Ricardo79

Last version Do working with flight indicator. And this mod itself is pretty neat. and helpful too. Congratts. Heading now to download the update. Thank you.

Okay Then I'll give it a try. And let you know the outcome.

I kinda really like the idea I guess... Is that supposed to work together/or at least compatible with the kerbal Flight indicator? Or I am missunderstood and this is not a H.U.D. upgrade?

OOoHHHH YEAH Thanks both of you. I'd give it a try in a moment. - - - Updated - - - First tested -popupwindow It seems to work Just have to adjust screen resolution yet. I didn't know of that is exists. I tried -fullscreen that doesn't worked. I love you guys :D It is perfect. So solution is -popupwindow. I wish I've asked that 2 weeks ago Still I'l look into that unity documentation. Maybe I find usefull infos there too.Thank you. - - - Updated - - - Sal please help me out and be so kind to move this thread to the solved category. As I don't know how can I do it. Thank you. Also please delete this last post of mine because it is unrelated.

Thank you for your answer. Okay that is understandable. May I request a feature of a different coloring or at least a small maybe green border for the rest of the contract related parts? That would me nice.

Hi there. I need information how to OpenGL and fullscreen should work? Symptoms: -force-opengl added to the shortcut makes my memory issues gone. So finaly can play with all the belowed ones... BUT as soon as I start this way my "fullscreen" feature is lost. Either have to play in a "frameless window" Which DO have frame therefore in FullHD It is covering more space my monitor can handle. Therefore I cannot see 10% of the navball. not to mention I cannot open it up in map view. I do not like the concept of playing in the second available size something like 1700x980 or such. At full screen I get a bottom left quarter of the screen only. So barely can see the 1/3 of the main menu. Is that a correctly working method of forcing opengl with a real full screen? I already tried messing with the launchers confugration capabilities even settings inside the game. Tried alt+entering back and forth. I've got almost the latest gaming rig awailable: 780gtx gef 16gb ram, I7 latest proc. latest driver updated with gef experience automatically. A windows 7 64bit. Playing on KSP 32bit unfortunatelly as 64 is not supported by the best mods... I THINK this bug is not a mod related issue, but didn't tested it. I do write here because I have a heavy modded install. (best, tested, common mods only all v0.90 fully compatible except B9aero) So think I can not getting official support on this. And maybe someone has had the same annoying bug and know some workaround. Or just know rendering techniques or windows better than me, and have a solution. Thank you in advance.

Hi there. I have noticed a very minor bug. Or I think it is a bug. When accepting contracts it is a good thing that the parts list (this one is stock) highlights a part so I can pick it without have to extensive search for it. But sometimes it is not make it highlighted even with stock parts like the hichhikers bay. I don't know if it is some programmable logic (like if you don't already researched the part) or is it related to a mod or maybe missconfig on my end. But it is just a minor thing. I think I'we got all the mods so I don't bother to list them up. If you heard of a mod I surely have it. Excluding hangar extensions and editor extensions related ones. I use the stock on that part... All info maybe a workaround is more than wellcome. Thank you in advance

It is for sure a KJR problem I do had it. I found a solution on the KJR thread I think. Just get the latest mod. The Problem was with the docking ports configurations. A workaround if you just timewarp while the ships separated outside 2km-s So the other was unloaded. But still the issue was corrected just get the latest KJR.

Necroing must be stock suggestions - - - Updated - - - As it still an existing and related needs of a feature.

I must agree with that. Although I think for new players this could be soo frustrating. It not just a plus option but a whole new mindset. And not everybody is born a rocket scientist. (including me) Altough it would be a really fine addition. I admit that.

"Hack Gravity and cheat infinite fuel" :D Is this supposed to be official?

