damerell

Oh, come on. It has been wrong in the past, which is regrettable, but while FAR does complex things, it does not have a complex set of dependencies.

They asked permission; you didn't grant it. Now I know the hive-mind's position is that permission isn't needed, but that doesn't mean that an individual can't ask. Seriously, as replies go, what exactly would be wrong with "Yes, but not my problem / don't expect any help / don't ask me how to do it" etc? I'm just saying, I think kookery is a far vaster source of noise. The "angle of attack is a conspiracy" chap went on quite a while too, as I recall. (I've skipped some stuff we've done on github).

If you look above you'll see it is believed to work. If you look here: https://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/3beh00/why_are_there_so_few_ckan_mods_for_104/ (ugh, reddit) you'll find out how you can help to get your favourite mods available for 1.0.4.

But Murdabenne's own desire to be polite led them to ask, politely; they're not part of some CKAN hive mind. "Complains the metadata has been got wrong" and "bites the head off people endeavouring to get it right" don't seem entirely consistent positions to me. You could (for example) have replied "Go ahead, but it's not my problem and I'm not going to help you", which leaves you off the hook but would seem to increase the possibility it is got right, reducing the flood of CKAN-related enquiries (of which I could find one in the five pages of the FAR thread consumed by one confused-about-aerodynamics person).

That's an odd looking beast. Is it really kerballed?

My mistake; it was in the KJR thread. (So, not "making stuff up", but honest confusion). Reply: Question stands; might this sort of response be in any way connected to the metadata not always being right for your mods?

I think forced == YOYO - as we know from past github issues, one reason the CKAN devs have (rightly, in my view) been reluctant to add a non-expert way to force installation is the inevitable tide of spurious bug reports. I'd go so far as to suggest any forced/YOYO installation should leave a very prominent marker in output.log.

Kerbals in the astronaut centre do not require life support. I don't know where that idea came from.

Read back a page or two and you can enjoy a wide variety of rover-related comedy.

Apologies if you know this, but it is worth checking a) if the mod has ever been indexed in the past and if the current version is known to work in the current KSP. If both these things are true, it's a lot easier. - - - Updated - - - You have just rejected, in very strong terms, an offer by someone to sort out the CKAN metadata for FAR - someone who is doing this for many mods and seems to have their head screwed on. Perhaps that makes it harder to get things right?

I bought a set of pedals, I wrote about "putting the pedal to the metal", and last night I... broke my toe. Oh, swift and terrible irony. I'd made it to 110 degrees West, but I suspect I'll be remapping some controls before resuming the journey.

On the other hand, the bug _some_ users in this thread are encountering is the one I can workaround, and it would be really quite handy to know if it works for anyone else.

I've experimented with IR parts, but found them rather floppy. I did end up in the great big crater, and the Mun seems rather confused about where its poles are. (Check out the Biome readout). I struggled out of it to find the arch, which would look more spectacular if it wasn't dark, like all of this part of the journey: And to ninety degrees East: These updates are getting really short - there's not much to see in the dark and I haven't been having any good disasters, so it really has been a case of putting the pedal to the metal and pointing it East. I suspect my mapping satellite will arrive just about too late to be any use.

No. The limit is on the address space used by the 32-bit process, not the amount of physical RAM. You could add a pagefile to the system and it would work fine.

It is. It's possible it's not yet listed as compatible with 1.0.3/1.0.4.

Please try the workaround above of wiggling an axis on the controller as the game loads.

It's very easy, I find, to lose track of how fast you are going downhill - which ends in comedy.

I just caught up with the circumnavigation - gosh, thanks for naming a cape after me.

I think designing a rover with tracks all round would be a bit contrived. :-/ I've driven to 66 degrees East, but this update is kind of short on screenshots because I was driving in the dark - without any roll-related disasters, so either I've got better, luckier, the terrain was smoother, or I've knocked everything fragile off and lowered the centre of gravity enough. I did launch a probe with SCANsat instruments to fill in the map, which is in transit; and I realised I can set a waypoint and both visit one of the anomalies and drive around what looks like a jolly big crater.

FAR is best. I regret deeply the FAR-CKAN schism, but FAR is the one mod I'd keep using if it was impossible to install via CKAN.

Absent ascent guidance (I use MechJeb, sure, just not that) I've hit on something similar. Throttle down the SRBs for too low a takeoff TWR, but take off with the LFO throttle open - having put LFO nosecones with fuel lines on the SRBs. When they run dry, close the throttle until the SRBs are done.

Wheels are already incredibly sticky - that's why rovers are so easy to roll and it's impossible to drift. We could use less sticky wheels.

Well, I ain't beat yet - Jebediah's prospects look bad, but I think the main body with Svetlana and Sally is pretty foolproof.

What if you reclassify them as probes / debris?

Today's lesson, besides that I'm still a terrible driver, is that you can't quicksave while moving across the ground but you can every time you leave it while driving over a bump. (I am not reverting, just guarding against game crashes).