tater

Claw, I am running the Mac version, but I have had exactly the same issues. I just posted a bug report here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/55657-0-90-Kerbal-Joint-Reinforcement-v3-1-1-1-15-15?p=1672059&viewfull=1#post1672059 I have a small group of base mods (DRE/FAR/KJR) that I usually add PF to (and Snacks), but I made a fresh install, then added the mods one by one, when I had all, plus your stock bug fix mod in there, it worked fine… until I added KJR. My thought was that if KJR triggers it reproducibly, that might help you figure out the cause (even if it is slightly different). tater

It would be nice if stock had a system of reusing parts with different stats, then improved parts via tech improvements. So each part gets one new value added, "tech level" (whatever they want to call it). Then you could improve parts over time without cluttering up the VAB. For docking ports, there would be a master cfg that would assign certain stats to each level. lvl 1 allows docking, OK strength. lvl 2 allows electrical connection. lvl 3 adds fuel cross feed, stronger joint. All use the same models as now. The only weird one is the junior, which is sort of absurd. All new ships use the latest version of the part.

I have been having these sticky docking port issues since 0.90 as well. I just updated KJR to 3.1.1 and still have the issue. I made a copy of vanilla 0.90, and added my core default mods one at a time, plus I added hyper edit so I could warp craft to orbit to test the docking issue. (didn't occur to me to test on the ground until just now, but I was having the issue without ever having HE installed before now. Anyway, I have (each space between mods means I tested the craft, then quit, and added the next mod): Hyperedit StockBugFixModules ModuleManager.2.5.6.dll DRE FAR KJR I launched them, then hyper edited them to 100000m. Then quit if I could uncouple the 2 vessels, then added another mod. All worked except the last one, KJR, which will not decouple. To be clear, by the time KJR was installed, all the mods listed were active (HE/SBFM/DRE/FAR/KJR). You can tumble or RCS the lander a little, then hit normal time warp and watch the crafts separate… when you drop to 1:1 time, if they are close they slam back together (though it shows the docking attachment as not actually docked), if they are a little farther than magnet range… there can be a huge explosion as both blow to bits (I had parts given kerbin escape velocity). The test pictured below, they slammed back together after I did time compression. The two vessels are decoupled, but stuck together. persistent (after undocking): http://s000.tinyupload.com/?file_id=69316402618047980936 craft: http://s000.tinyupload.com/?file_id=59833500955925327104 EDIT: I also tested with the new MM version, and I tested minus the StockBugFixModules mod, in case it was somehow a conflict.

Just stop with the "remove warp" or forcing Jeb to use the bathroom as examples of realism. We are entirely limited to discussing outcomes of narrow space flight scenarios. That's it.

The problem is that almost all KSP tech occurred nearly simultaneously in RL. This is largely due to the fact that technology was/is invented to fill needs, not because we've learned something new. You want an Apollo style mun mission? You'd put out specs for that, and that;s what you'd get.

After testing a new version, I play with life support. That puts time limits on missions, or I need to resupply them. At that point leaving people in orbit is more difficult. Still, leaving a probe in orbit is not a problem. Weather satellites provide benefit to humans nearly every day, all over the world, including "science."

Simulation, like everything else, is not binary. It's not a choice between "complete realism" (whatever the heck that is supposed to be) and "doesn't matter, do whatever." KSP is absolutely a simulation. It imitates the appearance or character of spaceflight (that's the definition of simulation in italics). Is it Orbiter? No, but neither is Orbiter KSP. Orbiter doesn't simulate the design of spacecraft at all, for example. What is simulated, and the quality of that simulation is the trick to balance. The KSP treatment of the business/operations end doesn't even imitate the appearance of same, IMO. If it meets any standard of simulation, it's a very poor simulation there compared to the orbital element of the game. So we can all be on the same page that KSP is a simulation game, though we might disagree on the quality. The metric for judging that quality would be how close our real world expectations of actions (the physics) are to the results in game. Now to the game bit. The metric of a game, is gameplay. Gameplay is certainly impacted by the simulation, but choices in simulation do NOT have simple effects on it. The current career/tech system is a very poor simulation, and is also… very poor gameplay. Making the career more realistic, contrary to people chucking straw men around, would not consist if Squad forcing the players to make spreadsheets, endure boring meetings, and all the work-a-day stuff that happens in any real administrative office. No, realism in simulation would be if the type of missions presented, budgets allowed, etc "made sense" in the verbal world. The outcome is what matters, not the black box. The orbital mechanics, launch, landing, even craft design remain fundamentally unchanged, regardless of the aero model. Some new parts to play with (heat shields, and fairings), and likely some changes in design choices… that's it. Even FAR changes nearly nothing aside from that, as I have said, I don't even notice it's there, and I only tested a couple rockets (intentionally breaking them) after FAR install to realize how kooky I'd have to fly to have any problems (no comments on aircraft, I have yet to build any, I have no interest). If atmospheric realism made getting to orbit profoundly difficult, then yeah, that would be a gameplay effect. The simple fact is it doesn't. Once again to use FAR as an example, I've barely glanced at the metrics shown in FAR (in the VAB, flight, or otherwise). If I was pushing the edge of what should not fly, maybe I'd have to, I dunno. I have yet to need them, though I'm curious enough about what is going on that I sometimes watch them in flight.

The exploration and all the basic science "contracts" should be renamed as "missions" and reflagged as coming from your own space program. You are like NASA, and the pure science stuff are internal ideas floated around the conference table (with budgets, etc), while the external contracts exist to offset costs.

Are you guys really at odds? Perhaps he means that launching a monster in 1 piece is "less to do" than having to rendezvous in orbit and assemble it since you'd have to send it up in rockets that look like rockets first.

