Snark

I get that that's a thing that one can do, but alas, I have no intention of doing so. Because I'm not going to put something in my mod unless I test it. And the only way to test a CKAN version file would be to actually verify via CKAN that it's behaving as expected. And that would require installing and running CKAN, which I am unwilling to do. I don't need it, I don't use it, and the time and effort it would take for me to test and implement all that is more than I'm willing to commit, even if the version file itself is very simple. So it's a good suggestion, and thank you for that, but it's never going to happen, mainly because I'm a curmudgeon.

I've heard other people make such observations, but it's a whole other degree when you're interacting with someone on the autism spectrum. Also, bear in mind that Aspergians and other folks on the spectrum are a tiny minority of the population, which means they will always be misunderstood by the large majority. That can be... very daunting, dispiriting, and anxiety-producing. Like living in a land where nobody speaks your language, and where you can't really learn theirs. Social interactions can be a slippery wall to climb, in such a situation.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I don't have anything to do with CKAN or its metadata-- all I do is, when a new version of KSP comes out, I tell SpaceDock (where I host my mods) that "this mod is compatible with <latest version>". Since it's the same version of my mod that SpaceDock already knew was compatible with the previous KSP version, then you'd think that SpaceDock would have all the info it needs to be able to do the right thing when it does whatever-it-does to communicate to CKAN. Apparently it's not doing that. Since I'm not involved with CKAN at all and don't have the time or the inclination to tinker with it, it's all opaque to me. This seems like an issue with SpaceDock's CKAN integration.

Hi folks, Various content in this thread has been redacted and/or removed due to excessive acrimony, which escalated to the point of people making personal remarks, which is never okay. Please remember that we're all friends here. It's fine to have a lively discussion and sharing of differing opinions about things-- that's the whole point of this thread, after all. Just... don't make it personal. Address the post, not the poster. And please don't take it as a personal attack when someone happens to like something different from you. I can't believe I actually need to come right out and say this, but apparently enough folks have forgotten that the point needs to be made explicitly: Different people like different things. And that's okay. Look, KSP is a very "flexible" game. You can use it in all sorts of different ways to achieve different sorts of purposes. That's a good thing-- it attracts all sorts of people to the game and is a big part of what makes it as popular as it is. But that also means that what you like about it is likely to be very different from what other folks like. And this thread does a pretty good job of bringing those differences to light. (Which, personally, I think is a good thing: otherwise it's easy for me to forget that other people enjoy the game in very different ways than I do.) So, to be clear, all of the following are perfectly okay to say, and it would be silly for anyone to get angry or annoyed at any of them: "I like <thing>." Extra bonus points: "...because <reasons>." "I don't like <thing that you like>. I like <other thing> instead." Extra bonus points: "...because <other reasons>." "I'm surprised you like <thing I don't>. Why is that?" And of course, it would be silly and pointless for you to call someone else's opinion "wrong", or to try to persuade anyone to change their opinion to yours. Opinions are just a matter of what a person likes; and as such, they're a matter of emotional preference, and aren't "rational" per se. Arguing about whose opinion is better would be as silly as arguing over which ice cream flavor is better, vanilla or chocolate. (Chocolate.) So... feel free to talk about your likes and dislikes here, and how you voted and why. But please don't stoop to ridiculing other people for liking different things. Aside from steering clear of personal remarks, two other things have popped up in this thread that you should avoid: Please avoid making contentless posts. Simply quoting yourself (or someone else) without adding any comments doesn't really add anything to the discussion. Please don't try to tell other people what to do or what not to do. You're not a moderator, so it's not your place to do so. If you think someone is breaking rules, then by all means report the post and the moderators will have a look at it in due course. But please don't try to enforce anything yourself; it doesn't help and just leads to bickering and fights. Thank you for your understanding. Play nice, okay?

