Snark

What it does Adds additional information to the "planet info" pane of the KSP planetarium. User can choose which parameters are displayed, via game settings. Config file allows customizing numeric formats. Works in modded solar systems. (That's why I wrote it, actually.) Localized in English and French. Download from SpaceDock License: CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 Source code How to install Unzip the contents of "GameData" to your GameData folder, same as with most mods. Why would anyone want this? I've always liked the planet info display in the planetarium (in the tracking station, or in map view during flight). However, it's never felt quite right to me-- it's missing some bits of information that I find important, while "wasting" valuable screen real estate for some parameters that don't really have any practical in-game use. This mod addresses that. Here's what it does to the planet information displayed: Hides mass, area, and gravitational parameter (GM). Indicates whether the atmosphere contains oxygen. Indicates whether the rotation period is tidally locked. Indicates whether the rotation is retrograde. Shows the maximum surface elevation. Shows the orbital period. Shows the orbital semimajor axis. (off by default, can turn on via options) Shows the altitude of a synchronous orbit (or "n/a" if not possible). Shows the height of the upper atmosphere boundary. Shows the height of the high / low space boundary. Shows the number of biomes present. Shows the number of biomes that have been explored. Shows the current exploration status overall (i.e. have you achieved orbit? landed? etc.) In-game settings The default behavior is tweaked to be the way that I, personally, like it, since it's my mod. However, I realize that not everyone necessarily has the same preferences I do, so you can tweak it as you like via the game settings dialog. Default settings are shown above. Note that if you like showing the info I've removed (area, mass, gravitational parameter), you can turn them back on. Configuration file But wait, there's more! You can also customize the colors used for the text, as well as the numeric formats used for showing the information and some other behavior as well. You can do this via a configuration file, PlanetInfoPlus.cfg, which you will find in the mod's folder. Debug console From the Alt+F12 debug menu, type /pip to see a list of available console commands. Currently, the most interesting/useful one is probably /pip dump, which will cause the program to dump its planetary "max elevation" data (altitude, latitude, longitude) to a text file, named PlanetInfoPlusDump.cfg, located in the same folder as the mod. FAQ Q: Does this work on modded solar systems? What if I rescaled the solar system? A: It "just works". The mod dynamically calculates everything at runtime; nothing's hard-coded, it uses whatever you've got set up. Q: Could you add <feature>? A: Maybe! If you've got an idea, let's hear it! Please post in the thread, here. No promises, but I'll certainly read and think about it. Q: Hey! I noticed that your mod says the highest point on Kerbin is 6769 m, but I read somewhere that it's 6768 m instead! Your mod is bad and you should feel bad. A: Scanning for max elevation is imprecise, based on doing a bunch of samples of the surface. The only way to be perfectly accurate would be to take an infinite number of samples. Since my mod isn't necessarily using the exact same number or arrangement of samples as whoever wrote the other number you read, it might differ by a meter or two. Q: I'm playing a sandbox game, and I don't see the "biomes explored" field. What gives? A: The mod defines a biome as "explored" if the player has retrieved science from the surface (or flying low, if it has an atmosphere). Games where science isn't a thing (i.e. sandbox) therefore don't have this feature. Acknowledgments Thanks to @Poodmund for pointing me at a handy algorithm for finding max elevation on a planet. Thanks to @flart for bug reports and feature suggestions. Thanks to @R-T-B for feature suggestions and Kopernicus compatibility work. Thanks to @vinix and @goldenpeach for graciously supplying French localization.

