JamesL86

So, I had this idea. We KSP players love our bases, both orbital and planetary. Would it be possible to create a mod that, like the various fuelswitch mods out there, allow you to switch out an IVA on an existing part in the VAB? Lemme go into a bit more detail... The main base building parts that I generally think about are the Hitchhiker, the lab, and the cupola. There are other parts that could be used but these three are generally the ones I consider when thinking about a base. The issue I have that I am sure other players probably have as well is the orientation of the IVA within these parts. If for example, you use these parts on orbit then they are just fine because of micro-gravity etc. However, if you want to use these parts on a planet or moon then the only proper orientation (at least in my mind) is vertical, due to the IVAs within them. So the crucial question is, are there any modders that would be interested in creating 3 custom alternate IVAs for these 3 parts using stock assets? Further, would it be possible/easier/harder to have an IVA switch in the part's right-click menu in the VAB or to just duplicate the parts with the alternate IVAs contains therein? I'd give it a go myself but, I do not know the first thing about modding or 3d art or any of that technical stuff.

I don't see what all the big hub bub is about the multiplayer being bad. Sure there are some technical hurdles to deal with. The thing that gets me is why are people so up in arms about it. Squad has expressed interest in bringing multiplayer to KSP for over a year now. Near as I can tell, Squad is not talking about a typical multiplayer scenario with a dozen or more people trying to pile onto a public server with grief on their mind either. At most we are talking about being able to get together with a few friends and jointly experience the game in a more hands-on way, unlike just showing friends pictures or video or watching streams. Personally, I have a number of friends that have expressed interest in actually buying the game and learning it for the first time if we could all play and have fun together. The issues I see are like this.... 1) Timewarp... In the case of timewarp, give the players multiple options. We should have the ability to either lockstep the warp OR run it in A-sync mode. However, before you go jumping on me about A-sync warping, remember that in the cases we have seen already in multiplayer mods, you cannot interact with another player unless you are in sync AND you can only catch up to another player in the future. You cannot reverse timewarp. I personally prefer the lockstep method (why that is will become clearer later) but options either way are key to overall satisfaction from the community. In any case its doable. We know its doable because if a ragtag team of modders can make it work within the bounds of modding, then imagine what the devs can do with having access to the source code. 2) Simultaneous Player Actions... So, this has been another big topic of discussion throughout this thread and elsewhere. How to deal with multiple people physically playing in the same world at the same time. There are two basic schools of thought in my mind concerning this. 2a) Give the players a single space center to share. In this case certain mechanics from single player will hold over in many ways in multiplayer. For example, you cannot use the Launchpad or Runway for launching vehicles if someone is already using them. In single player, if you have something on either of these when you select the launch option, it gets removed. A similar system can be used in multiplayer. You simply disallow other players to use the particular facility until for example T+X time after player A initiates their first stage. Plus these T+ times could be configurable by the players in the game. Now this would only apply to the Launchpad and Runway because the VAB and SPH scenes can obviously be instanced on each players client. That though, is how I would basically look at doing a multiplayer with a shared KSC. 2b) The other main option is to give players multiple space centers to choose from around Kerbin. Each can be identical but in different places all across the planet. You might even be able to give modders the ability to set these centers on other planets so the really adventurous can start in completely different places in the Kerbol system. The key point here though is that, with multiple start locations to choose from for each player, you no longer need the added complication of a launch failsafe. Its also not necessarily that much extra work with this option because Squad already has a perfectly viable KSC to work with. Its simply a matter a sprinkling additional clones of it in locations around Kerbin with suitable terrain. A little height map tweak here, a spawn location there, and voila, done. Plus, the less experienced players can elect to pick from the more equatorial locations while the old pros can try their hand at the more complex launches from higher or lower latitudes. 3) Player/Craft Interactions... This is always gonna be a tough one. You can code the world's best ever server but there isn't anything on this Earth the devs can do if someone simply has a slow or bad connection. Its a sad fact that not everyone is gonna be able to play KSP in multiplayer. Some folks may have computers that are just a bit too antiquated. Others will have internet that is slower than paint drying in a rainstorm. However, The obvious option that would at least help some of these poor souls and offer the best experience overall, are dedicated servers. In most multiplayer/Co-op games you typically have two server options, Listen and Dedicated. For those that do not know, it breaks down like this. Listen servers are where everyone playing with you are running off the machine of the player that is hosting the game. Dedicated servers are typically either paid-for servers from a 3rd party like say, PingPerfect, or are run on a spare machine by one of the players. The biggest difference is the load of the game on the network or host computer. Dedicated servers are in the vast majority of cases, superior in nearly every way as far as game performance. When Squad does introduce multiplayer (and I do believe its "when" not "if") I truly hope they build a dedicated server program for it. If we don't get a server client then I am afraid it would all be for naught. In closing... I know a lot of you will never be interested in multiplayer Kerbal Space Program. That is your prerogative and I am not gonna call you names, or spit hate in your direction. I love this game. You love this game. We can agree to disagree. The biggest reason I wrote this post was the number of folks I saw in this thread that had actively called for Squad to not even bother trying to get a stock multiplayer available. That to me is just, well, rude. How would you feel if I were to demand that Squad made multiplayer the ONLY option and too bad for you single player folks. Not so good I'd wager. Its not a waste of Squad's time just because YOU don't want it. I want it. Lots of people want it. Here in this post is just a tiny little inkling of the fun that could be had by a lot of us in the community that does not have to interfere with the way you want to play. At the end of the day, Squad has said that they at least want to give it a shot and if they don't succeed then, well, I will be sad. I'll still play KSP though. I'll still crash things. I'll still shout for joy to the dismay of my family and pets when I pull out a miracle landing. Most of all though, I'll still gladly continue to watch your Twitch streams, your YouTube adventures, and read about your thoughts and opinions on these fine forums. Give it a chance. You never know, if they pull it off you might even want to give a shot. You'll be welcome on my server anytime if you do. Edited for grammer.

