Snark

Nobody liked it.

Feel free to make the suggestion-- though I'd suggest posting a thread over in the suggestions forum, instead. This thread is three years old, and is a gameplay question that has long since been answered, so presumably everyone involved has long since moved on. Accordingly, locking the thread to prevent further confusion. Anyone with related questions is free to spin up a new thread.

Moving to Add-on Discussions.

The wheels themselves are motorized. There's a "go forward" key, a "go backwards" key, and "turn left and right" keys. By default, those keys are mapped to the same WASD keys that control pitch and yaw (for example, with reaction wheels), which can lead to confusing behavior if you have a rover that also has reaction wheels on it. It doesn't affect you if you don't have reaction wheels on the rover, but if you'd like to avoid some complications (e.g. "it tries to pitch down when I accelerate forward", etc.), then you can use the UI options to map the rover controls to a different set of keys. (For example, I use numpad 8456 keys, myself.)

For the benefit of anyone reading this who's not familiar with them: the reason for having three of them (perpendicular to each other) is that this gives you three axes X, Y, Z for free motion around any axis. It's a not uncommon configuration to have 4 wheels, arranged like the four vertices of a tetrahedron. That has the benefit of redundancy: if any one wheel fails, the remaining three can still rotate the craft. Well, it only needs to use RCS thrusters to adjust the net angular momentum of the ship, i.e. if the ship actually had an unwanted spin, e.g. due to some unbalanced external force that got it rotating in the first place. If the ship wasn't initially rotating, and simply uses the reaction wheels to reorient itself, then no RCS is required. The ship starts rotating when the wheels spin up, and then stops again (perfectly) simply by braking the wheels to a halt when the desired orientation is reached. Not really. A classic reaction wheel doesn't use the "gyroscope effect" (e.g. resistance of a spinning object to changing its axis) at all-- it's a simple matter of "I spin you this way, you spin me the opposite way". That said, though, there are specific cases of using gyroscopic effect in this way-- basically when you need something really "muscular" that can put out a lot of torque quickly. This is known as a control moment gyroscope and is used, for example, on the ISS. In a simpler configuration without the gimbaling hardware, it's referred to as a "momentum wheel". That, and the fact that they violate the laws of physics-- it's not just that they're more powerful than a real-life reaction wheel, but that they actually allow violating conservation of angular momentum, which a real-life one obviously does not. For playability purposes, it's perfectly reasonable. More discussion here. My impression is that such devices actually don't use reaction wheels or gyroscopes at all. They're simply inverted pendulums that use a feedback loop between orientation sensors and wheel motors to keep the wheels under the CoM. It's basically the same dynamics as a unicycle, but with inhumanly sensitive orientation sensors and inhumanly fast reflexes. Source: Dunno about other devices beside the Segway itself, but this makes sense to me. Do you have some source for a device that does use gyroscopes or such to stay upright? (Other than gyroscopes themselves, that is.)

Moving to Mission Reports. A million meters per second is pretty darn fast, all right! Just FYI, though, it's nowhere near light speed yet (which is roughly 300 million meters per second). So you're doing about 0.3% of lightspeed.

It's being worked on, and will be ready when it's ready. We're aware that it's a major inconvenience to people. Please rest assured that its continued absence is not because nobody cares, or because it's been forgotten about. In the meantime, thank you for your patience.

Hi @TomVorat, So, first thing to check is to make sure you're not running out of RAM, especially if you only have 8GB on your machine. Keep Task Manager open and look at KSP's RAM usage as it loads. How high does it get? If the problem were some particular mod, then the symptom you'd expect to see would be KSP having problems, but your computer otherwise being fairly unaffected. If it slows your computer way down, and causes issues like computer audio, then that's the sort of thing you'd expect to see when you're pushing past your computer's RAM limit and it and it has to start excessively spamming virtual memory. The fact that you're running a very heavily modded KSP on a machine with only 8GB of RAM just makes that sound even more likely. So, I'd suggest checking your RAM usage, and if that turns out to be the problem, either run with fewer mods or get more RAM.

Yep. The aero f/x appears to trigger on pretty much every subcomponent of the model. It's been like that from square one.