Hello @DIDjeiROK, and welcome to the forums! I've taken the liberty of supplying an approximate translation of your question, above. Glad to hear it sounds like you have a solution? Just so you know: The KSP forum requires that all posts be in English, in most places. If you'd like to post in Russian, though, there is a Russian sub-forum where you can do so. Welcome to KSP! Привет, DIDjeiROK, и добро пожаловать на форумы! Выше я привел примерный перевод вашего вопроса. Рад слышать, что это звучит так, будто у вас есть ответ на вашу проблему? Просто чтобы вы знали: форум KSP требует, чтобы все сообщения были на английском языке в большинстве мест. Однако, если вы хотите публиковать сообщения на русском языке, есть русский подфорум, где вы можете это сделать. Добро пожаловать в KSP!

Well, first and foremost, of course, the important thing to bear in mind is that nobody here is going to be in a position to "diagnose" someone. We could make some educated guesses... though if we do, it's important to remember that, 1. we're just speculating and could easily be wrong, and 2. this is a person who is just as deserving of respect as anyone else, so I hope we treat the matter accordingly. It's also worth noting, I think, that "people are different" and just because someone's wired a bit differently doesn't necessarily mean they're "ill" or that that there's something "wrong" with them. So I hope we won't be too hasty to rush to judgment. That said, ...this was kinda my first thought, as well. I've never known anyone with Tourette's, personally, but from what I've heard, it's seriously un-fun to have, and there's really nothing they can do about it, so if that is the case, all you can do is respect them by not focusing on it. Same as it would be impolite to stare at someone who has a prominent birthmark on their face. Asperger syndrome (or other autism-spectrum conditions), I wouldn't call an "illness"-- there's nothing "wrong" with such people, they're just wired differently from neurotypicals and deal with the world in different fashion. Again, though-- we don't actually know that this person has either of these conditions, so best not to leap to conclusions. This right here is extremely typical of people on the autism spectrum, such as folks with Asperger's. (Which we still don't know that this guy has, but it's not out of the question.) "Blindness to social cues" is the key to the condition. This is not a failing on their part, it's not deliberate, and they're not "less" than other people; but they tend not to pick up on nonverbal cues. This tends to lead to misunderstandings, because neurotypicals (i.e. most people) think these signs are obvious and tend to leap to the conclusion that the person must be deliberately ignoring them, which makes them mad. And the Aspergian doesn't realize that the signals are even there, and wonders why people are suddenly so rude for no reason. A not-uncommon type of situation that Aspergians find themselves in, described in spoiler. For the most part, "just take it in stride" would be my advice. Presumably he is the way he is because he likely can't help it. If he does this kind of thing routinely, I wouldn't be surprised if he is on the receiving end of social ostracism, which I could easily imagine causing a lot of unhappiness and anxiety-- which, in turn, might express itself in stimulating such behavior. So "just cope and don't make a big deal of it" would be my suggestion. If he is on the autism spectrum-- which we don't know, but it seems possible-- then one concrete thing you could do that would help both of you is to be very verbally explicit. Folks on the autism spectrum tend to miss nonverbal cues, and they tend to interpret what you say very literally. For example, if something bad happens and you say with exaggerated sarcasm "Oh, great!" ... they might think you're expressing approval, since being "great" is a good thing, right? So, just be very literal, and say things in literal words. If he's annoying you about something, just come right out and say "I really don't feel like talking about that, it bothers me." ...which it sounds like you did do on this occasion, which seems reasonable. In this case it didn't work, alas. But that's basically all you can do, I think. (I wouldn't be surprised if he was honestly completely clueless about how socially inappropriate the subject matter was-- he may have just been lonely and was trying to be friendly. "Hm, to get someone to want to be your friend, you need to share interesting topics with them. Hey, I have a good story!" I could be totally misreading that, but I wouldn't be surprised if it may be the case.)

The differential is also important, but it serves a complementary purpose. The vehicle's wheels come in pairs (on the left and right side). When the vehicle is traveling in a straight line, the left and right wheels spin at the same rate. However, when the vehicle turns, the left and right wheels need to spin at different speeds-- the wheel on the outside of the turn needs to rotate more than the wheel on the inside of the turn, since it travels farther. To get "correct steering", where no wheels end up "skidding" on the ground, therefore, it's necessary that each wheel be rotating at the correct speed, and pointing in the correct direction. Ackermann steering is what allows the wheels to all be pointing in the correct direction The differential is what allows each wheel to rotate at the correct speed.