Its not so much dealing with the repetitive missions, though that is part of it as well. Its more, for me at least, having an easier time physically playing the game. However, its also about giving the Kerbals something more to be than just basically passengers on all my missions. Giving the kerbals the simulated ability to be their own characters in the story so to speak would I think be a great benefit to the game and make it feel more fleshed out overall. You can sort of imagine combining the functions of KAC with Mechjeb and KOS to create something coming close to a simple intelligence that can be further modified by things like kerbal experience and skills. Now obviously unless great improvements and/or optimizations were made to the game and Unity, I doubt you could have all of your AI missions running in active mode all at the same time. This is why the Autorove mod gets me excited. Even in its early stage, it has the ability to manage the movement of a craft that is currently "on rails". Combining that with a lot of the other autopilot abilities we already have from mods etc, and adding in a dash of kerbal flavor, you can see to potential. At the end of the day, I still get to see my creations fly, and they will still fail if they are poor designs. That to me is the part I enjoy most even if I am not the one doing the flying.

@wumpus I remember that game. It was pretty intriguing for its time. @pandaman I concur to a degree. If I did not have as much difficulty with the flight controls, I would likely enjoy the flying of my creations much more. It gets frustrating when something fails not because of poor design but because of my limited ability to actually control the blasted thing. @5thHorseman I think that would be an excellent middle ground that could be incorporated into the existing KSP framework. Even going so far as applying it to routine crew launches to LKO with rockets or SSTO's would be great. @Hotaru I had a similar problem while playing XCOM Enemy Unknown for the first time recently. One of my squad got mind controlled and killed another member. It felt strange when the remaining members got back, including the one that was mind controlled at one point, and it was like, "so everything is okay?". I would have liked to have seen some of the character strife brought on by what transpired on that mission. @Wolfos31 Yea, I mean some automation in the current game could be done I think. Overall though, I think the idea I have been mulling over is a bit less, well, adaptable. It would essentially require that each kerbal have some level of autonomy. Imagine a framework that, at least in spirit, was a bit like the KOS mod. Being able to give instructions to the kerbals a bit like the way to can program the KOS system. Laying out mission parameters, designing the craft(s) needed for the mission, and having the ultimate execution of those parameters be based on the state of the kerbals in there various roles. Maybe some science recovery is lost because an inexperienced kerbal busted a beaker in the Science Jr? Perhaps one of the solar arrays on a mission to Eve was damaged because a kerbal pilot wasn't completely able to follow the altitude parameters of the aerobraking maneuver? Even a veteran kerbal making it to a rover destination on the Mun ahead of schedule due to years of experience on previous similar missions? The thrill of successfully managing a ragtag team of 1 meter tall green menaces is quite a bit different in many ways to the thrill of landing your first mission to another planet. Different, but no less valid. Perhaps in a certain way, it could even be integrated into the existing game in the future. Maybe if a kerbal is experienced enough you could have the option to "hand over the controls" to them with a set of parameters to follow.

