Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

Everything posted by Snark

  1. That's the one exception among the stock antennas, yeah. That one's linear. Not unless you want the exponent to be something other than the default 0.75, no.
  2. What it does Pretty much what the title says. It takes some KSP functionality that isn't accessible via action groups, and enables that. Currently, the only such functionality is setting SAS mode (see below). Other functionality may be added in the future. Download from SpaceDock License: MIT Source code Setting SAS mode The mod exposes SAS mode setting to action groups. It adds this action-group functionality to the stock Avionics Hub, as well as via a new part, the Mk1 SAS controller. This is a small, radially-attached part similar in size to the smaller science instruments, which also functions similar to the avionics nosecone to allow low-level SAS functionality in the absence of a pilot. If you select the avionics hub or SAS controller in the editor's action groups UI, it has actions for setting the various SAS modes, which you can assign to whatever action groups you want. Note: It doesn't toggle SAS on and off; you still do that the old-fashioned way, via the SAS action group. All these new actions do is to set the current SAS mode, when it's already active. Your vessel's SAS limitations (due to probe or pilot level) still apply, so (for example) trying to use an action group to set SAS to prograde will still only work if your vessel has at least SAS level 1. Thanks to @Geonovast for supplying the SAS controller model, and also for suggesting this mod in the first place! The mod wouldn't have happened without him. IndicatorLights compatibility This part is compatible with IndicatorLights. It works fine without IndicatorLights, but if that mod happens to be present, then the part has visual indicators to show when SAS is on or off. Different colors and patterns indicate the different SAS modes. How to install Unzip the contents of "GameData" to your GameData folder, same as with most mods. Why would anyone want this? Honestly, most people probably wouldn't, it's a fairly niche use case. It's primarily useful for folks who need to tinker with SAS mode when they're busy in a tense situation where they'd rather not take their fingers off the keyboard, such as when landing. It can also be useful for working with a mod like Smart Parts, which can trigger action groups automatically in various situations. FAQ Q: So all it does is SAS mode? So why does the mod have such a generic name, then? A: Because for all I know, I may have occasion to need some other action-group functionality in the future, and if I do, this mod is where I'll put it. Q: So you're definitely going to be adding more stuff, then? A: Nope. May just be this much, forever. I'm just leaving the door open, is all. Q: Why put SAS action groups on a new part? Why not just add 'em to probe cores and command pods? A: Because those parts already have a lot of action items on them already, and I didn't want to clutter up every part's menu with ten new items, just on the off chance that someone might ever want to use them. Adding the new part clutters up the craft a little bit, but I preferred that to cluttering up all the menus for all the parts. Q: But I'd rather have this functionality on the command parts! A: That's easy to add with a snippet of ModuleManager config. As an example, look at what I've done to the avionics core. Just add the same to whatever other parts you like.
  3. Hi all, just a note that I've released IndicatorLights v1.8.3. New in this release is support for indicating current SAS status (yes, I know this is arguably unnecessary, since the navball shows that status anyway, but I found myself wanting this). The only part I've instrumented to show this is the avionics nosecone, since that part is all about SAS. Indicator is on when SAS is active, off when it's not. When on, the color indicates the mode (color-coded by the corresponding navball icons): White for "stability assist" Yellow for and Cyan for and Magenta for , , , Blue for That's the default behavior, but as with pretty much everything in IndicatorLights, it's highly configurable. Every individual SAS mode can be separately configured. Details for modders are in the wiki. Other changes, besides the above: Add this as a valid ColorSource identifier in config syntax (of interest only to modders) Add a new statusText field to ModuleToggleLED, to allow using config to specify the UI text for the toggle button. Thanks to @Geonovast for the feature suggestion! Various minor bug-fixing and bullet-proofing. Update to ModuleManager 4.2.3. Enjoy!
  4. Some additional content removed. Folks, please avoid "arguing about arguing," and don't make things personal by trying to characterize people, their attitudes, and their ways of expressing themselves. Address posts, not posters, please.
  5. Some content has been redacted and/or removed, owing to personal remarks. Folks, please don't make things personal. The topic of this thread is KSP2, its features, what you'd like (or not like) to see, etc. The topic is not what you think of your fellow posters, their motivations, their attitudes, what you think they should or shouldn't do, whether you think they're being "reasonable," your perceptions about their past behavior, etc. If you have a problem with someone's behavior, take it up with the moderators by filing a report. By all means, argue. Address people's points, and if you happen to disagree strongly about their points, go ahead and express your disagreement (along with your reasons). But please don't go after the people themselves. Thank you for your understanding.