New players expect that DRE is already there. It takes an intermediate player to realize that no matter how impressive flames you see, they never harm the craft. What Jouni said. I carefully plotted reentry until I realized that the flames were just for looks. I read the lander can descriptions and assumed that reentry mattered. It's odd, people will say that explosions are very kerbal, that it's funny you can blow up the VAB, etc. They'll do it on purpose. That darn Jeb. Meanwhile, it's "scary" and "hard" if hitting the atmosphere at 10km/s is actually made a bad thing? Huh?

I think realism and fun are mostly not connected. In the case of KSP, having some aspects behave as one would expect in the real universe is easier, regardless of the care it might take to build or fly any particular rocket. As a noob (I started in August) I expected reentry to be meaningful, for example. There are nosecone parts, so I added them, etc. It stood to reason that they should matter. I had to learn that in KSP they did not (a lesson I never actually took to heart, I wasted the mass anyway). I then added FAR, KIS, DRE. I honestly have not even noticed any of them aside from intentionally doing some destructive testing once I installed them to see how they worked. I've lost exactly 1 capsule to DRE, and that was toast anyway (I deorbited it failing to realize I had put neither a heat shield, nor parachute on the craft (it was an orbital tug with a Mk1-2). The type of trope you trot out, "If you want complete realism you must not use time compression" or "realism would mean you shoot yourself in a FPS game if you get shot" is just silly. It's a straw man, and I'm sure you know that. No one is, or has suggested anything remotely close to that. What we want are somewhat realistic outcomes, and a realistic feel. Watching a pancake held together with struts blow through the sound barrier at 2000m alt doesn't feel realistic, it feels silly.

The notion that realism and fun are somehow diametrically opposed is absurd, I'd argue that they are not even related. Good game design is good game design, what that math looks like under the hood in terms of equations of motion has little impact, and honestly if things behave grossly differently than reality, it is confusing.

There is another part, or tweak. Maybe the clamp-o-tron sr. should be VERY strong. Face it, it's a part to make stations, large ships, etc, not routine docking. Make it virtually weld the 2 parts together.

I'd go the othe way, mechanical, then crew + electrical, then fuel. Fuel is the most difficult, and should be last.

Yep. Having fuel transfer for the first docking ports makes no sense.

Building a new craft should not be required, it's a rationale to have stations, or craft that can continuously change orbits. I do agree that the various survey missions should be more sensible, and have the surface elements tied to the orbital better (image surface, then land).

I have not used FAR tools, much, myself. I hardly notice it is there, but I don't build aircraft, I have il-2, etc, for flight.

I think that the exploitation of space (mining, colonization) is better as a KSP 2.0 which we would pay for as a new product as it is beyond current scope. I'm fine with limited resource extraction as might be used for early outpost type bases (fuel/oxidizer/etc), which they say is coming.

I'd have No skill - Skill 0 Skill 1 Skill 2 etc. Then each astronaut has all three to start. Pilot 1 Engineer 0 Science - or Pilot 0 Engineer - Science 1 New recruits would have two skill 0, the other set to -. - means you can't do it, 0 is minimal (allowed to do it but no perks).

Yeah, manned vessels that can survive and have chutes should be able to do so without player intervention (or focus).

I think endgame is a function of the overall scope desired by the devs. Right now the entire tech tree gets unlocked by at most the time of the first low dv Duna window (possibly later in so-called "hard" mode (which to me is more of a grind without actual difficulty in gameplay). So "endgame" unless they add some time-based mechanic is like 1 year after achieving orbit, lol. Forget the time frame for a moment, then, and think of scope. KSP is sort of a retro space race. Most all the tech is from the 1960s. The most advanced is maybe the rapier (sabre?) which was thought of early (50s), but is not yet there. Spaceplane parts vary from 60s to 70s otherwise. Assuming that near future for RL is the actual endgame, then they need to add more stuff to play with. The real scope would be space exploration as a scientific/national endeavor, but not colonization/exploitation. That might be KSP 2 (which I would happily pay for the day 1.0 comes out as a kickstarter). So I'd see endgame in KSP as exploring the system. If you push it out, then the tree needs massive expansion, IMO, with more of an eye towards longer term expeditions.

Yes, as most everything in the tech tree should appear around the same time anyway as the only difference is size, not capability.

There is a lot of psychology in game design, and the primary reward system in KSP is unlocking tech, so your reaction is normal, IMO. The best possible answer would be for the Kerbol system to be randomized each new career (keep default seed as an option). It would need to randomize orbits, masses, radii, atmospheres, etc. Players would only gain information on other worlds based on doing science. At that point part of the reward system would be actually exploring.

It should of course be added such that a part like a mk 2 lander can reenter,“but don't expect it to survive atmospheric entry or even a sneeze. â€Â

Some of the facilities are poorly named. Mission Control is where they run operations that are in flight, it's not a business office. The Tracking Station should become "Mission Control and Tracking Station." What is now 'Mission Control" can be re-labeled to be "Mission Planning." The functionalities remain the same, but I would suggest one improvement regarding "contracts." Have it so that commercial contracts are treated separately from internally designed missions. So Linus Kerman can pitch YOUR space programs possible next goals alongside commercial contracts. Commercial would be parts testing, satellite launches, some stations, and so forth. Most of the "pure science" would be labeled with the player's flag, and the missions (labeled missions, not contracts) would be from the collective minds of Gene, Linus, et al. "Explore the Mun," that's a MISSION goal. Space program stuff, not a "contract." Missions would have the up-front money, but more of it, perhaps, with the balance not as "payment," but as "earned more budget for the next project due to success." Only a difference in description, but a meaningful one. The player is then steering his program from limited missions he staff come up with (and with not that many words to explore, the choices are very finite anyway). This totally explains why you get science form what are now contracts, they are missions designed by your scientists to get the most science.