Hi guys. I did a research on the "already suggested post" and didn't find this idea there. So lets create it As you can see in your ingame callendar there is a date indicator of how old your space program is. That makes me thinking a bit. I do really like this concept of using 1960's technology mostly. But what if NASA still launching 60's rockets only in 2015? So why not make our belowed tech tree a twist of adding time related additions to it? I mean if you looking "old" scifies most of their ideas soon be real things. Like Ion drives, holographic screens, and so much more. (the Maglev train was a scifi too now it is reality) So if you managed to make your carrier streching trough decades you should research more "futuristic" things. In this way a deflector (engine / (heat)shield) can be incorporated in the core game as well as offworld mining and building and factoring equipments. Is this can be make available to us players inside KSP ? Mods do adds new categories to the techtree. So it must be managed somehow to make scifi time relatedly available. I don't mind a 10000 science worth techtree-node when I just get bored out of my 50 year old space programs possibilities. So there should be again a challenge. It would add a plus layer of the game experience: "How to step out of the 60's? after 50 year of R&D" Another requirements should be not time related but achivements related tech tree unlocking. I mean if you landed on a cellestial body, made it a super high detailed map, depleted all the soil analysis/temperature, mistery goo experiments and got all the science it can offer made a perfect satelite coverage even crashed some bases with extensive and self sustainable life support, etc,etc. And if it has something usefull maybe a place from launch rockets or build a factory or a mining operation base. Why not research something how to use these features? Also improved/"newly available" contracts should be created for them. Just thinking again on the fly OffKerbin resources which was unknown before all these science analisys should add us a possibility to utilize them. Maybe for upgrades materials on already used parts, maybe for conversion of more versatile fuels, even for new brand of engines. Maybe just like reallife diamonds... they should worth a whole lot of a fortune money if hauled back to kerbin. Don't forget the contracts possibilities... Diversification, abundancy/raerity should make planets/asteroids much more use and distinction. Just think about it please. I am aware of some of the suggested features in this post is inside the "DO NOT SUGGEST" it thread, but still I think these features should be in the CORE/STOCK game. I can't think of another way around. Nasa would mine and utilize new materials if found on another planet, even create offworld launch bases as well as orbital stations for factoring and launching vehicles if they can, and do have the technology for it. And they willing/comitted to do the R&D necessary already. Why shouldn't Kerbals? And with a content/or at least elapsed-time aware tech tree possibilities this would blend seamlesly into the stock feel of the game. Anyway keep up the great work. It is a very neat game already. chears

Looking extra good... Thank you for pointing it out. So what am I supposed to do? get all the fine contracts for scanSAT remote tech and the easter egg finder package and play the hell out of them? Or just make my ideas to reallity? ( If I would modding some english help must be aquired especially with the text of the contracts ) The minority of the ideas: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/111448-More-Interesting-contracts?p=1752575#post1752575

Thank you. I will deffinitely search and destroy I mean trying out this contract configurator (from your autosign) as well as the remotetech and anomaly Surveyor pack for it. I did wrote these Ideas in order to show the readers what functions should be incorporated in the core game. Along with other fine additions as mods but I cannot came up with for example a mechjeb contract. I think these must be unified, standardised, make them self compatible with each other, so basicly they should be in Vanila version. This games gets a lot of attention MOSTLY because of the mods. and so... something in progress already have mods which is used commonly about 1-10 million or maybe more people... If I would be the programmer surely prioritize to including them officially. On the other hand the basic idea of having a NASA simulator sandbox with a purpose is great. So allowing us to participate in missions is the best way to show people of what they could do with this nice box of LEGO. So in short... There should be a waaaay tooo moooore Kerbtracts.