Lots of content has been redacted and/or removed, involving a wide variety of forum users, due to one or more of the following: off-topic personal remarks, insults arguing about arguing accusations Folks, please don't do that sort of thing. It's against the rules, and it makes the forum a less pleasant place for everyone. Since it appears that a fair number of folks could use a refresher, here are some helpful tips: The following things are absolutely okay and permitted for people to do: Expressing an opinion. Yes, even if it's different from yours. Yes, even if it's different from all your friends'. Disagreeing with a previous post by someone else. If someone is doing one of the above things, and you have a problem with it, then the problem is yours, not theirs. The following things are not okay, so don't do them: Personal remarks and insults. If you have to resort to name-calling and finger-pointing to make your point, then you really don't have a point, now, do you? Please don't do this to other people. If someone else does it to you, then you can report it (please do!) or ignore it, but please don't respond in kind. Accusations or speculation about other people's motives or intentions. At all. Ever. No matter how sure you are that you're right. Even if you actually are right. If you think someone is behaving so egregiously that they're violating forum rules, then by all means file a report and the moderators will have a look. It is never okay, however, regardless of perceived provocation, to make such accusations publicly. It's not your place to do so. Please don't do it. Some examples of accusations include calling someone a troll, or saying that they're lying. Going off-topic into irrelevant side issues. This one's a bit of a gray area. Nobody minds much if you touch tangentially on another topic now and then. But if a post veers completely off-topic, e.g. "what is the definition of the word 'mockup'," for multiple posts going back and forth? Pretty good sign that the discussion doesn't belong in the thread. Arguing about arguing. This is a special case of being off-topic. Please address a person's substantive points, rather than arguing about whether they're reasonable or not. Not everyone is going to like everyone else. If someone annoys you, that's your lookout; there are many ways to deal with this. For example, you may choose to simply ignore the person, or you may choose to respond to their substantive points with substantive points of your own. Lashing out angrily, however, never solves anything, doesn't win arguments, and gets in the way of people who just want to read about the thread's topic. So please don't do it. It's generally never a good idea to post while angry; it rarely produces good results. OK, unlocking the thread. I trust we can all comport ourselves like civil adults? Thank you for your understanding.

Hi all, Just a note that I've released IndicatorLights v1.8.2. No new features, just a fix for the HG-5 antenna. Thanks to @MinchinWeb for spotting the problem, and to @zer0Kerbal for supplying a fix! (Minor note to zer0Kerbal: thank you for the suggested update, but it didn't work for me-- looks like the devs rotated the model, or something. I've included a fix that repositions the indicator so that it ends up on the same spot of the new model as the old one did.) Enjoy!

Looks great! This is pretty minor, but that pointy 0.625m section you've got up there on the nose, ...I'd suggest getting rid of it. Given the way KSP aerodynamics work, I believe that it accomplishes nothing but adding some drag. (Hopefully a fairly small amount of drag, since it's only 0.625m and has a pointy front, but it will be non-zero, and getting rid of it would eliminate that smidgen.)

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to accomplish? Would be helpful if you could state what you're trying to do. e.g. "I want to create a mod that will <do thing> using Kopernicus". In general, one of the best ways to figure out how to accomplish something is to look at another mod that's already doing that thing-- then you can see what the config looks like. To take just one example: one very popular solar-system mod is Galileo's Planet Pack: This is a mod that replaces all the bodies in the Kerbin system with new bodies of its own. Kerbin, Duna, Eve, all the rest-- all gone. New planets and moons in their place. If what you're trying to do is write a mod that replaces all of the stock bodies with new bodies of your own, then I expect that looking at the Galileo's Planet Pack configs (or those of any other planet pack that does similar things) would likely be highly educational. If that's not quite what you're trying to do, could you explain a bit?

Really good questions! Some good answers from HebaruSan, above. Many of these are worth discussing in more depth; but as Gargamel mentions, this thread's not really the right place to go into details. I'd suggest posting these questions over in the modding section of the forums, if you'd like to get into more detail and hear various people's perspectives. Add-on Discussions is a good place to start.

Moving to Science & Spaceflight, since this is about IRL spaceflight rather than KSP. (Though you could verify this issue yourself in KSP, if you wanted to, by trying some landings on the Mun, on rugged terrain, and see the difference it makes in terms of how easy it is to tip over...)