Looks great! Thanks for fixing this, we know it's a hassle and we appreciate it.

Welcome to the forum! You've come to the right place, we're pretty friendly here. Moving to "Welcome Aboard", which is a good place for this sort of introduction!

Moving to the Lounge, as this isn't about KSP.

Hello, and welcome to the forums! That looks great! Thank you for contributing to the community. One unfortunately necessary thing, though-- really sorry, but we've had to snip the link (for now), due to missing a couple of spots in the add-on posting rules. Specifically, you need to do the following: Identify the license in the thread OP above (don't need the full text, just a simple statement like "License: <license name>" is sufficient). Include a license text file in your downloadable zip, such that it'll be present in your mod folder after the user installs. The license text file needs the full text of the license with all the legalese and everything-- not just the name of the license. We know it's a hassle, and we're really sorry about that-- we hate to stand in the way of bringing a great-looking mod to the folks here. Alas, it's one of those unfortunate facts of life that mods gotta have licenses. Anyway, you're free to restore the link as soon as the above two points are taken care of. We apologize for the inconvenience, and thank you for your understanding.

Moving to Add-on Discussions, since this isn't a release thread for a mod.

Hello, and welcome to the forums! Yes, this is an extremely common problem. "I have <whole bunch of mods> installed, my game is acting wrong, how do I fix it?" It usually turns out that one mod is the culprit-- but it's usually fairly unlikely that anyone else would be able to help you (i.e. be able to just look at the list and know the answer) since it's often something to do with the specific configuration on your machine. Fortunately, there's a straightforward way to address. The standard solution is: Use process of elimination to work out which mod is causing the problem Once you've identified which mod it is, go to that mod's release thread and post your question there. Then you're fairly likely to get an answer. The process-of-elimination is a bit tedious, but not too bad. Just do things by halves: i.e. uninstall half of your mods (doesn't matter which ones) and then try running to see if the problem reproduces. That'll tell you which half of the list the problem is in. Then take that half and split it in half, and keep doing that until you narrow it down to one mod. Yes, it's kinda tedious, but even if you have literally 1000 mods installed it requires under 10 restarts, and it's basically the only reliable way to pin down the problem. Good luck!

Hello, and welcome to the forums! It's worth noting that the discussion above is several years old (and therefore on older versions of the game), so any time you have a question now about the current game, it's usually best to either hop on a recent thread (if there's one currently under discussion), or else just spin up your own new question thread. That said, though, I think this particular game behavior hasn't changed in the last four years, so I believe the discussion in the thread above is still relevant. Skimming over it it just now, I think your questions are answered there-- suggest giving it a read, if you haven't already. Short answer is: If a crew member were going to respawn, they'd do so right away. If they haven't, then likely they ain't gonna. It's possible to do some manual tinkering with the savegame (i.e. the .sfs file) by editing it in Notepad or some such. However, if you decide to go that route, be sure to keep an untouched backup copy of your file from before tinkering with it, because it's easy to accidentally screw up the file when editing, and if you do that, you could break the whole thing and make it unloadable. So keeping a pristine backup copy protects you-- if you mess something up, you just restore from your "safe" backup and at least can get back to where you are now.

Lest folks forget, the actual topic of this thread is a gameplay question. One that was asked over two years ago, so the original questioner has presumably long since moved on, and further discussion in that vein is therefore moot. If one wants to discuss the philosophy of spoilers, computer games, nerd culture, or anything else, that's fine-- but it's off-topic in a gameplay question thread, and would be better suited to take up in some other thread. Accordingly, locking the thread to prevent further confusion. If anyone has further gameplay questions, or wants to discuss the philosophy of spoilers, or anything else, feel free to spin up your own thread in the appropriate subforums. Thank you for your understanding.

No exact details that I'm aware of, but my impression is that yes, there will be more resource types. Some of the new engines will require specific new fuels, and apparently some of those fuels will need to be made from other stuff, so my guess is that yes, there will be more stuff to mine than just one generic "ore". But that's including a certain amount of reading between the lines, and I don't actually know that.

