Damien_The_Unbeliever

Every time that people ask for a slider/setting, I'd hope that people would realise that that's saying "please, Squad, multiply all of your testing efforts by (however many positions this new settings could take)" - for all that people argue for realism, reality, in terms of how much effort squad can expend in delivering this game, must at least be taken into account. I would instead argue that we (as we have to) wait and see what 1.0 actually is, and then if we're unhappy with it then we can a) appeal for fixes in 1.1 and continue to seek mods that change the game in ways that we find more appealing. We can continue to feedback on the forums, of course, but the suggestion of "add a slider" or "add a checkbox" isn't as trivial for software developers to deal with as many people here seem to think it is.

Would probably have been better to post as a separate question rather than at the bottom of another question that's already been marked as "answered". What some of the posts above allude to is that the symmetry mode is kindof sticky. Consider three parts, A, B and C. A is the root part. You attach two part Bs to part A using radial symmetry. You now take part C, set the mode to mirror, and attempt to attach them to one of the parts B. At this point, the mode will switch to radial, because you're trying to attach to an already radial part. The way to fix this is to detach the parts B and reattach them using mirror symmetry instead. There would be all kinds of trickiness in trying to find corresponding parts when trying to mix radial and mirror symmetry, so I think they went with the simplest option in the editor and just made it stick to one mode. Of course, you can mix modes when attaching to a part that has no symmetry (so you can radial attach Bs to A and also mirror attach Cs to A).

I'm just not understanding how this is meant to work. If you have two objects in (approximately) the same location at the same time, and with the same velocity, then they are in the same orbit. You can't have one of them be in an elliptical orbit and the other in a circular orbit. If two objects are close together at the same time but are in different orbits, then to move from one to the other, you need to expend the same delta-v as would be required to detach from one object and then to alter your orbit to match the second object's orbit, whether or not it even existed.

In what context are you running this code? I'd have thought that most coding questions would probably be more on topic in e.g. the Add-On Development forum, rather than Gameplay Questions and Tutorials.

What would you rather they spend time on? Fixing issues that only they can solve, or adopting mods? I'll grant you, they have adopted a few mods, but they're not going to adopt all of them (for starters, you can't run *all* mods, since several of them are working towards separate goals). Personally, I'd rather they spend time working 90-95% of the time on stuff that can't be dealt with by mods (because, hey, there's always mods) or stuff they feel is *essential* to the game meeting their vision for it. And whilst I love EVE, it definitely feels to me like something that can be left to mods.

There's already a field that every body has in the game and draws objects in - it's called gravity.

Thanks, I'm starting to get what you mean. But from your diagrams, five legs look better than four (and then smaller improvements after) - is it a trade-off/minuscule difference?

Sorry if this has been discussed before, I've taken a (quick) look through the archives and not seen anything. Why do we prefer four-legged landers (Apollo LEM, Falcon 9 reusable) versus three-legged alternatives? If we want to ensure that all legs make contact, 3 legs are the only combination that work (with uneven surfaces). If we want some redundancy, why is 4 the right number?

Yes, this sounds good.

But that pretty well says that you believe that part clipping is wrong in some way (sorry for putting words in your mouth). If part clipping is a legitimate part of the game (which is surely part of this discussion thread) then why does the "finished game" letting you use a legitimate feature "feel wrong"?

How so? Is there a way to perform serious clipping that doesn't require you to go out of your way to make it happen (I've not encountered that situation)? If it's not going to happen without deliberate action, I'm not sure how reviewers are going to accidentally make it happen.

Last I checked, we've all gotten what we've (officially) paid for. If Squad had stopped caring, they would just stop. Full stop. Shut down the website and forums and walk away. From what I can see, that's not what they're doing. They're continuing to create. I'm also almost certain that just about every seasoned player will have at least one aspect of 1.0 that they hate or don't think time should have been spent on. That's to be expected but it's almost certain that 100% of seasoned players won't agree on *which* features should have been done differently.

Well, the obvious, consistent, way for the orbital direction to be indicated would be to reuse the rotating dots idea that the contractual orbits already use. If anything different were done to indicate orbital direction, I'd hope that the contractual orbits would use the same mechanism.