  6. Thank you, but no. "Spoiling the magic" is entirely the point. Doing this sort of thing may seem like "fun", and to some people it may be a fun game, but to others it looks like "someone hacked the forum" and it spooks people. It causes unnecessary concern and is akin to pulling the fire alarm in a crowded building, just for funsies. We understand that you didn't mean any harm and were just playing around, but this is the sort of thing that causes unnecessary anxiety for people who are just trying to use the forum. Moral of the story (to everyone, I'm not just speaking to you personally): Folks, please don't try to play cute games with the forum software. Lots of people "live" here, and there are enough real fires that need putting out on a regular basis that pulling the fire alarm is not a great idea.
  7. I see what you did there.
  8. Hello, and welcome to the forum! I have no idea, myself, what the problem might be. That said, though, if you have a problem with a particular mod, then the best place to ask about it is usually in that mod's release thread in KSP1 Mod Releases, since that's where all the folks most likely to have the answers (i.e. the author and the users) hang out.
  9. I have no idea what the problem might be, but my best guess (based on the very little information you've provided) is that this is a problem with your KSP installation, rather than a problem with BetterCrewAssignment itself. My reasons for guessing that: It works fine for me Over 12,000 people have downloaded the latest version of this mod, and none of them have reported your problem, so I'm guessing it works fine for them too You're the only person who has reported this problem Examples of ways that this could go wrong on your local KSP installation would be if there's some problem with the way you've installed BetterCrewAssignment, or else perhaps it's not playing nice with some other mod you have installed. Without more information from you, it's impossible for anyone else to know. What have you done to diagnose the problem yourself? Specifically, have you looked in the KSP log file to see if there are any informative error messages that may be relevant? have you tried running BetterCrewAssignment with no other mods installed (other than MM), to see whether it still seems broken for you? Also, FYI: Yelling "it doesn't work!" at a mod author, while providing no specific details of what you're doing or exactly what behavior you're observing, is unhelpful. If you'd like advice or troubleshooting help (for this or any other mod), you need to be specific about what you're doing and observing. The reason this "problem" isn't mentioned is that I've never had this problem, nor have I heard from any of the other several thousand users that they're having this problem, either. BetterCrewAssignment is-- as I design all my mods to be-- "uninstall-friendly". Meaning, you can uninstall it and it should work just fine. Yes, if you load a ship that was previously saved with BCA installed, then you'll get a (harmless, ignorable) pop-up complaining that the PartModule isn't there, but this isn't specific to BCA; this is true of all mods that add PartModules to saved craft files. If the pop-up is annoying, just re-save the ship after opening it and the pop-up goes away. Regarding the contract thing: No idea what's going on there. BetterCrewAssignment never has had anything at all to do with contracts. There's not a single line of code in the mod that does anything with contracts at all, nor have I had any contract-related bug reports other than yours. So, again, this sounds as though it's probably a problem with your local installation. Just a bit of friendly advice: If you want free help from someone who, doesn't know you, and doesn't owe you anything, and hasn't done anything wrong, and has put in a lot of hours to create the shiny toy for free that you have chosen to use, then it usually helps not to make angry, disparaging remarks about them or their work. Criticizing strangers tends to make them disinclined to spend more of their free time to help you. Best of luck.
