willow

Thank you..

I think this is a moot point and we can be very pragmatic about it. European law forbids software from having this behavior. So it cannot be published in Europe. I presume other territories around the world have similar rules. Pragmatic solution is therefore: Don't break the law. You can collect statistics, if you clearly and in detail explain what is being collected and allow users to opt-in, opt-out is not good enough. All problems would go away at that point. Not everyone might like it but they'd have very little to complain about since if they don't opt-in it does not relate to them. We can argue all day but in the end our opinions are irrelevant just like how our opinion of Majir is irrelevant. The law is the bottom line. Before the whole controversy started I have suggested ways around the issue while still allowing Majir to collect his data. Easiest way is probably to have a mod that checks if new versions of mods exist and download them for the user. You can analyse the requests the mod makes to the server to your hearts content since it is information gathered as a side effect of a service to a user. Not as a service to the mod owner. Restrictions remain but they're much more lenient. Those suggestions and warnings were ignored. And his popularity took a hit. Everyone who'se been around the block could see it coming from a mile away. It's simple cause and effect, not rocket science. The world and the people in it aren't going to act different because we want them to. I am pleased about the position Squad has taken in the matter. It's clearly practical and balanced and seems to abide by European law. (I keep mentioning European law specifically because I'm informed about that version only. I'm quite certain other territories have similar laws. I expect my argument would still be true if you replace European by most other territories. At any rate, a lot of KSP customers are in Europe, the laws are relevant and abiding by them shouldn't really inconvenience anyone as they're quite reasonable.)

Here's a +1 for your statistics Downloading!

Perhaps the place should be on first ksp startup? It seems to me that most users will not have read this thread if somewhere in the future they load up a mod that includes your software. It should be possible for you to cause a popup right? And that way you've solved all ethical issues. You say a lot of mods upload data without telling us about it.. Could you list them so I can uninstall them?

Just a generic comment... I think it would be highly undesirable if users would inadvertantly install this plugin via a third party mod and have it upload data to servers without their knowledge. No matter how anonymous the information is. Let me put it another way. In Europe information gathering like this by law should be an opt-in scenario. If it happens behind my back, you're breaking the law. Admittedly almost every smartphone out there is laden with software who in some shape or form does this behind our backs. But this doesn't change the law or ethics. You described the process as opt-out... I think it should be opt-in.. Upon startup of KSP a dialog may explain to me exactly when and what kind of information is going to be sent to the servers so I may make an informed decision. But I as an end user should clearly give my consent. And then if you'd honestly tell me the benefits I'd be giving to the mod makers I'll probably say yes. However, curse gaming already keeps pretty good statistics about mod downloads, which is a close indication of usage. Meaning that this plugin is superfluous. Consider alternatives that you can offer as services to the user while they achieve your goals at the same time. You could change your plugin so it does automatic update checks for the user. Which gives your server the same information and adds benefits for the users. You'd also need to offer a repository for mods on your server though. Proxying to curse wouldn't be the same. You could add in game error reporting where users can upload bugs to your servers which benefits both the users and the mod makers, and gives you usage statistics. You could for every bug send a mod list to the server. Because that's relevant information when reporting a bug. You could also consider ingame feature requesting to this system which adds the same benefits. You could offer a list of update information so the user is informed of version information for every mod in their game. In fact a plugin which finds updates to my mods (Or as yet uninstalled mods) and offers to install them for me in game would definately be on my wish list. That you learn about the mods I have installed in the process isn't that big a thing to me.

Thanks for stepping in and doing the patch Jinks, it's one of my favourite mods and I'd be sad to see it go.

If one of you mech jeb heroes have the time, would it perhaps be possible for the maneuver planner to be re-organized? The current switch to the left or right tab options are very user unfriendly. Every time a feature is added it becomes more difficult to find the right tab. A quick solution could be a vertical button list of possible tabs to the left or right of the view. Or maybe allowing each of the options to be integrated into blizzy's toolbar. It would be awesome if those buttons can be constructed as macros so that I can set up two buttons, one creates a maneuvering node with an apoapsis of 100 the other with an apoapsis of 200. If all else fails, then perhaps the option to disable the options we don't use so we can more easily maneuver our way around the maneuver planner?

Looks nice, I can't wait for your first release Keep up the good work.

I'm loving this and waiting in anticipation imho KSP needs tracks! but does it belong in the releases forum if it's not, you know, released?