How about this? Extremely detailed, well written tutorial with illustrations and so forth. My own observations, boiled down to a few easy bullet points: Propellers work better if you have short blades on a wide hub. Use the wide-hub version of rotors, not the narrow-hub, it makes a huge difference. And I find that the props work better if the blade length is smaller relative to the hub diameter-- for example, I get excellent results with the "fan blades" instead of "propeller blades", because they are shorter relative to their amount of lift. Propellers need different blade pitch at different speeds. The faster the aircraft goes, the steeper the blade pitch needs to be. You don't need to muck with this if you just want a very basic aircraft that flies at fairly low speeds, but if you're wondering "why won't my plane go faster than 100 m/s" or the like, this is why.

This is deliberate, designed behavior in order to achieve correct steering. It was introduced in KSP 1.1. From the release notes for 1.1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ackermann_steering_geometry

It's not a dumb idea. And, surprising though this might be, you're not the first to think of this. In fact, they used to do this. Back in the day, there was a while where Squad actually did have what amounted to an open beta, and pretty much anyone who wanted to could join in. However... it turned out not to work as well as you might think, and eventually they scrapped it and moved to closed, private betas. This is one of those ideas that sounds great "on paper" but turns out to be more problematic than you might think, in practice. Lengthy explanation below, but the TL;DR is that such a program generates huge amounts of low-quality, non-actionable noise for the developers to wade through, to the point that the costs may outweigh the benefits. The details: The problem is that when you throw the doors wide open like that, the quantity of bug reports goes way up... but the quality goes through the floor. The average player, no matter how well-intentioned, is simply not a very good bug reporter. QA is a skill, and part of that skill lies not just in what you test and how much testing you do, but also how you report and document it. Things that a good bug report should entail, which the average player isn't necessarily aware of, and/or diligent enough to be willing to do, and/or know how to do effectively: Makes a reasonable effort to check in the bug database whether it's already reported (duplicate bug reports don't help and waste people's time) Does the footwork beforehand to document what are the reproduction steps Is conscientious about the installation, e.g. you don't have random mods and what-not cluttering up your execution environment Is meticulous about documenting the environment, e.g. which build you're on, what OS, etc. ...And so forth. What happens with an open beta is that you get tons of people who contribute quickie "Hey it broke when I did <thing>" bug reports, often without enough information to be useful, often duplicating existing bug reports. The signal-to-noise ratio is really low. Yes, you'll get a few users out there who contribute good, actionable bug reports... but their useful signal gets drowned out amidst thousands of fluff reports. Every such bug report is a time sink for the people making the game. There are a finite number of professional QA people and a finite number of developers, and each such bug report is going to have an impact. Some QA person is going to have to spend time reading it, and scratching their head, and trying to figure out what the person meant, and trying to confirm it themselves, before passing it along to a developer to fix. That's time that they can't spend working on high-quality, actionable bug reports themselves. Therefore, what can work better is a limited-scope, closed beta, where there will be a lot fewer people testing than if you threw the door open to thousands... but the quality will be much higher, and the reports they produce will be much more likely to be actionable and therefore not waste people's time. Aside from all that, taking your above points in order: Except that "identifying" bugs doesn't help unless they're actionable and have repro steps that allow a developer to confirm what's going on. In practice, this turns out to be a con, not a pro, because then you have to wade through all the stuff they churn out, much of which isn't very helpful. It turns out that it's more valuable to get the right people on board, not more people. How is this a pro? You'll "understand" it when it comes out, yes? And they can always offer sneak peeks ahead of time, as they've done in the various "KSP Loading..." posts. It can also generate confusion, because in the process of testing, sometimes they need to change how things work based on feedback and so forth. If you open it all up to the public before everything has gelled pretty hard, it generates a lot of noise for the players. This is very much an issue for a lot of software developers. Also, aside from "secrecy" per se, there's also the "generate confusion and noise for the players if details get out that get changed later" that I mention above. With a closed beta, you can have the testers sign NDAs so you're protected from this. This is actually not really a con. Steam has built-in functionality to let game developers do exactly this, it has "betas" built in as a feature in the platform and includes the ability for the publisher to make it open or require a key to get in. So this turns out not really to be an issue. This is the big one-- the "drowning in too much well-meaning but non-actionable input" problem that I describe above.