Unrelated to your specific query here, just a side comment if you're trying to build jets for maximum speed: have you experimented with finding the right AoA (angle of attack) for your wings? I won't go into details here, because it's a whole lengthy discussion in its own right, is a bit off topic from your question, and maybe you're already on top of this. But the TL;DR is that you want to give your wings just a very slight tilt, not just attach them perfectly flat (which is the default behavior in the editor). I just mention it in case it's not something you've been aware of.

Moving to Add-on Discussions, since this is a question about a mod. Though it's worth noting that if you have a question about a specific mod, the best place to ask is usually in that mod's release thread.

I don't know of any such functionality in the stock game, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a mod for that. My suggestion would be to ask about it over in Add-on Discussions.

Some content has been redacted and/or removed. Folks, let's take it down a notch, please. Please do not make any comments about anyone else's behavior. It's not your place. If you think someone is behaving unreasonably, then the best course of action is to just ignore them and don't respond. Or, if you must, you can respond-- politely-- to the substantive content of what they said, with substantive responses of your own. But please, address the post, not the poster. Their behavior is not an appropriate topic of conversation. Yes, even if it makes you angry. Please do not tell anyone what to do or what not to do. It's not your place. If you think someone's behavior is so egregious that it's actually violating forum rules, then by all means report it, and the moderator team will have a look. Beyond that, though, please don't try to boss people around. Even if they're making you angry. Name-calling, finger-pointing, personal remarks, and insulting behavior have no place in the forum. If you think you need to do that to make your point, it just means that you don't have a valid point, and you'd best refrain from posting at all. I would also suggest that it's never a good idea to post while angry. It accomplishes nothing and never ends well. If you find yourself wanting to post something while (or because) you're angry, it's better not to. Best to take a step back from the keyboard, and wait an hour or a day or however long it takes, until you've cooled off enough that you're capable of posting reasonably rather than lashing out. Thank you for your understanding.

Thank you for this! You're a scholar and a gentleperson. Can't wait to try it out! (A side note for people's general information, just because this kind of issue comes up in the modding forums from time to time, and I think it's best to be clear to avoid confusion: it's great that you touched base with @KillAshley, but the really important factor for reviving a mod in this fashion is the mod's license. One can't revive a mod unless the license permits it, regardless of what the author may say in personal communications. And if the license does permit it, then that's all that one needs; no author permission required, because that is the permission. Fortunately for us all, New Horizons is licensed CC-BY-NC-SA, which is what allows reviving it like this.)

Moving to Gameplay Questions.

Moving to Gameplay Questions.

The answer is almost certainly "no". My understanding is that all further development on KSP and its DLCs is done; the only thing that might induce another release would be some really major new gamebreaking bug problem. They've moved pretty much all resources over to work on KSP2. That said, I don't see any reason why someone couldn't produce a mod that would add this sort of sound. Perhaps someone already has? There are a lot of mods out there. Might be worth asking about it over in Add-on Discussions.

Some content has been removed. Please stay on topic, folks, and also a gentle reminder that posts need to be in legible English (per forum rule 2.3.b). Thank you for your understanding.

Thank you for the kind words, glad you like it! DefaultActionGroups only adds, it never removes. So it can't do this. However, fortunately for you, you don't need it for that, since I believe you can do that just with plain-vanilla ModuleManager syntax, with a clause like this: @MODULE[ModuleColorChanger] { -defaultActionGroup = dummy } (see relevant ModuleManager syntax guide) Does this help?