Aye, Otis. I don't really understand why these mods get such a bad reputation or get called things like "cheaty", etc. Is using a pair of glasses to read a book, cheating? I do not think the current game could be modified the way I described in the OP. However, I would love to see Squad perhaps make a follow-up game to KSP in the future in the same universe. Back to the original subject though. Having a more management focused game in the KSP universe would be quite spectacular I think. Wearing the hats of chief engineer, flight director, and chief of administration in a world that is alive with activity and self driven characters. You could almost imagine it being a strange combination of building sandbox, managment sim, and rpg. The ability to actually see Jeb strutting out onto the pad looking all big and bad just before tripping over his own boot laces would be hilarious. Seeing the launch techs trying to pry Bob's fingers from around the edges of the command pod hatch with his usual terrified look on his face. Even the look on Gene Kerman's face when, beyond all logic, these three kerbals actually get the rocket into orbit after flipping it at least once during the launch. Through all of this though, is the joy of seeing YOUR rocket is the one they are flying. Knowing that their success or failure rides just as much on your equipment designs as it does their training. Was it right to accept that juicy Duna contract so soon? Did you put enough Dv in that spacecraft? Is there enough snacks? Was shaving off a few extra kg of weight in that heatshield a good idea? Is Bill's momma gonna stop calling mission control every five minutes? Oh the shear joy of it all.

I really do enjoy playing this game. There has never been anything quite like it before. The one thing I do wish for sometimes is for the kerbals to be able to actually do something on their own (mostly). Imagine a world where... 1) The player is more akin to the "Mayor" in SimCity. 2) Kerbals are semi-autonomous. 3) While you might design things and make decisions about missions, the Kerbals actually do all the leg work themselves. Don't get me wrong, it is quite an accomplishment when you actually can perform a mission "yourself". There isn't a feeling quite like being at the controls of a craft that you yourself created. For me though, it just too often boils down to frustration. With some of the physical limitations I have, its nearly impossible for me to fly complex missions without Mechjeb, or PilotAssistant. I simply do not have the capability to operate most of the things I create. WIth recent mods that have come out like the Kramax Autopilot and the AutoRove system, I keep imagining a day where the Kerbals might just have enough virtual brain power to do things on their own, leaving me free to do what I love. The freedom to create things without going through hours or days of iterations to make it conform to what the various autopilot programs need to a handle it. Being completely clueless about programming and such, I have no idea if it would even be possible to create such an autonomous system for the Kerbals, but boy would it be awesome!

My general rule of thumb is that if it is not on CKAN then I do not bother. I've been down in the dark depths of modding KSP and at one point, I think I was spending more time trying to manage my modlist than I was playing the game. I simply no longer have the patience to deal with checking for updates, downloading half a dozen zip files, and stuffing them into the gamedata folder every time I want to play. With CKAN its simply a matter of starting it up, confirming the mod updates, and starting up the game. On the rare occasion that I do have to download a mod from the net, I prefer Curse. I know that Kerbalstuff is open source and community driven which is nice. I just dislike the overall experience I have had with it. From failed downloads to constantly pestering me to register even after I hit "never register". I just find the whole thing annoying. I have never once had any issues with Curse, except occasionally low download speeds. That does not generally bother me though since I don't use any parts mods in my install. Its all plugins and "quality of life" things.

I think each modder has to list there own stuff with them but I am not sure. I just play the game so when it comes to the technical stuff I generally have no idea.