That information is given to you by the navball - twice. First, there's a HDG indicator at the bottom that tells you what direction you're now pointing in. And second, the white markers on the navball also tell you what direction you're looking - so if HDG is 90 you're pointing East, or if it's 270, you're pointing West. In the below image (from the wiki) the heading is 69 so it's "mostly east".

I've managed to get a lot of temperature surveys done over Minmus with a satellite in a polar orbit and a bit of patience - so a little more work than just "science from around" but not by too much.

Squad are changing the aero model. By definition, it will not be 100% backwards compatible *anyway* since the only backwards compatible model is one that is unaltered from 0.90. Personally, I want to wait and see what they come up with. There are far few details as yet to form solid opinions. If they produce a new system that is *universally* reviled, I'm fairly certain that they wouldn't declare "this was the one chance for the aero model to be changed, you've all missed your chance to opine, so this is what will land in V1.0".

I don't seem to have the same issue when I'm looking at the potential contracts and there are the accept/reject buttons in the top right (maybe due to there being two buttons in close proximity) but I have accidentally cancelled already accepted contracts at least five time now, when there's a single X button towards the top right.

With approximately 20 years of muscle/visual memory telling me that a cross towards the upper-right means "close this window" - and having yet again cancelled a contract I hadn't meant to (I was just browsing it and was about to go check some details about it in the tracking station) - could we please have the cancel contract button in somewhere less "top-rightish? Maybe at the bottom of the contract where (again) muscle/visual memory has trained me that more action-oriented/permanent actions will exist. Or am I the only person who's accidentally cancelled contracts when merely intending to leave that screen?

The problem I can immediately see with 4 is you say "cluster of background objects within a 2.5km radius" should group together but you could end up with pathological situations where you have chains of as many objects as you like, each (say) 2km away from each other, but obviously the ends of the chain are far further away from each other - So do you either end up with a single "cluster" that is in fact 50km wide, or do you somehow partition them into pairs of objects? - That each object within a pair is within 2km of its partner object, but is also within 2km of another object that is being treated completely differently?

It sounds like you're not opening up the tech tree. E.g. you should get satellite contracts once you've got enough tech to fulfil them. (Possibly you have to have completed an orbit of Kerbin as well, I'm not sure on that point) (And there's a known bug where satellite contracts are actually offered before all of the tech that you'll need is unlocked)

The one I fondly remember was a part test - I had to test the KR-2L at between 1800m and 2800m, doing between 800m/s and 1000m/s (IIRC). It took me a lot of trial and error to get moving that fast, that low down (and I hadn't yet learnt that you could use the part under test during an earlier part of the flight by stage editing in-flight or early manual ignition, so the engine was just pure weight)

My self-imposed rule is that once it's reached the contractual orbit, it's got to stay there (unless perturbed by encounters, etc). If it's not going to be any use to me in that orbit then I pretend that it's been handed over to others to use/look after (which to implement, I go to the tracking centre and terminate the flight). If it's got some science bits that can be used in that orbit (e.g. Goo canisters, since I never seem to get asked to do orbits where a thermometer will work) then I will keep it around until an opportune "science from around xxx" contract comes up before terminating it.

There are reports that a further exploit is to launch a new vehicle (any vehicle) and then switch to the old satellite and get it to the right orbit. That's definitely further into buggy territory.

If, for whatever reasons, we cannot have action group editing in flight, and possibly even if we can. Could we have some means of indicating that, during a particular undocking, we want to revisit action groups (and possibly staging)? The idea being that we're able to examine each vehicle that has been produced by the separation event and make sure that the staging for each resulting vehicle makes sense, and that the action groups are also correct, before all of physics starts acting. Optionally, being able to select which vehicle you want to be in control of when you exit this mode might be useful. Hopefully now that VAB/SPH are now a single scene, this would be a re-use of the same scene, just with fewer editing options enabled.

A suborbital trajectory is one where you leave the atmosphere but your periapsis never rises above the level of the atmosphere - so you're not actually in orbit. The simplest way to complete this sort of test is to not perform a gravity turn at all - just launch, keep flying straight up, verify that you're on a suborbital trajectory (so get your apoapsis up to say 100,000 m). Then, once you enter the 79,600-81,400m range, stage the engine.