Snark

Some content has been redacted and/or removed. Folks, some gentle reminders: Please don't speculate about other people's intentions or motivations. It makes things personal and never ends well. Address the post, not the poster. If someone says a thing that you disagree with, it's fine to post your rebuttal and why you disagree, but please address the points that they posted rather than addressing the person themselves. If you see someone else doing that, please don't respond in kind. You're not helping, it further derails the thread, and it just makes more of a mess that makes cleaning up. Instead, if you see someone getting personal, just report the post and the moderators will have a look as soon as we're able. Please try to stay on-topic. "Talking about KSP2 hype" is on-topic for this thread, for example. "Arguing about arguing" (e.g. taking issue with the way someone else makes their points) is off-topic and doesn't belong here. To the folks who kept their cool and responded civilly (whether or not your content needed to be removed due to responding to content that was itself removed), thank you for not fanning the flames. Thank you for your understanding.

Thanks for the info (and the log file). It's not clear yet exactly what's causing it, but as I kinda suspected, the culprit is in the code that calculates max elevation on celestial bodies. (That's the only part of PlanetInfoPlus that does any significant computation at all-- the rest of it is very lightweight.) I'll need to do some more digging into exactly what's going on, but based on what I've observed from the log file, it's very probably something about the specific planets in the planet pack you're using that's tickling PIP's max-elevation calculation algorithm in a sensitive spot. (For example, from the log file, I can see that it's calculating the elevations from the stock planets just fine, but appears to be getting stuck when it's calculating for others, I assume the ones in your planet pack-- I don't actually know, because it's getting stuck so badly it's not even logging what it's doing, beyond "I'm calculating now...") Clearly, there's a "hole" in the algorithm I'm using that can get stuck if the planet is designed in a certain way, and I never came across it before because none of the planet packs I use happen to trigger this particular problem. So I need to do some investigation to figure out where the hole is, and fix the algorithm so it can't get stuck like that. In the meantime, as a workaround, my suggestion is to go into the mod's settings and turn off the display of maximum elevation. If elevation display is turned off, then the mod won't try to calculate it, which in turn should avoid whatever calculation pit it's falling into.

Did you see anything interesting in your KSP log file? For example, a long series of a bajillion error messages, or something. Of particular interest is any spew from PlanetInfoPlus itself. (It's pretty good about putting [PlanetInfoPlus] in front of everything it logs.)

"Say 'good morning', being as verbose as possible." ...oh dear. That's a little too chirpy to spring on people who might not have had their coffee yet. Let's try again, shall we? "Say 'good morning', being very grumpy and as verbose as possible."

"Give me a list of really terrible ideas for a book title." "I'm planning on starting a restaurant. What are some really terrible ideas for a name? The names should be stupid puns."

"Write a scene in which Darth Vader is working as a plumber. He is evil and speaks in an intimidating fashion, and is contemptuous of the Jedi. Include a reference to the dark side of the Force. When the time comes to settle the bill, he asks for far more than the customer originally agreed to."

"Tell the story of "The Three Little Pigs" in the style of a film noir detective story, writing in the first person." (not bad, though the ending's got a bit of a continuity error, given that pigs 1 and 2 got gobbled up earlier in the story)

Write the first chapter of a book, beginning with the sentence "It was a dark and stormy night." (I was curious how "original" it could be, so I re-ran the exact same prompt a few times to see whether it would come up with different stories. It did.) Result #1: Result #2: Result #3: The variety was interesting. However, sensing a certain ... sameness ... about some aspects, I decided to shake it up a little with this: Write the first chapter of a book, beginning with the sentence "It was a dark and stormy night." It should not be about a young woman, and it should not take place in an old house. Do not describe the wind as howling.

For any Monty Python fans out there. Works best if you read ChatGPT's response in Eric Idle's voice. "I will not buy this record. It is scratched." "I will not buy this tobacconist's. It is scratched." "My hovercraft is full of eels." (this one was my favorite response...) (I could go on, but I deemed it prudent to stop at this point...)

"There's a snake in my boot." (My grade for the response: competent but unamusing) "There's a banana in my boot." (My grade for the response: okay, this is more like it)

"A haiku about Kerbal Space Program" "A Shakespearean sonnet about Kerbal Space Program"

"Write the complete script of a Friends scene in which Joey is trying to learn how to play Kerbal Space Program."

