Snark

Some further content has been removed. Folks, we know that lively discussions can be frustrating, but please don't tell each other what to do or not to do. It's off-topic, it's not your place, and it never ends well, regardless of justification. It only ends up derailing threads into arguing about arguing. So please don't do that, no matter how well meant. If you see someone behaving in a fashion that you think is violating forum rules, then by all means report it so the moderator team can have a look-- but please don't try to correct others' behavior yourself, that's called "backseat moderating" and is not allowed (forum rule 3.2). Also: Please don't publicly argue with moderator decisions; it's against the rules (3.3). Naturally, nobody ever thinks that they did anything wrong, and allowing open dispute would simply lead to endless bickering thread derailments, thus the rule. That doesn't mean the moderators are always right, or that we always do a perfect job of explaining our actions; hey, we're human, too. So you're welcome to reach out, if you think we goofed or you don't understand our reasoning-- but please do so privately. We're sorry for the kerfuffle, we try to stay out of discussions unless absolutely needed. Thank you for your understanding.

Can you explain what you mean by "module switcher"?

Moving to Gameplay Questions.

Some content has been redacted and/or removed. Folks, let's keep it civil, please-- the topic of this thread is this mod, not arguing about arguing. Also, please don't presume to tell fellow forum members what to do or not to do-- it's not your place, that's called "backseat moderating" and isn't allowed. If you think someone's actually breaking forum rules, then by all means file a report so the moderator team can have a look; it's what we're for. Thank you for your understanding.

Hello, and welcome to the forums! This is just a shot in the dark, but by any chance do the mods you're running include MiniAVC.dll? If so, try deleting that and see if that fixes the problem. There's a known issue with that DLL.

Hello, and welcome to the forums! Moving to KSP Discussion, since this isn't about add-ons (mods).

Some content has been removed due to making personal remarks. Folks, let's keep it civil, please. Users' choices are up to them, and there's nothing wrong with someone expressing dismay about something they used to like not really doing it for them anymore. If you'd like to post your own reflections on your own reasons for staying or leaving, that's fine. If you'd like to commiserate, or bid farewell, or otherwise share civil thoughts, that's fine. But please don't get into the business about making personal remarks about other people's behaviors or choices-- that never ends well. Thank you for your understanding.

Here's my own "superhero origin story":

Apologies, folks, I see that I probably should have been more explicit in my earlier comments. Please drop the argument about whether JNSQ is "right" (about its balance choices or anything else), because such argument is, 1. entirely pointless, and 2. now beaten to death so much that it has seriously derailed the thread. To be clear: Concerning the author's choices: These are, of course, correct by definition, since it's the author's stuff and naturally he's designed it the way he likes. His opinion is the only one that matters, in exactly the same sense that how you choose to arrange the furniture in your home is nobody's business but yours. If you happen to be a welcoming person who invites guests to visit your home, it's not their place to criticize your interior decorating choices. If you have a suggestion for improvement: Great! Modders often welcome feedback and suggestions. Naturally, you'll make any suggestions in a friendly and polite way, without criticizing or demanding, right? (Since you're merely sharing "here's something I'd like" with someone who's giving you a free gift, and you aren't actually entitled to anything at all.) If you like the way the mod does things: Great! Then you are, of course, absolutely correct, because that's your personal opinion, about which you are the sole authority. Sounds like this is a good mod for you! If you don't like the way the mod does things: Great! Then you are, of course, absolutely correct, because that's your personal opinion, about which you are the sole authority. Sounds like this mod's probably not what you're after. That's really about all that can be said on the matter, and further discussion in that vein is taking things off topic. So, thank you to everyone for your input, that discussion is done now, let's please move on to other discussion about this mod. Thank you for your understanding.

Some content has been removed, due to violations of various forum rules: specifically, insults and personal remarks (rule 2.2.d) and masked profanity (rule 2.2.g). In addition, some "backseat moderating" has been removed-- folks, please don't tell others what to do or not to do; it's not your place. If you see someone behaving in a fashion that you believe is so egregious that it actually breaks forum rules, then by all means report it and the moderators will have a look. It's what we're for. Short of that, though, it's not your call, so kindly don't try to issue orders. In addition, we'd ask that folks take the tempers down a notch. There's no call to get angry, here. There are a few things that I'd assume are self-evidently obvious, but it appears that a refresher may be in order, so perhaps they're worth mentioning: Modders put in tons of hard work, for free, to give folks shiny toys to play with, for free, asking nothing in return. Therefore, they don't owe anybody anything. You're not entitled to anything. Period, full stop. This means if you love a mod, great. If you have suggestions for improvements, great. If you just don't like it, then don't use it, nobody's forcing you to. However, there's never a call to be insulting about any mod, ever. It's merely someone offering up free toys; if you don't like 'em, don't use 'em. The correct design for a mod is, of course, the modder's personal wishes, by definition. It's their thing. Reasonable people can differ. Saying a thing is or isn't "balanced" is a simply a difference of opinion, nothing more. People have differing expectations and desires. That's why we have mods in the first place: so that different people can have the game experience that they want. If a particular mod doesn't give you the experience that you want, it doesn't mean the mod's wrong. It also doesn't mean that you're wrong, either. It just means that you and the mod author just happen to want different things. Arguing that other people are "wrong" just because not everyone wants the same thing that you do is silly and beside the point. You can say "I happen to like X instead", but that's about all anyone is in a position to assert. Trying to argue "right" or "wrong" in a case like that is as silly as arguing over which ice cream flavor is better, vanilla or chocolate. (Chocolate.) Be civil. There's never any call for insults. All you accomplish by insulting people is demonstrating that you aren't equal to supporting your end of the conversation. Resorting to name-calling and finger-pointing doesn't help you make your case. We trust that folks can comport themselves like mature adults, henceforth. Please play nice, okay? Thank you for your understanding.

