scan for them (there is no actual scanning there, just the simulation of it). So, using ScanSat as evidence of an anomaly is not really evidence at all. That said, as I recall there was once an anomaly at one time in the mountains to the west. Whether or not it is there in 1.1.3, I have no idea.

The strut was explicitly designed to overcome this limitation in the craft files. They are small and can be easily hidden, and they are practically invincible. The attachment tree isn't going to change, it would require rewriting most of the game.... the physics, the fuel flow logic, the editor controls, nearly all of KSP relies on that tree logic. It's not just a file format.

Well, I actually disagreed with adding that one too, but obviously I don't have that much influence The Juno was also, questionable. You do need something to train yourself on how to fly before you jump into Turbo Ramjets and Rapiers , though the wheesley fit that role just fine before they started messing with it.

The Hubble required maintenance on Spacewalk. Nothing in KSP does, that's apples and oranges.

Yes, but that will always happen. You grab a craft and pull it in close for a dock, what else would you use it for? What other reason could there possibly be for having a docking port on the other side of an IR RMS? You grab an incoming craft, and dock it to your station and that means it is interacting with itself. My explanation was correct, the only clarification I could have added was it only applies when actually docking, so grabbing a craft that happens to have a docking port won't be a problem, as long as you don't dock it. I guess I figured that was implied, as otherwise it is just a part like any other.

Nonono, the claw is a docking port in code. KSP doesn't see them as much different. Do not put it on an IR part. Nope, it said do not attach directly or indirectly. If I'm not mistaken, in the tree, the IR parts can not separate the root part from the docking port. So this works: Docking Port <---- Root Part -----> IR Parts But not this: Root Part -----> IR Parts -----> Any other parts ------> Docking Port. At the end of the video you see the user dock together a base module, that's ok though because the docking port is not directly attached to the legs in any way, it's attached to the craft, and does not have to go 'through' the IR Parts to get back to the root part.

The video on the IR thread shows you an example. The arm must be attached to one of the station modules when it is deployed. Of course, that module can't be attached by the arm, but every module after that can. HOWEVER, as I said, you can not grab modules with docking ports, ever. As I understand itm any part that is put in motion by the arm or any other IR part can not have a docking port on it (though the station itself can having docking ports). You notice in the video the station does have docking ports, but none of the other vehicles used do, the escape pod, the spaceplane, the rover, the artificial gravity segment of the station, etc all use the IR connector things. This means if you want to move station modules then you want to build your station without docking ports. I notice in your picture above you are grabbing the station which has a docking port, that isn't a good idea. It says it right there on the IR thread.... Do not attach docking ports directly (or indirectly) to IR parts. It will make your life miserable. You have been warned!

You need to send up a separate arm attached to a base payload and dock that to your station. Attach it to some component like a structural fuselage or a girder and have docking ports on that. Just don't put docking ports on the moving parts.

Lol, no worries. I didn't think anything of it. I wasn't sure if I was just missing some part of the conversation, but you quoted my post which was confusing. In response to the first part of that post though, recovery is not really in the scope of KSP either. It's not saying we shouldn't do it because it we never have, it's saying we shouldn't do it because it's in a category outside the game design. There are lots of things involved in a space program that the game doesn't involve itself in because doing so would dilute the experience and make things tedious. In another thread I mentioned prop planes don't belong in the scope of KSP because they don't directly relate to space travel, however they have been used in research toward space travel, a very famous one affectionately known as the Vomit Comet was originally a prop plane. Nevertheless, they extend outside the focus of the game, just like boats and subs. That's where mods fill a perfect niche. Jet planes exist because they do in fact have a more direct role in both early space travel and also potential near-future space travel (i.e. Skylon project) which is directly in the scope of the game. Until such time as we find the need to launch a boat or submarine into space, they just don't fit in the scope.

Who are you quoting/replying to? I never said anything about never doing anything in the past and I can't find anyone in the thread who did. If your attempt is to stand up a strawman, you won't get me to attack it.

Or Kerbal Konstructs even. To be honest, I'm a little surprised this isn't already in Kerbin-Side by now

I feel like boats are outside the scope of KSP. The game already simulates a splashdown well enough, I don't think it needs to go any further with water than that.

Yes, but it would probably be more trouble that it is worth. It would require experience with Symbolic links. The game saves everything in it's installation folder, which is an unfortunately old and obsolete practice these days, rather than using application data, program data, documents and home folders that most operating systems support in some way. This makes it difficult to isolate the game executables and libraries from the constantly written save files, screenshots, logs files, and such. It certainly would be nice if Squad would make an effort to overhaul the file structure to be more consistent with newer OSX, Linux, and post Windows-Vista conventions. On the other hand, doing so might cause problems with those of us that like to run multiple versions (though there should be ways to work around that through subfolder isolation by version number, and importing functions)

The issue with modded multiplayer is that the concept of multiplayer really requires more than a mod will ever be capable of doing. It just needs more integration with the core game than a 3rd party can do effectively. The only way we will ever get a truly exceptional multiplayer experience is to have it stock. That's not to say DMP hasn't made a good showing of it, btw, but it's always going to have problems in it's inverted mechanic state (which is the only way a mod could do it) where the client dictates everything and the server just tries to make the clients cooperate. In a MP game the server has to be in control and the clients must be slaves to that server, and that is where DMP suffers.

I feel like the complaint mostly revolves around it's placement in the default view on the KSC screen. It is a bit of an ugly attention grabber. Perhaps the monolith is fine as it is and it's location could simply be moved to the other side of KSC, where it wouldn't immediately be seen without rotating the camera. I know it's been there a long time, but that doesn't mean it has to stay there.

I suspect you may actually see this addition in the same patch they add clouds (note: I have no actual idea that is going to happen, just a hunch). Since they have said they want a visual enhancement pass, that probably will be soon enough, assuming they ever get the game stable again.

It isn't correct, a vessel can still get an encounter on rails, it just can't collide with other craft.

It's not your gear configuration that is the problem. That 'shimmy' as you call is is the big problem with landing gear in 1.1. It's a bug, and there really isn't a good way to fix it.

It doesn't even say water. Could be liquid hydrogen for as much we know. Wouldn't it be ironic if there was a mercury ocean on Pluto?

The Mk16 is the only one of it's size in stock. Vens Stock Part Revamp had a drouge that size though.

The only problem with coloring ALL of the craft is that there are really only a few colors (that are distinguishable) and several of those are tied up in the flight maneuvers. Cyan, Yellow, Orange, Purple, and Red are all in use already by Craft, Target, and 3 Node/Encounter colors. So how many distinguishable colors could you add? What I would find much more useful is if the craft icon itself would change color when targeted. Many times two craft are sitting visually on top of each other and I can't tell which one is my target. Even though the orbit is yellow, the icon is still white.

@ThatGuyWithALongUsername IMO, the second "Cyan" is the only Cyan one there, the other two look Sea Green.