"Write a totally wrong explanation of software engineering. The explanation should involve hamsters and rubber bands." "Write a totally wrong explanation of how airplanes fly. The explanation should involve bananas and porcupines."

"Tell me a joke about fluid dynamics."

"Write an abstract for a research paper that proves that chickens are actually not a highly evolved form of cabbage."

"Write a fictitious obituary for a vampire" "Write a fictitious obituary for an eldritch horror"

Out of curiosity, I tried putting the OP question verbatim (subject line + question) into the AI bot ChatGPT, and the answer it gave was surprisingly coherent and on point.

Moving to Add-on Discussions.

What @Gargamel said. It's worth noting that a primary job requirement of moderators is that we are not easily annoyed. A thick skin is needed to do this job, and we're very picky about the type of person we invite onto the team-- being unflappable is important. So, if a user just happens to have a really abrasive style, and they're rude or obnoxious to us in private (e.g. PMs to moderators), then as long as it doesn't rise to the level of actual threats or harassment, mostly it's no skin off our nose and we let them vent. (There's a good reason for that: We get a fair number of angry PMs, and we're okay with that. Few people like getting moderated, and it's not uncommon for us to receive irate feedback about our actions or inaction. We try to give people latitude in such private communication, because we should welcome feedback, to help keep us honest and make sure we're doing our job well. So as long as a person's not being threatening or engaging in harassing behavior, we try to cut them a lot of slack.) Users who engage in inappropriate behavior in public, on the other hand (such as openly contesting moderation) are subject to appropriate consequences. But in such cases, it's because they broke the forum rules, not because they annoyed us personally. "Never moderate angry." It's a pretty important principle we follow. We make a point of using the forum rules as our yardstick, not our personal feelings. (We are only human, though, so please don't push it, okay?)

Some content has been removed. Folks, we understand you mean well, but please don't discuss decompiling the game. It's not allowed (see section 9, "Legal boundaries", here), and discussion of it doesn't belong in the forum. Thank you for your understanding.

Is it a KAL-1000 controller problem, or a problem with the pistons themselves? (i.e. a "controller software" problem versus a physical problem) For example, can you extend and retract the pistons using the PAW? (the right-click menu)

It helps that the approval queue does a pretty good job of weeding them out, so we have a chance to spot them and remove them before they're publicly visible to regular forum members. It also really helps that we have a thousand eyes helping us. On those occasions when a spammer slips past us, typically some forum member will notice something and activate the Bat-Signal file a report, which draws our attention and then we can clean it up posthaste. So we can't entirely claim all the credit for ourselves, much though we might like to.

Some posts have been edited to add English translation. A gentle reminder, folks: any posts outside the "international" section must be in English, per forum rule 2.3.c: If any user would prefer to post only in Chinese, please use the Chinese sub-forum here to do that. Thank you for your understanding.

It has to do with modding in KSP2. Which is, after all, the topic of this thread: ...right? And, in the course of this discussion, the concern was raised about what if the Big Evil Corporation goes after modders and so we don't get mods for KSP2: So I was addressing that concern (which Motokid600 originally raised, and SciMan responded to, and you responded to) by pointing out that today's announcement addressed that fairly nicely and explicitly. Because "KSP2 being highly moddable" is something that lots of people care about (thus this thread, yes?), and I'd hate to think that there are folks out there who may be needlessly unhappy or anxious because they're worrying about a thing that's been announced is not going to happen.

Thanks for the vote of confidence ... but the one mod I've written that's relevant to this (BetterBurnTime) doesn't actually "solve" this problem any more than the stock KSP1 game does. BBT assumes instantaneous burns, just like stock KSP. That's because assuming otherwise is a Hard Problem, which I for one do not propose to tackle myself. FWIW, I am assuming that this phrase, ...means precisely what HebaruSan already suggested: The ability for the game to calculate brachistochrone trajectories rather than always assuming an instantaneous burn (i.e. a single impulse) should be a real (ahem) game-changer. Really make it nicer for low-TWR craft, even when they're just interplanetary rather than interstellar. Kudos to the dev team for solving this-- it must have been a lot of work, and I expect it'll be totally worth it for the improved player experience.