Damien_The_Unbeliever

Last I checked, hours weren't part of metric. The use of hours is what makes the conversion awkward, not the use of km.

For radio blackout, it's significantly complicated once relays are in the picture - you'd have to model how all of the various orbits will interact in the future to know if/when/how long any particular blackout period will be.

It doesn't have a separate button for configuration. It uses the standard settings dialog for KSP. I'm not in front of a machine with KSP at the moment, but from what I remember, there's a "Settings" button on the Pause menu. You should find a Launch Numbering section within. Similarly, the settings are available from the New Game dialog. I'll update this tonight with correct terminology/paths of buttons to press, if the above is insufficient. [Edit] It's actually a further step beyond "Settings" within the "Difficulty Options". Not how/where I'd choose to describe these particular settings, but that's where Squad gave us a mechanism to automatically expose options from Mods.

Now updated for 1.3

I'd be more interested in a Night-time Eclipse. I mean, what would that even mean?

But as I've tried to point out before, because a **lot** of people don't seem to realise this, is that the more options you add to the system, the more you add to the testing work. Software isn't perfect and every *combination* could potentially throw up new and unexpected scenarios. So, you create a game that, say, takes 45 hours to test. You add a single option to vary the game and, in all thoroughness, you ought to now spend 90 hours to test. Of course, in reality you cut corners and say "of course" some features don't interact and so you only need to check on one of the settings. And then you end up generating all female scientists as your rescuees, or similar. --- Or, to put it another way - a lot of people seem to believe that adding options/checkboxes to software is "free" when in fact it's the opposite - it either adds to the testing costs or it produces more unique combinations that aren't tested.

Isn't any reply to this, in some coded form "I don't like this feature and anyone who uses it is obviously wrong"? I don't think anything should be removed because I'm sure there are plenty of people who enjoy this game in different ways to how I do.

I'd just like to resurrect my original comments from post 4 on this topic:

Helium tank failure appears to be in second stage. None of these have been recovered or planned for reuse.

0.2.0 should have worked for 1.1.3, if you can still find it (i'm not sure how easy it is to find previous versions on spacedock, but it was there)

Now updated for 1.2.

So, you're already in a situation where you know that engines aren't restarting as you expected them to do. And your solution is to start more engines. Added to which, these are often fuel-starved situations. To be able to start more engines, I believe you'd have to have primed the turbopumps on all of them, despite the fact that you don't expect to use them ~95% of the time.

So, assume one of the engines is contributing 0% of the thrust it's meant to, and it's not the centre engine. If you boost the other two engines to compensate, you have quite a lot of asymmetry to deal with. During normal (ascent) usage, you don't have to deal with this because it's always assumed that (given we're not talking about the centre engine, again) there's another engine opposite each engine and so we don't have to deal with any torque issues. Do you design your entire set of engines to have far more gimbal to cope with that situation, or accept the loss?

You should be very careful with the assumptions you make, when it comes to software. For example, there should be no reason why the Asteroid Day mod should cause all rescued astronauts to be females (or was it scientists? Or both?) And yet that's what happened. This is the magic of software at work - seemingly unrelated systems can interact in surprising ways. (And also why I get annoyed when people suggest that an easy thing to do is to add an extra setting/option for X or Y - without realizing that every additional setting added to the game potentially doubles the amount of testing that should be performed)

Done. As I said, I've just been remiss in putting information out there.

Launch Numbering is a very simple mod - with one job to do. Every time you launch a vehicle, the mod examines the name. If it's seen that name launch before, it appends a number on the end. So, if you launch the same vehicle 4 times, they should all be uniquely named. Downloadable from Spacedock Source on github MIT Licensed In game settings, you'll find options on whether we use Arabic or Roman numerals, and whether we show Bloc numbers (wherein we try to identify "variants" of the vessel, in terms of its structure, and show it as a different Bloc). Now that this is doing what I wanted, I'm open to suggestions for anything that others would like to be able to configure with it.

Also, there's a general pattern to be observed here. We use it all the time. It's why we use caches within our computers. Recent history is generally a good predictor for near-term future. What people sometimes forget is that, at some point, this fails. Whether that's a cache miss or a shift in market forces, at *some* point, recent history will always fail to be a good predictor for the future. It's just bloomin' difficult to predict this before it happens

I really need to pull my finger out and seriously develop/promote my mod - it's called Launch Numbering, it's available on Space Dock, and every time you launch a vessel, it adds an incremented number on the end (if it's not the first). So, you have a craft named "Spearfish". The first time it's launched, it's "Spearfish". Next time you launch, it's "Spearfish 2", then 3, etc. Also, in the save file, you can tell it to use Roman rather than Arabic. You'd probably want to make that edit between launches 1 and 2. It's been updated for 1.1. I just haven't gotten around to a) creating an "official" thread for it in the right part of this forum, and b) Put some UI in so that you can change things without editing the save file. I may steal some of the ideas in this thread when I go back to working on it seriously.

What, like assuming that other people's experiences will necessarily apply to your own experience, on your hardware, with your OS, with your combination of mods etc? If you trying to avoid assumptions, the only way to find out is to try it for yourself

I did. But did you realise that it works on at least three levels? Should the planting of a flag by a citizen from the USA grant certain rights? Should the planting of a flag by a human grant certain rights? Should the planting of a flag by an living organism originating from Earth grant certain rights?

Who is this "we", pilgrim? If you're saying "humanity", then probably yes, So far as we know, we were the first to plant a flag there, and for lack of a better standard, asserting that we own our own moons is sensible, I agree. If by "we", you mean "the USA", you may want to remember that there's an international audience here :-|

But you, yourself, posited aliens that we would have to use weapons against. How is that peaceful?

So, quite apart from the fact that, if we ever encounter aliens, it's unclear whether they've also agreed to this specific stipulation up front... We also have to consider the various situations on Earth. There are *many* locations on Earth where there is no immediate danger from others (other than the possession of weapons by others) and yet people refuse to give up their own weapons. Why would space be different?

Why? Do you think it's struggling to stay at the top of the forum without pinning? IMO, Pinning should be used to highlight threads that might otherwise be missed.

@severedsolo - that was *last* weeks squadcast summary.