  10. The issue is that the videos posted in the OP aren't really germane to the feature request, for the most part. In order, the videos are: explanation of what a sonic boom is MS Flight Simulator implementation - this is relevant, with some caveats, see comments below MS Flight Simulator - irrelevant, because it involves a stationary 3rd party perspective that doesn't exist in KSP Warthunder - irrelevant, same reason as #3 above Grand Theft Auto - irrelevant, same reason as #3 above Another game video, irrelevant for same reason as above Falcon Heavy landing, also irrelevant for same reason as above ditto Of all of those, the only one that's actually relevant (because it involves a viewpoint that's flying along with the craft, like KSP), is this video, #2 in the above list. However, that video doesn't have the OP's requested features in it: No Doppler shift (correct, because realistically there shouldn't be one) No sonic boom (correct, because realistically there shouldn't be one) The only thing that that video shows is that they've correctly modeled the "cone of sound". When the viewpoint is in front of the shockwave cone, then there's no sound from the plane and it's silent. When the viewpoint moves into the cone, then you're hearing the sound of the plane's engines. (Without any Doppler, which is correct.) That is realistic, and it would certainly be possible to model that in KSP if the devs wanted to. However, I think it's arguable whether it belongs there. KSP has a lot of realistic physics details in it, but it's clearly designed as "game first, simulator second", and it's by no means obvious that most players would want such an implementation in the game. If you're flying a jet plane, hearing the engine sound is not only immersive, but also can give you some useful feedback about what's going on (e.g. you can hear changes in engine pitch as you throttle)-- is it really doing the player a service to make them unable to hear the engine depending on camera angle? Tastes vary, of course, but just speaking for myself, I would find the implementation of "silence outside the shock cone" to be intrusive and unhelpful; it would just irritate me, and I wouldn't want it in my own gameplay. And there would be no Doppler experience at all, of course. Total agreement there. Sonic booms and Doppler shifts become very relevant when there are moving objects that fly past you. There currently aren't any such, in the game, because there can be only one moving object (your own craft), and your viewpoint is always following along with it. As soon as there are other objects, e.g. other players' craft in multiplayer, then this is a very different scenario and these features would totally make sense. Very nicely done, thanks! Your suggested implementation looks like it's pretty much what MSFS would do. It's certainly cool, and it's reasonably realistic (at least for the cone-of-sound, though there shouldn't be any Doppler). That said, the question becomes: what would be the attitude of the player base towards something like this? That is, among the players, what fraction of them would fall into each of the following camps? That's awesome, cool, and realistic. I want it. It's an annoying and unhelpful distraction, I prefer not to have it. I don't care much one way or the other. It's way down my priority list of things I would want implemented in the game. Some players, such as yourself, are in camp #1. Others, such as myself, are in camp #2. At a wild guess, I'd suppose most players would be in camp #3. #2 is a good reason not to implement the feature. #3 is also a good reason (because implementation takes time and engineering resources, and the devs have plenty of more important fires to put out). So the only scenario I could see where it would make sense for them to implement the feature would be if a majority of players are in group #1, and it's not obvious to me that that's the case. (As @Periple points out, though, there's much more reason to have such a feature once multiplayer is added to the game.)
  11. I've never used the mod, so I don't know exactly what it does. I'm having trouble picturing an implementation that could simultaneously be "cool" (i.e. engaging for the player) and realistic. Those two things feel mutually exclusive to me. How does it behave, exactly?
  12. I'm having trouble picturing what you have in mind. The game only lets you fly one craft at a time, so the only sounds you hear are from your own craft, generally speaking. And you're "riding along" with the craft, as it were: that is, your frame of reference is a viewpoint that is moving along with the vehicle. And, crucially: Doppler effect and sonic booms are phenomena that you can only experience in a different frame of reference from the source. For example: Suppose you're a stationary observer, standing next to a race track, and a car goes whizzing past you. Then you get a Doppler effect as it goes past, nyooooooom. Very exciting, yes. But to the driver of the car, there's no Doppler; they just hear the engine at a constant pitch as they zoom along. Similarly, if you're standing on the ground and a supersonic jet goes whizzing past, then you hear a sonic boom as it goes past you. But to anyone aboard the plane (or a hypothetical observer flying along right next to it, if they're in the cone), there's no boom, there's just the continuous sound of the plane. Since KSP pretty much forces the observer to be traveling along with the currently piloted craft, therefore, there's rarely an opportunity to hear any sounds from any other moving objects besides your own craft. Doppler effect and sonic boom only happen when the observer is moving relative to the source. In KSP, you're always moving with the sound source, so the relative motion is essentially zero, so Doppler effect isn't a thing. Sonic boom isn't a thing. How did you envision such a feature working?
  13. Some content has been removed. Please stay on-topic, and don't make things personal. The topic of this thread is TweakScale. Therefore: If you're a TweakScale user, and you have a problem with it, this is the right place to post. If you are able to diagnose the user's problem, and it's TweakScale-related, this is the right place to answer. If you're able to diagnose the user's problem, and you believe that the problem lies elsewhere (i.e. is not actually a TweakScale issue), then it is appropriate to do this: explain that this isn't a TweakScale issue identify what software you believe is the issue point the user at where they can go to engage the maintainer of that software What is not appropriate: personal attacks, airing of grievances accusations, such as assertions of blame/fault (it's perfectly okay to say "software X is the problem", which is helpful and objective, but not "the maintainer of X did <bad thing>", which is unhelpful and accusatory) discussion of interpersonal dynamics (e.g. who supposedly did what to whom, what other people's motivations supposedly are, etc.) Thank you for your understanding.
  14. Some content has been redacted and/or removed. Let's not make things personal, folks. Thank you for your understanding.