I second this. I'd love to use it but if it ain't on CKAN these days I just won't bother unfortunately.

It sounds like KSP is running out of digits so its rounding up the 0.18 to 1.0.

I've just been using it as a conventional engine. Fly straight at where you want to go. When you get within the SOI of the body you are going to, reduce the drive throttle. As you approach the planet, steer the ship into an orbit reducing throttle as you go. Once you get into an orbit, any orbit, use low throttle on the drive to circularize the orbit the best you can and finish it off with conventional engines. Its extremely easy actually. Far easier than the KSP-I drive.

The book series is far superior to the movie, mate.

http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Infinite_Improbability_Drive

I'm still waiting for an Infinite Improbability Drive. XD

If you maneuver at sub-light speeds, you can achieve a stable (if wonky) orbit. You'll just need a main engine for orbital maneuvering. You'll also have to remember that the A-Drive is safety locked at altitudes lower than 500 kilometers.

I think I have figured out why this FTL drive has a top speed of 1.6c. Its because RoverDude wanted his drive to be faster than the Millennium Falcon.

OMG!!! It's so CUTE! I'm sure that's not exactly what you had in mind when you came up with it. BUT IT IS!!! It's adorable and very kerbal-e-looking. Are these parts going to be stock aero compatible? (please, please, pretty please?)

This is gonna be an awesome little doohicky that I have been hoping for, for a long time. All the fun of KSP-I, without all the hassle. I'll probably wait for the full release (I think its later today) to play around with it. From what I see now though, this will be a welcome addition to my super-kerbalized career mode.

Thanks blowfish. In reality, dropping B9 is gonna get me to give the Spaceplane+ parts the attention they deserve. Though, that tubby little spaceplane in that first link here http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/51395 is frickin' cute as hell. Ya just want to give it a squeeze. Edit: As for the landing bit, yea it sucks. Though I am getting pretty good at designing Vertical SSTOs. At any rate, by finally burying FAR for good, at least MechJeb can once again reliably land vertically. The only weird bit was that FAR as even screwing up MechJeb landings on bodies with no atmosphere. However, that is something for the MechJeb thread I reckon, or the FAR thread.

Yea, I mentioned that in the post above yours. While it did work better than MechJeb with FAR, my attempts to figure out how to tune it just made it handle worse. If I wanted to dedicate a couple of weeks to trying to figure out how to get it working just right, it might actually be okay. The only issue there is that I still have to land the thing. So far, there is nothing I have found that can land a plane safely hands-off, and that is with AND without FAR. Though FAR makes it even more difficult. I wish there were more mods like Stock Drag Fix that simply repaired obvious bugs in the stock aero models rather than trying to replace them entirely. Even though SDF made some pretty strong changes to drag, it only extends MechJeb's vertical landing accuracy (on bodies with atmospheres) by a few tens of meters rather than completely dumb-founding the entire landing guidance system.

Yea, one of my happiest, and then saddest moments with KSP was when I found that, and it basically did nothing. All it did was reduce by a small amount the huge number of SAS modules that every non-rocket thing I build requires to fly. Their is no reason why I should have to add 20-30 SAS modules to a plane to make it fly without wigging out. I actually had more success making FAR work with that new pilot assist mod that came out recently than with MechJeb, with or without that module. Even then, I crashed half the time. And don't even get me started on trying to land a plane with FAR installed and MechJeb piloting. I basically have to resort to landing the plane with chutes to get it back safely. So I switched to using vertical SSTOs for crew transfers but FAR makes MechJeb totally unable to land anywhere remotely close to where its supposed to when landing vertically. To be perfectly honest, I did not intend to get into a discussion in Bac9's thread about the merits of FAR and MechJeb, though I appreciate you trying to help, blowfish. I really only intended to speak my piece about the mod and leave it at that. Thankfully there aren't really too many mods that rely on FAR so its not like I am losing half of the mods that I have downloaded. I'm just not gonna subject myself to trying and failing to make FAR work when I have proven to myself time and time again that its just not possible with my limitations. Thus all mods associated with FAR are now off limits for me.