No worries... anyone can miss a spot. Since I've literally made the exact same mistake myself (missing a relevant bit from someone's OP) within the last couple of days, I'm hardly in any position to cast stones... Anyway, glad you've got what you need.

Hello, and welcome to the forums! Because they're redundant, if this mod is installed. I dislike clutter, so fewer parts = better. As I mentioned in the OP, Again... see the OP. I made a specific point of preserving the textures; here's how you can still get them: IKR? If only someone could have foreseen that someone such as yourself might want the parts back. If only someone could have taken the trouble to answer exactly this question in (wait for it...) ...the OP. Anyway, yeah: most of the textures are still available as variants, or you can just undo the whole "remove redundant parts" thing by deleting that one file as I mention. So hopefully you should be good to go? Thank you! I'm glad you've enjoyed it.

Could you post a screenshot of your ships about to dock? We really need to see what's going on to be able to offer advice. How fast are your ships moving relative to each other when you're trying to dock?

Moving to Kerbal Network, since this is a question about the forum rather than about KSP itself. Welcome aboard! Looks like you've already gotten the hang of it (seeing another post you recently made). You can just click the "Quote" link at the bottom of someone's post, if you want to respond specifically to that post and quote them. Or, if their post is pretty long and you only want to quote part of it, you can just click-drag to highlight the part you want to quote, and it'll pop up a little "quote" button there. If you click that one, it'll do the quote thing, but only of the part you highlighted.

If you're running KSP 1.10.x, you should run MissingHistory 1.9. (It contains a small bug due to two extra files that I accidentally released. That's easily dealt with, just delete those two files, or else just don't try to use the color variants that they try to add.) If you're running KSP 1.11 or later, you should run MissingHistory 1.9.1 or later.

MissingHistory 1.9 should be compatible with KSP 1.10.1. The only issue I'm aware of is that I accidentally released those two files in 1.9, for a couple of color variants on the size 4 tanks & cones that don't quite work. So, if you're running KSP 1.10.1, you should be able to use MissingHistory 1.9 just fine. Just, don't use those accidentally-released color variants on the big tanks, or else delete the accidentally-released files manually after installing MissingHistory 1.9, as I describe above.

Moving to Technical Support.

Note that Missing History 1.9 should work just fine for you in KSP 1.10... just don't use the new orange variant for the size 4 parts, is all. Or you can manually fix your MissingHistory 1.9 installation by just deleting the errant files that I accidentally released, which are located in GameData\MissingHistory\rescaled: Size4Cone.cfg Size4Tank_04.cfg ...Doing that will allow you to get the benefit of having the new Stowaway pod without having to update to KSP 1.11 if you choose not to.

Hi everyone, Well, it's only been a few hours, but here's MissingHistory v1.9.1, also known as the "Snark Is A Silly Fumblethumbs Who's Horrible At Remembering Which Darn Files To Release" edition. This update does various things, notably takes advantage of the new cargo feature in KSP 1.11. So it won't work in versions 1.10 and older. Notable changes: Update the Palici pod and Stowaway crew container to have cargo inventory slots, like other crewed parts in KSP 1.11. Introduce the SEQ-15 Cargo Storage Unit, a 1.875m storage container that fits nicely in between the SEQ-9 and SEQ-24. BUGFIX: in v1.9, I accidentally included some files I didn't mean to. These have been removed. Oops. Very sorry about that. Here's the new cargo storage unit: As you can see, this is another one of the "just rescale an existing stock model" parts that MissingHistory excels scrapes by with. (So the sharp-eyed will notice that it has a "SEQ24" label painted on the side. Please pay no attention, it is merely a demonstration of the shamefully inadequate quality control in KSC's painting shops. Wernher should really learn not to mumble when issuing instructions.) The errant files that I accidentally released in 1.9 (oops!) were my experimental attempts at providing an orange color variant for the size 4 fuel tanks and nosecone. I could never get it to work, so please, if you downloaded 1.9, do not use those variants. I've deleted them from 1.9.1 and have taken steps to ensure that they won't accidentally sneak in again. I'm very sorry for the inconvenience. Anyway, enjoy the update!