  15. Some content has been redacted and/or removed. Please avoid accusations and personal remarks. Thank you.
  16. Some content has been removed due to off-topic personal remarks. Folks, you're welcome to argue with people, but please don't make it personal. Personal remarks are not allowed. Of course you have a personal opinion about other people's behavior, just as they have opinions about yours. But this forum is not the place for them. Naturally your own behavior is above reproach and it's always the other person who's being a jerk, but you're not allowed to say that. If you think someone's behavior is so egregious that it's violating forum rules, then please file a report, and the moderator team will have a look as soon as we can. If we decide that action is merited, we'll take action. If not, then we won't. Either way, you're not a moderator, so it's not your place to tell other people how they should be. If you find yourself describing a fellow forum member's behavior rather than simply addressing the content of what they post, then you're out of bounds. Please don't go there. Thank you for your understanding.
  17. Some posts have been redacted and/or removed. Folks, it's fine to disagree with what people say, but please don't make it about the people themselves. Rebut arguments, by all means, but please don't make it personal. Thank you for your understanding.
  18. Some content has been removed. Please try to stay on-topic, folks. The topic of this thread is: the re-entry heating feature and how the company is handling it. The topic of this thread is not: what you think of how other people choose to post, either here in the KSP forums or elsewhere Thank you for your understanding.
  19. Some content has been removed. Please try to stay on topic.
  20. Some content has been redacted and/or removed. Let's not make things personal, folks.
  21. @Corporalsimmons, as you can see from the preceding exchange, the answer to your question why basically boils down to "because there is substantial contention between the TweakScale and CKAN maintainers to which they have not been able to come to an agreement." Any further details of "why" (including "whose fault is it") is going to depend on whom you ask; both of those folks have weighed in, above, and this thread is unlikely to provide a more definitive answer than that for you. I would guess that what you really care about is "will this get resolved any time soon?", to which the answer seems to be "probably not", given the rancor already displayed here. Given how contentious the thread has become, and that it's already given you probably about as much of an answer as you're likely to get, there's not really any point to further discussion here. Accordingly, the thread is now closed, and shall remain so.
  22. Many posts have been redacted and/or removed, due to: personal remarks and accusations arguing about arguing; off-topic getting defensive about differing opinions Folks, please don't make things personal: Don't argue with opinions, but feel free to state your own. Everyone has opinions, and people are going to disagree because they like different things. It is not possible for an opinion to be "wrong" because it's merely a statement about what a person likes or doesn't, which is entirely personal to them. Arguing about opinions is as silly as getting into an argument over which flavor of ice cream is better, vanilla or chocolate. (Chocolate.) This is fine: "I disagree with your opinion, I like the opposite thing, and here's why." (Because you're just stating your own opinion.) This is not fine: "Your opinion is wrong. You're somehow bad because you have the opinion you do." (Because you're trying to judge someone else's opinion, which you have no place to do.) Arguing about statements and claims is fine... but please do so respectfully. If someone is making claims that are about objective matters rather than their own opinions about what's good or bad, that's fine to argue with. State your disagreement, and cite your evidence for it. But please don't make it personal. Address the post, not the poster. It's not your place to characterize what other people are like. Do not make personal statements. Don't make claims about other people. For example, saying "you don't understand", or calling people names like "elitist". If you do that, you're talking about the person, rather than the content of what they posted. That's a personal remark, and it's not appropriate. Basically, if you find yourself making declarative statements with "you" as the subject, you're probably getting on risky ground here. Take a step back and try re-wording your statement to avoid "you" language. Be alert to red herrings, particularly over terminology. Not everyone interprets the same words as meaning the same things. If two people have substantially different interpretations of what a word means, they can get into a bitter, flaming argument where they're just talking past each other, because neither of them have noticed this fact. Regarding that third point (about terminology): I bring that up because I think part of the current flare-up involves people talking past each other over the definition of a word. The word is micromanagement. Some people use the term to mean "any experience that requires me to tinker with detailed settings". Other people distinguish between setup time and ongoing play time: such people consider "micromanagement" only to be when you have to "baby-sit" a system on an ongoing basis, and they do not consider "detailed setup requirements" to be "micromanagement". Neither of those two groups is "right" or "wrong", they just like what they like. Which is fine. If you like complex setup, that's fine. If you prefer simple setup, that's also fine. But please don't get into a rage over a simple difference of how you or someone else likes to use the word "micromanagement"-- just state what you like and why. If you're arguing about terminology, you're probably off-topic. Good: "That's not what I mean by micromanagement." Bad: "You don't understand what 'micromanagement' means."
  • Create New...