I have tried to use FAR (and NEAR after it came out) at least a dozen times over the last year or so. I have never been able to use it because I require MechJeb, and lately other programs, to play the game. I do not have the physical ability to reliably pilot craft in atmosphere due to disabilities. As for the requirements not really being requirements, it says right in the OP that no support will be given for B9 on stock aero games. So while I could use it, if I have a problem I basically can't get any help for it so why bother. As for future aerodynamics changes by squad, I can only hope they don't totally ruin what already limited ability I have to play this game. Ideally, I'd be perfectly happy with a squad integrating something like FAR if they also integrate something like MechJeb that actually works with that type of aerodynamics without screwing up. At least that way I can continue to play KSP the way I am now by designing really good efficient craft and "letting the kerbals fly it".

Just spent a good long time reading through this thread and testing out the mod, so here is some feedback: I like this mod! It is simple, but more importantly, it fits into the game unlike many other mods that try to shoehorn the human universe in. Specific feedback: I would be in the camp that would see kerbals die from lack of snacks. I mean maybe I watch Danny's vids too much but death and kerbals seem to go hand in hand. I would like to see a snack container added to the base mod and here is why. Sure, I agree with the reasoning behind restricting storage to habs and pods. However, and don't take this personally, I don't like the idea of a mod that requires other mods simply because the author does not agree with certain play styles. I mean its your mod, but I can see where some folks might be put off by that attitude. Like I said though, I happen to agree with your view point, mostly. I would also say that containers are needed in the base mod for resupply missions. Again, I see your point about the habs being like the resupply tubs that visit the ISS. That being said, kerbal-kind would have no such concept and thus would, in my opinion, probably rather just strap a rocket to a box of snacks and hope it makes it to the station. Its more, Kerbally, to me at least. My last point on containers being in the base mod is that, if I were a modder and could do this stuff, I'd want to give a really good basic all purpose toolkit to the folks downloading my mod without having to direct them to other folks to get things they might want. I like the idea of a snack generator, to a point. My only concern with using surface samples for this would be orbital installations around bodies other than Kerbin. Resupply of these would not be possible for the most part if you need samples to make snacks. Though, to tie into my previous point, lightweight snack boxes would make resupply of these far flung bases easier. This leads me to my final critique... While a one resource system is nice for simplicity's sake, a two part system if done properly would not be too overly complex I don't think. I feel that I can tie all of my points together with a second resource, being snack ingredients. Snack ingredients would be stored in snack containers. The density of the snack containers would be more space efficient than snacks stored in habs and pods. However, the snack ingredients have to be made into snacks before they can be consumed. For simplicity, you could simply have the oven for the snacks and the container for the ingredients be one unit. Or, you could have an oven part separate. This could also be tied into the surface sample idea you had by giving snacks made from samples a higher yield than that of snack ingredients or some other mechanic. So to sum up, adding a second resource that can be converted into snacks that is only stored in containers would, I feel, satisfy pretty much all requests and suggestions I have read in this thread thus far, and keep it just about as simple as it already is. Pseudo Edit: Just as I was about to hit "post", I thought of something. You want to use surface samples to make snacks in the lab right? How about use the aforementioned container idea I just laid out as synthetic samples or "Kerbin Samples". This would be a really elegant solution to the whole problem and only require one extra part, that being the sample pod. This plays directly into your idea while giving a few more options for players and sticking well into the overall idea of the mod. It might even be worth exploring the idea of using a "sample" resource specifically for your oven anyway. Just add the menu button to the EVA GUI to collect a snack sample instead of using the science sample thingy already in-game.

I regret that I must discontinue using B9 Aerospace. With the direction that this mod seems to be going in, I no longer see much use for it personally. The mandatory requirements for FAR/NEAR means that B9 no longer fits into my play style. I can only hope that KSP eventually gets more modders that wish to expand on what KSP is, rather than trying to make it more realistic to the human universe.

I'd say this one is more extensive than tortoises' since it appears to allow oxidizer and monoprop in the wings too. Also, all the fuel values differ from the Fuel Wings mod. Looks like I might be swapping this mod in place of tortoises'.