sweet

Now we are talking on a subject One of "The biggest problem" of mine with struts: They (usually looks crap). Period. Mostly on airplanes. On rocket they can look good sometimes with symetry. The other major issue is partcount. I think you too aware of the fact with wonderfull,detailed stations (even uber lifters for very heawy cargo) has a fortune amount of parts including the struts. It is usually got FPS problems. I do have the latest hardware including I7 processor, and Gef titan. Abundant RAM which is not counted as the 32bit won't use that much. And yet I do have still images instead of a minimum 30 fps "movie" When I switching to a base of mine or a station. They have Mostly 40-50% of the parts are struts. With stock game you don't have the ability to get rid of the unnecesarry ones. So after reaching a stabel orbit, most of the struts become unnecessary which was just included on the ascend stability purose only. The majority of those was neccessary because of long parts require "an indicator" to attach multiple times to the other parts. (as you say multiple parents) So lots of unnecessary work and bad outcome on the FPS end. If we get something like edit seams that should work the same way but without the partcount. and without those ugly struts. Clipping is never be a good thing for phisics so clipping with a "decupler" should be dangerous! cliping without a decupler should work like "weld" in 3ds max. So clipped parts become one solid object. That way one less thing to worry about and to count for phisics. Resulting more FPS. In order to get rid of the confusion of the programming end a simply "grouping/weld" like operation might be invented. More like the new 0.90 transformation options just another button on that neat bar saing "weld or group" you can click the parts then the program "save/flag them as one solid part. Not counting phisics on each other. For example wings... they SHOULD be one solid object but a decent looking wing consist at least 6 parts now... even more count even more wobling. again the official help for it right now? struts. Ridicoulus. Did you see a harrier or a f22 with tons of struts on it? As for the symmetry you speak of I touched something maybe ctrl/alt + r or x I can't remember now. And it do writes something about changing from symmetry on center to symmetry on part. So they invented something like that. But a decent ingame "show available hotkeys" should be nice. Anyway I don't see the point about how symetry and this single/double attaching problem relates to each other. I mean ifwe get 6 booster on one radially attached booster it is just wobling more becouse of the one and only connection between the parts. So again you need even more struts to eleminate it. so at least with radial decouplers it should work the suggested way long tank top + bottom radial decoupler should mean 2 connection between the two part. also with the bi, tri, quad couplers. I know they can be healed with docking ports... imagine a nice tank setup with a tricoupler turned upside 3 way at least 6 monoprop tank on it and another tricouplet on top of it facing down. It is a really nice detailed addition to any base. Now it is 20 parts if you use 2 struts to "weld" those two unattached attachment nodes on the upper side to stifften the connection: that is two more part for the phisics counting... If you use docking ports you need 12 surplus object. 6 on each end... 5 -10 of it just becouse it is looks good and here you are more than 10-25-100 more parts you don't really need other than to launch this thing into orbit. (not counting the 6 x 3 MP tanks just because the tanks are not procedural) So this should be a only 5 part object. 2 tricoulers and 3 long mp tanks connected on the logical way (tanks both ends) I think a "weld" function might eleminate this kind of problems (lots of them)

I know not this is the actual likings from the author of this thread... Altough I very very much like the idea of multithreading phisics. I Understand that is not possible right now. But if functions (mods actualy) can make changes on ships not active like kill kerbals because of hunger, or EVEN BLOW up ships because of the overheating by the sun... So Maybe and maybe there is a way for "adhoc" style multithreaded maneuer node execution possibility. with reduced (or no phisics involved at all). How? Think about hyperedit. so If I set up a maneuver node to do an orbit. and switch vessel. the "old"/"set up" one will know how much delta-v Needed even at node creation it should check for "thing in the way and such", so if it could make the burn. just "hyperedit" it into the given orbit with the amount of consumed resources gone. That's it. Okey this is not a problemsolving for docking autopiloting it. but for every hours task it should be ok. Even holding heading and spead... with a known starting point and time, speed and heading There is no need for phisics to know where that something is right now. Before accusing me of lack of phisics therefore maybe "teleporting" inside things... Yes that is a possibility. but think about asteroids/mün returning ships timewarping through kerbin... not so realistic... but works fine And it is basicaly a game right? I do like the idea on the modding side Too. generators/collectors/minning machinery/orbitalconstruction with timeneeded to finish the craft can do their job when not active the ship itself. Altough these features should be stock also... Even at least a minimal life support with achievable self sustainability. I don't know what am I talking right now on the programming side, but I use a good game with many of the "must be stock kind" of mod so this is a superb game. and all of the above mentioned feature including "false multithreading" can be achieved/already achieved in a mod or in the stock game. So it is not a unity limitation stuff... and I think more gamer of this game could say this is true and a must have feature

As Sal_Vager asked for it : "Start new threads and link back to the original in future please guys :)" http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/62903-Flags-are-not-Flights-in-Progress/page6 It is still an annoying issue. I don't really think is that much of a coding issue to circumvent. Flags should REALLY not count as an active flight nor should other future plant possibilities like beacons and such fun things. Speaking of flags... We Do need some Vanila function to find at least the space center from the map view maybe and adhoc indicator of the possible landing based on our trajectories and athmospheres and such I do not think modern shuttles have to blindly reenter the athmosphere also they must have some kind of "automation" or a precise indicator for the parts of the whole flight. Or is it reality that pilots counting on the fly the necessary math to make a rendezvous? or even to make an orbit? So a Mechjeb like feature should be stock... (If you don't like the idea of an autopilot then not use it ) But I think that mod is really one of the most commonly used one. Suggestions?