Not sure what you're looking at, but KSP 1.9 hasn't actually been released yet. The current version of KSP is 1.8.1. No, it is not.

It sure does. I guess that means there was really a lot of work to do, so we should be extra grateful for all the time and hard work they put in. So, thank you to the hard-working folks who keep Kopernicus up and running so we can all have our free shiny toys. Yup, that's basically why it's version-locked. Given that all those mods freely chose to take the dependency out of convenience, though, and given that all the people who use those mods freely chose to do so in full knowledge of the Kopernicus dependency, and given that the Kopernicus authors don't owe anybody anything whatsoever, it's kinda beside the point. I could totally believe that. I'm sure they'll consult the lengthy roster of qualified developers who are all lining up to contribute endless hours of their spare time for free, to help them get this out the door. Assuming that it exists, of course. Why, yes, now that you mention it, I'd say it absolutely should. After all, there was a lot of work to get done, and only unpaid volunteers able to do it in their spare time, and I sure wouldn't want them to hurry and compromise quality and risk everyone's saves. I assume that the people actually doing the work have a pretty good idea of what's required. If it takes 'em that long, then that's how long it ought to take, and I don't think anyone else who hasn't done that work is in any position whatsoever to suggest that it should take less time. It's a big job. Or are you saying it ought to be released without proper testing, putting at risk the savegames of tens of thousands of users? Or are you volunteering to take on the work yourself, because you think you could put it out faster than they did while maintaining an appropriate level of quality control? Look, it's frustrating, I get that. Heck, I get frustrated, too. It's a great shiny toy. The fact that it's frustrating is simply a testament to how shiny it is. But things take as much time as they take, and I for one am not about to complain about someone who's putting in lots of hard work for free to give me that shiny toy. They owe me (and everyone else) nothing. I (along with everyone else who uses Kopernicus) owe them a debt of gratitude. If you don't like waiting for the free shiny toy, then go play with some other shiny toy. It's as simple as that.

Some off-topic content has been removed, and other content moved to the separate thread linked above. There are good reasons for the add-on posting rules (practical as well as legal). We realize that those reasons may not be obvious to someone who's neither a mod author nor a forum maintainer, and that's perfectly understandable. If you're having difficulty understanding the reasons and would like to learn more and/or suggest ways to improve, then you're welcome to ask and discuss as much as you like, over in the Add-on Discussions forum (feel free to start a thread, if you like). This thread, however, is about this particular mod, so a general discussion about forum rules is off topic here; please take such discussion elsewhere. Thank you for your understanding.

We're sorry, but we've had to remove your download link because it breaks the add-on posting rules. We appreciate that you're just trying to be helpful, and your caveats are duly noted, but the issue still remains. Yes, it's a hassle, and we're sorry about that, but there are reasons. Discussion here, for the curious. The TL;DR is that it's not okay to just recompile a DLL and post a link to it. It counts as a "mod" and therefore requires one to jump through all the relevant hoops, alas. We're sorry for the inconvenience.

FYI: Looks like you need to fix your image links, they're all broken. Looks as though you image links to some sort of temporary/cached content, which means that all your images went away as soon as the cache got cleaned out. If you'd like to embed images on a forum post, you need to make sure that the image link you use is some permanent one that'll stick around.

All interesting ideas, but went beyond my horizon of willingness to try trial-and-error and thoroughly test for any unfortunate side effects. What would really get me interested would be if we could convince Squad to add selectable control points to the command chair, i.e. give KerbalSeat a controlPoints member that works the same way as the controlPoints does for ModuleCommand. Then it would be a fairly trivial code adjustment to AttitudeAdjuster to allow it to work with KerbalSeat as well.

Unfortunately... no, it doesn't. And can't, at least not without writing a lot of code. Technobabble, for the curious, in spoiler. TL;DR: Adding AttitudeAdjuster functionality to any other command pods except the chair, is easy with a simple ModuleManager snippet. But the command chair simply won't work, and can't easily be made to do so.