Number of forum users: ~200,000. Number of moderators: <20, plus we're NDA'd and can be fully engaged with details of technical problems. So it's not the same. There are technical issues, such that it's been necessary to disable them for the forums-at-large while it's being worked on. I'm sorry, I know it's galling, especially in the absence of more detailed explanation. I wish I could explain more to you about it, but I simply can't. Until they've got it sorted, it's simply "technical issues, please stand by", and that's all I can say. Thanks again for your patience.

He was able to "like" the post because he's a moderator, and moderators have abilities that regular users do not, by design. For example, we can post into threads even when they're locked. For another, we have to be careful what we type, because the profanity filter ignores us. We're really sorry that "likes" have had to be turned off for the forum at large. We know it's a major inconvenience to the users, and we regret the necessity. However, a technical issue-- which I can't go into details on, my apologies-- has made it necessary to do so until it gets sorted out. It's being worked on and we'll have it turned back on just as soon as it's feasible to do so. In the meantime, thank you for your patience.

A lot of content has been removed and/or redacted from this thread, due to multiple forum rules violations: Unfounded accusations (rule 2.2.d) Insults and threats (more 2.2.d) Discriminatory nationalist ranting (2.2.e; it's not okay to bash a nationality, folks) Flamebaiting (2.2.n) Backseat moderating (3.2) Folks, please be civil. It's perfectly fine to have an opinion, and it's perfectly fine to express it, and it's perfectly fine to have spirited debate. It's not okay, however, to make accusations. It's not okay to bash entire countries. It's not okay to threaten people, and it's not okay to tell other people what to do. If you don't think you'll like KSP2, or you have some reason of your own for not wanting to buy it-- e.g. if you have some reason of your own for not liking the company, or anything else-- then by all means, don't buy it! And then the people who do like it will go and spend their money as they like, and everyone wins. Everyone here agreed to abide by the forum rules when creating an account, so please do so. And please don't try to enforce it on anyone else-- you're not a moderator, it's not your place to tell anyone else what to do. If you see someone behaving in a way that you believe is so egregious that it's actually violating forum rules, then by all means report the post so the moderator team can have a look and address anything they deem necessary. Do not, however, publicly threaten to do so-- it's against the rules. Do not attempt to enforce rules yourself. And if someone just says something that makes you really angry? You can choose to engage them in civil debate (no insults, no threats). Or you can just choose not to engage and stroll on by. Please don't feed the flames. Flame wars accomplish nothing, and everyone loses. It has become clear at this point that this thread can't be trusted to stay on the rails; people have said their piece early in the thread, and further discussion has been pointless flaming and bickering rather than constructive discussion. Accordingly, this thread is now locked and shall remain so. Thank you for your understanding.

Sure, but it's also worth noting that IRL planet probes are carefully computer-controlled the whole way and "navigational concerns" simply aren't a thing in that regard, so (unlike KSP) they have no advantage in going to a parking orbit first. Anyway, if that's how you like to play, makes perfect sense! Was just curious. I never use navigational mods myself, so am not in a position to offer any advice there-- maybe someone else will have ideas or suggestions.

You don't, at least not in stock. Out of curiosity, though, any particular reason why you're not doing a parking orbit? Navigation is a whole lot easier if you do, and you're not sacrificing any significant dV to do so.

Thread locked at OP request.

5thHorseman's advice is what I virtually always do, they're just not worth the bother of bringing back. It's also worth noting that having them directly attached to the heat shield won't help you, because the heat shield itself gets hot enough to make them go boom just from touching it. Most KSP parts can handle 2000 K, but the Science Jr. only goes up to 1200 K, and the heat shield itself gets hotter than that, so any part in direct contact with it is likely to get toasty. Not to mention that if you've got a 1.25m part like the Science Jr. sitting directly atop a 1.25m heat shield, there's no margin for error on orientation-- if you deviate only slightly from perfectly retrograde, even momentarily, the sides of the Science Jr. will get exposed to heat and then kerboom. As an example of where it's not a problem, consider the case where, for instance, you have a Mk1-2 command pod, with a 2.5m heat shield on the bottom, and the Science Jr. attached to the top In that case, it has no problem at all: the 2.5m heat shield and pod make a nice big wide "heat shadow" with plenty of safety margin all around the Science Jr., and also it's not directly touching anything hot.