It is not just a +1 for at least 3 more wehicle category should be helpful. I do like the colorcoding (as an addition) as well. But a little help of the possibility for the coders. YOU ALREADY DID this with the 0.90. Looking at the new part finder in the wab. You have a iconbase and a wonderful ability for us to make custom types (of windows) So why not just implement it and apart from the few standard types presented right now allow us players todefine our custom ones? Maybe as an upgrade you can make it better with the color coding too.

Yep I got a message about this necro thing since. But I can't just stand to write about it. I found this on the already suggested post. And I do really like the idea. I wasn't aware of this thread is a long dead one... As for at least 20 others I necroed in the last 2 hours... Rookie on the forums work sorry and as you probably guessed not english, so I can just barely understand what are people write here I don't really like the concept of modding (for a Work in progress game) if the functionalities can be added directly, seamlesly, officially. There are a ton of good mods here at least 20 I can fire right now without using my brain which without KSP would be too plain (almost unplayable withouth them). But the separately installing configuring and running out of memory thing is not something people like. They DO like the lot more clever functionality they even can handle... Therefore all the best Ideas SHOULD be inside the core game (For this one game it is particularly true as it is getting developped RIGHT now and so much to do is ahead.) I understand and totaly respect your opinion about the programming part maybe a bit too much for an "average" player. I admit that. That's why I wrote to be good to make it a lite and a hard way switchable stuff. AS you mentoined it: This should be a mod. IMHO the hard way should be a mod but a lite player friendly version could be a good addition to the game.

Just like a STOCK/VANILA tweakscale with "hardcoded" stock values even in size and in amounts of resource in it. The current available mod is a little wierd I think or maybe it counts the good amount by correct mathematical formula and thats why ending about 22k a 2.5m xenon tank When the base part 0.625m was about something like 400 ... But for a stock one incorporated to a game can be much more "stockalike" and balanced. I do missing the other feature though about tanks. They don't contains "resources" they contain only that 1-2 thing which is hardcoded. So for instance I need MP to a specific spot where the x tank looked kinda nice but that tank contains LFO hardcoded that kinda sux... I have to make maybe 3-4 stack of the MP tanks instead of one Jumbo to match it"s size... Which weren't a too big problem unles this stuff is a huge station...so that is the die of the idea because of partcount FPS lag... And kinda instability problems about ?joints? of a for tank instead of one. So as for the sake of procedurality I think these should be incorporated into the core game. Variable sizes with correct scaling (I mean standard diameters and fixed height ratio), and availability to be anything-container (at least decided and stored kind in VAB/SPH) But for full reusability I think emptied thank types should be changed on the fly. If you take home some petrol in a gascan after it eptied out you shouldn't but can fill it with anything for example sand. So in my oppinion modular/variable tanks WITH planned integrated mechanism on the ratios/sizes Should be stock/vanila option.

Not a bad Idea but wait only 10 (advanced) action groups allowed yet. So where should this one goes if already have at least 15 things which might be on action groups... But sure combined this Idea with the in flight actiongroup editor and a pageable hotbar for different ten active actiongroups or at least a way to on the fly easy and fast engine adjustment would be nice.

According to last answer it is not a long dead thread So I might not get penalized for necroing it. Talking about what should be in the final game is a great topic. So many bright and easy answers I can't stand to pinpoint the must have ones This could be a fine addition to the game. Just like the "scansat" technology integrated. So I dig it. All space program should consist a telescope at least. it should be good to do science too. - - - Updated - - - I don't really think just do a flyby should be reveal as much. (except it is documented (Which could also boost science which is good I think)) But sure for a pilot and only for him (and the current crew perhaps) that should be enought for rough estimations (therefore better details) (even undocumented).

I don't know any of the boys/girls? in person, but if they aware of what the majority likes they surely manage to make a quite a fun game to play. Therefore lots more sales. So everybody gets the nicer end here. And this is the most irritating "bug" I think. Or let's just say the more common source of big explosions...

Small details make a better enjoyment of a thing. I already wrote this reply to other threads asking nearly the same. It is a big yes especialy for the ability to add autodoing for pre set things. I am not lazy but these are forgotten as always type "errors" or fasten up the ordinarily manualy doable things. So it makes more inportant aspects to get more attention.