That's basically enough info to know. It's a pretty simple mod-- if it seems to work, then it does. If it weren't going to be compatible with current KSP, then it wouldn't work at all. Thanks for the info, I'll go ahead and mark it as compatible with the current version. Thank you, that's a nice suggestion. Unfortunately, it's also in the "will never, ever happen" category. Not because it's a bad idea-- it isn't-- but because I have neither the know-how to do it, the time to learn how to do it, or the bandwidth to implement it even if I knew. I've got a fair number of mods out there, but one thing they have in common is that they have virtually no UI on them. I know nothing about Unity UI programming, and it's a learning curve I simply don't have the time or the inclination for. My mods generally put a lot of design thought into "how can I make this work with no UI at all". What you see now is the fanciest I'm able to get with UI programming. The only kinds of "UI" my mods ever have is when the KSP game itself provides explicit support for them (like adding buttons to a part's menu, or providing configuration options in the settings menu). As a side note-- it's also the case that I haven't been playing with gliders myself for quite a while now, which means I'm not in the habit of using this mod myself, and therefore I'm fairly unlikely to spend more time on it at this point. If it were to break due to a KSP update and I just needed to tweak a setting and recompile or something, then I'd do that, but new feature development is pretty much off the table. That said, though, I made a point of giving this mod the MIT license, which is about as wide-open and permissive as you can get without actually making something public domain. So if anyone ever wanted to make their own fork of this and build on it, they're free to do so, with my blessing. I'm more than happy for someone to pick it up and run with it. (Note that the "with my blessing" bit is actually irrelevant-- the license says they can do so, and it's irrevocable, so they could do it whether I liked it or not. I merely add that in case anyone had qualms.)

Moving to Add-on Discussions, since this is about a mod. (Though it's worth noting that if you have a question about a particular mod, then the best place to ask is usually in that mod's forum thread under Add-on Releases, since that's where the author and the frequent users hang out.)

Moving to Add-on Discussions, since this is about a mod. (Though it's worth noting that if you have a question about a particular mod, then the best place to ask is usually in that mod's forum thread under Add-on Releases, since that's where the author and the frequent users hang out.)

@CatShift33, you may find this useful: https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Monolith If you find a green one, those have a benefit. The black ones, such as you've shown, are just decorations.

Hello, and welcome to the forums! You've come to the right place. Thanks for including the screenshot, that really helps diagnose the problem! See those two buttons at the right end of the orange bar? See how the one labeled # looks like it's "pressed in"? That's the "numeric entry" toggle. Click that button to make it pop back out, and you should be back to normal again.

Some content has been removed. Folks, let's please remember that modders put in many thankless hours to give us shiny toys for free. As such, they don't owe us anything-- rather the reverse. Accordingly, please understand that it's never appropriate to complain or make demands. If you don't like a mod, don't use it. If you choose to use it, that means all responsibility for any problems you have with it is yours, not the modder's. Yes, even if it's because of a bug in the mod. It's great to provide constructive feedback, if there's a problem you think the modder may not be aware of. Beyond that, though, please try to stay polite. Thank you for your understanding.

I don't actually know, since I haven't run it myself in a long time. The only way for me to find out would be to install it on my current KSP and see for myself, which you could do as easily as I could. This was written for KSP 1.3, which was quite a few versions ago, so I suppose it's not out of the question that it could have gotten broken in the meantime. Only way to know is to try it and see. If someone does try it out on current KSP, do me a favor and post here whether or not it works? If it does, I can update the compatibility info in the OP, and if it doesn't, maybe I could get off my duff and update it when I can.

Is it possible you're not getting enough intake air to run both the engines? I've noticed that when a multi-engine jet plane isn't getting enough intake air, the symptom is typically not that all the engines uniformly start losing thrust. Rather, it ends up starving one engine before the other-- e.g. one engine is firing at full power but the other is cutting in and out. So you end up with differential thrust and it can flip you around. If that's what's happening... bear in mind that different intakes are sensitive to relative airspeed along their axis in different ways. Those intakes you've got atop the wings really want air to be flowing into them, which they won't be getting a lot of in this orientation. Whereas, IIRC, some other intake types, like the engine "precooler", may be less sensitive to airflow velocity and might work well in this scenario. I'd suggest some experimenting to see if adding other intake types might help.