I understand that it must be frustrating to have to wait a long time for such a beloved mod. Please do try to remember, however, that modding is seriously time-consuming, thankless work that requires many, many hours of tedious work by modders, who are doing this as a labor of love in their scarce free time, unpaid, in order to give us all shiny toys for free. To have any mod at all, regardless of when it arrives, is a generous gift from them, and deserving of our gratitude. If it's taking a long time, that's simply because it's a hard and time-consuming job. So please try to be mindful of that. I realize you're probably just trying to express how eagerly you're waiting for the generous gift of a free shiny toy... but it can come across as complaining about things taking so long, which would be an inappropriate way of thanking folks who owe you nothing but are nevertheless working hard on your behalf, for free, asking nothing in return.

Everything else about the suggestion is pretty good (and I really like the thread that mcwaffles2003 made) ... but this particular bit could be problematic. Bear in mind that the mods are part-time volunteers who do this as a hobby, not full-time paid employees, and there aren't that many of us. Our bandwidth tends to get pretty much taken up by riding herd on the forums, and we're not necessarily any more informed than anyone else about any new info being released. So we're not in any better position than Random Forum User (or, more to the point, mcwaffles2003 in this case) to update/maintain this type of thread-- probably less suited, in fact. In short: you guys know as much as we do about this sort of thing, and likely have more time available to keep track of it than we would.

Here's the specific link to the answers (it's also linked from the OP of that thread):

Hello, and welcome to the forums! As far as I know, they haven't released any details about that.

Likely originating from here: They only mentioned the "what" and didn't go into detail as to the "why". However, although neither I nor anyone else outside of Star Theory (AFAIK) actually knows, I can hazard a guess. I emphasize that the following is pure unsubstantiated speculation on my part, and not based on any sort of insider knowledge since I haven't got any besides what I already shared from the interview. As to the "why not": personally, I could imagine two reasons, one of them technical and the other having to do with gameplay. Technical: I don't expect that adding weather would be super difficult in terms of programming. It would, however, be time-consuming to implement, just because any reasonably complex feature takes time. One overwhelming impression I got of Star Theory is that they're super busy, and absolutely slammed with all the huge amount of work to do, just to get the product out the door in a reasonably timely fashion with the core, must-have, can't-ship-without features of the game. In an environment like that, adding anything that you don't actually have to have is going to be a schedule slip, and schedule slips are a Bad Thing because that impacts the bottom line. So it's not a question of "would anyone like to have weather in the game", but rather "is it worth slipping the ship date by more than a month in order to add this feature?" That's the calculus they'd have to do. If the feature in question were a total blockbuster that they thought would massively increase sales of the game, perhaps they might conclude that it would be worth it. On the other hand, if they thought it's just a cosmetic frill that most players wouldn't care about all that much, or (even worse) might actively dislike, then I wouldn't expect it to make the cut. That's my guess about the technical aspect. As for gameplay: This is one of those areas that's entirely subjective, because different people like different things. For example, from your post above, I gather that you really like the idea of dynamic weather and would like to see it added to the game. And there's nothing wrong with that. However, not everyone likes the same thing. For example, just speaking personally, I very strongly don't want dynamic weather in the game, not for my own gameplay. I really, really don't want the game to add randomly time-varying flight-impacting dynamics. It would ruin my enjoyment of the game. I like challenges, but to me this would be an obstacle rather than a challenge. IRL, when it comes to rocket launches, basically any weather at all is bad. The ideal launch conditions are clear skies, no wind, and no unusually extreme temperatures. That's what they want. If the actual conditions deviate too much from that-- for example, there's a thunderstorm, or high winds, or other inclement conditions-- then typically what they do is to delay the launch until those conditions go away, and then go for it. And if KSP had dynamic weather... that's exactly how I'd play it, too. Oh noes, there's wind, guess I have to timewarp on the pad until it dies down and I can actually launch. It would be an uninteresting, un-fun irritant to me that would get in the way of my enjoyment. It would simply mean that I can't just launch whenever I want, but instead I randomly have to wait to take off, which to me would be pointless. Like I said, it's subjective, which means there's no right or wrong answer, there. I would hate it, you would love it, and we're both "right", because everyone likes what they like. It does, however, raise the question of statistics, which brings me back to the question of "why would they or wouldn't they add this feature to the game". For them, the important question isn't "would anyone like it" (because the answer to that question is obviously yes). Rather, what they have to care about is how many people would like it, versus how many wouldn't care or would actively dislike it. If they conclude that it would be popular only for a relatively small fraction of the user base, and/or would be unpopular with a large fraction, then it wouldn't be worth it to them to add-- especially given that, as discussed above, it would mean substantial additional development cost and slipping the ship date. Anyway, just my two cents, based on no special inside info whatsoever, but informed by my experience of how things generally work in the software biz (which is what I've done for a living for a pretty long while). FWIW.

Not sure what's going on with the fuel transfer, but... now that you've grabbed it, any reason you can't just use the rescue ship's engine to deorbit them? (Yes, I realize that doesn't actually solve the specific question, which must be vexing. Just a thought, in terms of the end goal.) As a diagnostic/troubleshooting experiment: What happens if you try to, say, transfer monoprop between two of those little radial spherical tanks that are both on the rescue ship? Does it work, or no?

Thread locked per OP request.

No clue. Principia is black magic to me, I've never run it and have no idea if it's compatible with Kopernicus. Sorry I can't help.