Yes, I'd assume it's 1.10.x compatible. (I don't do anything with the CKAN integration beyond literally just checking the checkbox in SpaceDock when I first publish a mod. After that, it's SpaceDock running the show.)

Hi gang, I am delighted to announce the release of MissingHistory v1.9, now featuring the PPD-7 "Stowaway" Storage Container: a 1.875m crew cabin that seats three kerbals. Thank you to @JadeOfMaar for providing the new part! [EDIT] Note, I found a bug that slipped in, see below. I recommend skipping this version and updating to MissingHistory 1.9.1 or later. Here you see an example of the new crew cabin in conjunction with a Palici pod, comprising a 5-kerbal space station suitable for many space station contracts. (Well, except for not having an antenna, which I forgot to put on. Pick me no nits.) (The sharper-eyed among you may notice that the new part's IVA has... ahem... an additional, empty seat in there. That's because, as of yet, we don't actually have a custom IVA for this part, so as a stopgap measure, it's re-using the Hitchhiker's IVA, just scaled down. It works, but isn't perfect, and will have to do until a real IVA comes along.) Thanks again to @JadeOfMaar for this great work! Enjoy, everyone. [EDIT] Sorry folks, but it looks like I accidentally released some files in MissingHistory 1.9 that I didn't mean to. These files are my experimental (but failed) attempt to add an orange variant to the size-4 nosecone and fuel tanks. They don't work, and I'm deleting them from future releases (see my announcement of the v1.9.1 release below), so please do not use those variants if you're still running MissingHistory 1.9. I recommend updating to 1.9.1. I'm sorry for the inconvenience.

Moving to Gameplay Questions. So, from looking at this, it appears to me that what's happened is that while you were in the VAB, you must have inadvertently set the angle limits on the hinge to a narrow range (e.g. 90 to 93 degrees). That angle range is settable in the editor, but not in flight-- meaning that yeah, you're basically hosed now that you're in space. About the only thing I could think of to try would be to cheat it by manually hacking the game file... but be very careful if you do, it's easy to mess something up and corrupt the file. If you were to attempt manually hacking it, I'd advise something like this: Exit your game. Copy your file persistent.sfs to some other file name, like hacked.sfs. Open hacked.sfs in a text editor like Notepad. Find all the places where the error occurs (for example, search for "93". Edit it to the desired angle range instead of 90 to 93. Save the text file, then load hacked.sfs in KSP and see if it works. Again, be really careful if you do that. Honestly it might be better just to deorbit and re-launch for safety.

Interesting, thanks for the heads up! Alas, I'm not a ReStock user myself and don't have even the foggiest notion of how to make it all work together, so this one's going to stay unfixed until-and-unless someone hands me the solution on a platter. I'm sorry I couldn't be of more help.

When you enter atmosphere, two things happen: You start to heat up You start to slow down The problem is that in the upper, very thin reaches of the atmosphere, the amount of heating goes up by a lot before there's any significant drag. You need to get farther down so that you lose speed more quickly. Stay up in the upper reaches and you'll slow-roast yourself while losing practically no speed.

True... though I find that I can generally always mitigate this with appropriate setup on whatever pitch-control surface I have at the back of the plane (e.g. AV-R8 winglet elevators if I've got a traditional airplane-style tail in the back, or large ailerons if I've got a shuttle-style delta wing). Just set them so that they deflect upwards when deployed, and set the deploy angle as high as it will go, and set their "toggle deploy" action to an action group. That way, when I'm re-entering, just toggle them and they muscle the nose right up. I've basically never had a plane that couldn't nose-up enough if I did this.