Snark

Moving to Mission Reports.

Doesn't the tracking station list all your ships in chronological order of launch date?

Moving to Technical Support.

Some content has been removed. Folks, a gentle reminder to please leave politics out of the forums. This includes any comments supporting or denigrating particular countries. That's not to say that such things aren't valid topics of conversation for people, just that the KSP forums are not the place for it. If you'd like to discuss that sort of thing, please do it elsewhere. Thank you.

Some content has been removed. For the third time, please avoid politics, folks. Do not post political content, and if someone else does, do not respond to it. Thank you for your understanding.

Moving to C# Plugin Development Help and Support, which specializes in this sort of thing.

Hello, and welcome back! Moving to Add-on Discussions, since this is about modding.

Some content has been redacted and/or removed. A gentle reminder, folks: Please try to stay on-topic. The topic of this thread is the ID Flags and Decals mod. If you're posting about that, great. If you're primarily posting about anything else, then you're wandering away from the topic, so please try to limit such discussions. Please do not tell anyone what to do or what not to do; it's nobody's place to do that. Please do not level public accusations or make other personal remarks. If anyone sees behavior that they are concerned about, feel free to approach the moderator team privately. You can report a post if you think it's problematic, and we'll have a look (though we can't guarantee that we'll take action, and you won't get feedback from us about our decisions). Or, if you feel that you need to discuss something with us, feel free to send a forum PM to any member of the moderator team. Beyond that, though, please don't try to "raise concerns" about individual posts publicly. Thank you for your understanding. [EDIT] Some additional content has been removed. Highlighting the first point above, since apparently it wasn't visible enough.

It's great to see enthusiasm. Just a friendly reminder, though, about forum rule 2.2.m: If folks have thoughts about this topic, feel free to post them-- but please don't just make posts for the sake of "bumping" the thread and getting extra visibility for it. It's great that people are excited for their ideas, but if everyone did that, forum threads would just be noisy gotta-get-to-the-top-of-the-page races (which is why the rule is there). Thank you for your understanding.

Well, that's not a bad guess, but we don't actually know without clarification, thus my question. And it would be impossible to deal with any sort of generality like that-- would need to see an actual example.

Hard to say without knowing something more specific. Are you saying that you have a bookmark that used to work, and now when you get there it says "no such thread"? Or are you just typing stuff in the search box and not finding it? If it's the latter, that doesn't necessarily mean that the thread is "missing"-- it could just be that you don't have the keywords quite right. Also, my observation has been that the forum's "search" function isn't super robust and it can often be difficult to find what one is looking for. This seems pretty unlikely to me. Note that the author of a thread doesn't have the ability to delete it. The only people who can remove threads are moderators, and we rarely do that, and basically never to mod threads (generally this only happens to spammer threads, or really toxic threads that were on forbidden topics from the get-go, that sort of thing). There have been a (very) few cases where some modder got unhappy for whatever reason and left the forum, and chose to make their threads difficult to locate afterwards (e.g. editing the subject and OP of their thread to just be a dash or something). That's pretty rare, though-- there haven't been many cases of that. (And no, we're not going to discuss specifics about who did that to which mods, out of respect for people's privacy; nor would it be appropriate to speculate on motives or anything else. So please don't ask.)

Hi all, I'm pleased to announce the release of PlanetInfoPlus v1.4. New in this release is a "biomes explored" field in the "gameplay" section, like this: This field indicates how many of the body's biomes you've "explored". In this context, a biome is deemed "explored" if you've returned science from its surface (or, in the case of bodies with an atmosphere, while flying at low altitude). Some notes about this feature: Since it involves science, it's not available in sandbox games; the field won't appear. It won't be displayed unless the body has biomes. If the body hasn't been explored at all, then the field won't show up, either. I've picked "landed, splashed, or low flight" as the viable experiment situations to count as "exploring" a biome. But if you don't like that and would like to tweak it, there's a config setting for that. Thank you to @goldenpeach for helping with French localization of the new feature. The other change to this release is that I've made some tweaks to improve performance, specifically to reduce or remove the "stutter" that @eightiesboi recently reported. Thanks for the bug report. Enjoy!

Some content has been removed. Please do not post political content, even in jest. Thank you.

Various content has been redacted and/or removed. Please do not post any of the following: Any even remotely political content. This includes, for example, any discussion of who did what, or why. Yes, this is a very broad definition, with good reason. This includes linking to political content. Any content that is not in English. There's an international subforum for content in other languages. Here, only English is allowed. This includes linking to content that's not in English, such as videos and Twitter posts. If you want to talk about the destruction of the plane itself, that's fine. Discuss the damage patterns, which parts were or weren't damaged and how much, fine. Your hopes that another one will be built someday, your fond reminiscences of seeing it (or regrets of not having seen it), a discussion of the economics of very large aircraft, all of that kind of stuff is fine. But as soon as you touch on the reasons for what happened, or who did it, or why, then you are immediately on very thin ice. So please don't go there. We understand that's difficult, in a situation like this, but please try; the only other alternative would be to simply close the topic altogether. There are good reasons, based on years of experience, why that sort of thing can't be discussed here in the KSP forums. Thank you for your understanding.

More content has been removed. To be clear, when we say "please don't discuss political topics", that also includes links to articles discussing political topics. Also, please don't link to foreign-language articles without providing English translations. Thank you for your understanding.

Moving to Add-on Discussions, since this is a question about a mod.

If docking is your issue, you might find this to be helpful:

Some content has been redacted and/or removed. Another gentle reminder folks, please do not discuss political matters on the forums. It's fine to talk in simple technical terms about who's launching what, or who plans to launch (or not launch) what. Please avoid discussions of the political reasons why that might be the case. This includes, for example, speculation (or quotes from officials) about who is hostile to whom, etc.

Thank you, that's a reasonable suggestion. And your observation is accurate. Nope, it doesn't. I actually thought of that, but decided against it. Main thing is that the info box is very small, and real estate is at a premium. I like to avoid clutter, and I've tried to focus on providing only information that isn't otherwise available elsewhere. Inclination is one of those things that you can get just from eyeballing the planetarium view--it's graphically displayed. Not an exact degree number, sure, but in my own gameplay, I've never found myself needing to know that a particular planet is inclined 11 degrees versus 12 degrees.

Thank you, that's very helpful. From looking at your KSP.log, you're seeing essentially the same sequence of events that I am in my own game, which means that I now know that I can reproduce the situation, which is the main thing I need to address the matter. (I've got a fairly simple change in mind that I effect should eliminate, or at least ameliorate, the issue-- in particular, would get rid of it entirely from the flight scene and tracking station, and hopefully make it less likely and/or intrusive in the KSC. Will include that with the next release.) Thank you for reporting the issue!

This is AtomicTech's thread, so it's up to @AtomicTech to update it if they want to. If someone else wants to take over maintaining a release or development thread for the mod, they can spin up a thread of their own. Just make sure to follow licensing guidelines, please. (This includes not only following the forum rules about it per the add-on posting guidelines, but also ensuring that it's complying with the licenses of anyone else's work included in the mod.) I'm sorry I couldn't be of more help, here-- please feel free to reach out to me (or anyone on the moderator team) if you have any questions.

Hi folks-- just a gentle reminder that download links for mods need to follow the add-on posting rules. In particular, please pay careful attention to the requirements of licensing: @Random-E, sorry that we had to snip your link. Welcome to the forums, hope you have fun here!

Some content has been removed. Please try to stay on topic, folks. Thank you for your understanding.

Hmm, interesting. No, it doesn't currently support anything like that. On the other hand, I don't think it would be difficult to make it support that sort of thing, as long as it's something from static config and not a dynamic run-time connection. (Basically, allow it to read info from config files, and then you could use ModuleManager to patch in your own stuff.) This seems like potentially a very powerful feature that could make PlanetInfoPlus useful to third-party mods that want to share their stuff. No promises, but it seems like something that may be worth adding. I shall think on this. Hm, okay. I'd be interested to hear the details, and why you'd need to bundle PlanetInfoPlus rather than just allow users to install it alongside (in my experience, the former is easy to cause headaches for all concerned, and the latter is usually preferable)-- I don't know your use case so am not in a position to judge. If there's some simple feature I could add (such as custom text as described above) that would make the mod flexible enough that people wouldn't need to bundle it or fork it, I'd be interested in learning more about the details. Not like what you're observing-- you're seeing something else. What it looks like when it calculates max elevation is this: When going to KSC view (either on initial game load when starting a new session, or when you're just switching around), it will take up to 4 seconds to do precalculations of any bodies that haven't been precalculated yet. It only does this if all the bodies haven't yet been calculated-- after that point, it never does it again. (Should only happen a total of two or three times in a game, unless you're playing a mod that has a lot of planets. For example, I'm currently playing with New Horizons, with a total of 32 solid bodies in the solar system, and total calculation time for all bodies is only around 10 seconds.) When focusing on a planet in the planetarium view (either in the tracking station, or in map view during flight), it will pause for up to a second or so to calculate that planet, if it hasn't already been pre-calculated before. (Hopefully this should be relatively rare-- in the large majority of cases, I expect it will have been pre-calculated. I put a fair amount of effort into trying to prioritize pre-calculation of the bodies the player is most likely to look at first.) That's absolutely not normal or intentional-- clearly the mod is behaving in a way that I did not expect or intend. There's absolutely no reason why the mod should need to do this. This is clearly a bug; thank you for calling it to my attention, I'll need to dig into it some more. (To be clear, the mod goes strenuously out of its way never to recalculate anything ever. Planets don't change. The calculation is computationally expensive, so I go out of my way to do the calculation only once, ever, and then remember that value so that it never has to be calculated again. What's supposed to happen is that the game reads the previously calculated values from your savefile, once, at game load time. What you're observing is that it's frequently loading them and re-loading them every 2-4 minutes, which seems stark raving silly to me and I don't know why it would do that. The stuttering is almost certainly because it's re-reading the savefile or something to do so; it's a "pause for disk activity" sort of lag.) Anyway, I don't expect that reverting to 1.3 would fix the problem for you. This behavior has been around since 1.1 and hasn't changed since then. (It may conceivably have gotten slightly more noticeable with 1.3.1, as it's now reading slightly more data than it used to, but the basic semantics haven't changed since I added "max elevation" as a feature in 1.1.) Again, thank you for calling my attention to it, and I shall dig into it more. I'll get to the bottom of it and fix it. Technobabble about implementation details in spoiler, in case there are any C# modders out there who are interested, and/or may already know what dumb thing I'm doing and can point me in the right direction to save me debugging time. I'll get it figured out on my own, but any tips would certainly make it go faster!

Lots of content removed, due to getting side-tracked into politics. Folks, we understand that this is a fraught topic, given events going on these days. But please remember that politics are out of bounds for the forums. Yes, it can be difficult to avoid politics when discussing any particular nation's space program, since space programs are heavily government-funded and government-directed, and those funds and directions are typically politically motivated. However, be that as it may, please avoid the political side of things as much as possible. For example, it's generally okay to state that such-and-such mission was launched, or this is what the status is, or that sort of thing; that's not politics per se. But if you get into why that was done, you are on pretty thin ice-- e.g. asserting that it's a decision based on <something political>, that's over the line. Arguing about the involvement of the military, national ambitions, which politicians are likely to do what in response to what other actions; politics, too. Let's please try to be careful, okay? Thank you for your understanding.