No worries. It's your ideas, your work so your judgment should obviously be final in how you intend to go about it. I personally don't see a huge problem in being able to test the whole mission. It might take some of the excitement away if you decide to go through the trouble, which is true, but it's also a hassle since you do not have saves in a simulation But on the other hand right now I can accomplish the exact same thing with one savegame and I can choose to make it final if it works better than expected. It's still KSP there's always plenty that can, no... Will! go wrong. (Usually with the physics engine :/ ) I imagine there's as many reasons to play this game as there are players, but for me personally this game is about building the most flexible stable and reusable crafts. Orbital science flagships that can easily visit two or three planets with landers that can land on the various moons and can then get back to the mothership again. Doing the missions is good too but I tend to mess around in the editor and with reverted launches for days before even doing a mission. This is why the ability to test certain parts of my crafts in different simulations interests me greatly.. But as said You're taking the time to do the work, so the decisions on features are yours and yours alone to make, I can only share opinions. I'll certainly be keeping an eye on this one, good luck!

Snifff.. Hello old friend... We fly once more! Thank you for the update. This has always been the best capsule for me.

Hehe, perhaps the crewtank should be distinctly kerbal shaped. And now that I have everyone's attention. BOY what incredible creations in this thread. I've spent hours browsing the various images getting inspired. (And depressed because my results usually aren't half as pretty as most of the creations here!) Lack, you truly unleashed the creative potential of your users.

It's so pretty! Can't wait for your first release. How do you feel about letting those RCS ports actually do something? It's always bugged me that the RCS ports on the vanilla command pod don't work... Also, if you'd need inspiration for the next part how about a single service module part that adds a few light engines and some fuel balanced for about 1200 deltaV Enough for a mun landing/ascent and then a little to spare.

I really like this idea Here are some suggestions for the test flights: * I'd suggest always reverting to VAB after a test flight, and not ending the flight prematurely on AP/PE altitudes. IF someone wants to test fly his elaborate base to jool, let them but auto revert all progress after the flight is ended. So even if they interact with other vehicles, those changes will be undone. * Also, if it's possible, test flights don't necesarily need to start on the launch pad do they? Perhaps you could start test flights in orbit around kerbin, orbit around the mun or landed on the Mun. I'd love the ability to test the landers of my vehicles before actually launching from kerbin. Also if this were available as a config file enableable cheat option so you can launch vessels immediately into duna orbit. (Some of us are interested in building magnificient vehicles and less so in the flight to get them to their goal, it's a cheat I know, but it's also a single player game) * Maybe it's possible to put a shader over the entire screen, turning the whole scenario more bluish or black and white to clearly distinguish between testing and real flights? And some build queue ideas. * Putting large vessels on hold and pushing smaller vessels to the top of the queue. * A rocketparking lot, built rockets that are launcheable even if we choose to wait with launching them. (Refuel vehicles come to mind, or a fleet prepared for a launch window.) Good luck.

This sounds like a scripting engine I will actually use! I even like the name. With all due respect to the valliant efforts of the other script engine writers, but I'm really not interested in learning yet another limited language that lacks absolutely basic features like vectormath. (Vector math is in.... right? )

A bad thing only when you assume that a player can easily mine kerbin for all it's science before moving off into the universe. Which is absolutely not the case! Mining Kerbin for science is only slightly simpler than mun missions. Mun missions only take a bit more effort and yield more than 10 times the science per mission! (Kerbin ground science modifier is .3 and Mun ground modifier is 4) Kerbin science is a bit too low if you ask me. A mission to a mountain on kerbin should be worth my time if I wanted to do it. Right now there's just no reward in it. So in that regard I suggest you just leave it as it is, people will move on when they get bored. And for those who don't get bored. Heck they SHOULD be rewarded They're probably the KSP airplane division and right now they won't have much fun with career mode... your mod might change that! Me personally, I might do short excursions on Kerbin if I'm missing small amounts of science in my quest to conquer the kerbalverse. But I won't be spending the time to harvest all the science your mod might add. It doesn't matter that you offer me science close to home, the Mun still brings higher rewards so as soon as I can I will always go there. So leave it as it is! You'll open up Kerbin for those who want it and that could be the unique point for your mod. It's not a cheat because people still have to work for it, it won't be too easy. If you lower the science yield even more you'd take away any interest players might have in a Kerbin mission. If you intend to add Biomes on other planets the same still holds, but in my opinion the moons of kerbin produce too much science at the moment. I'd humbly suggest to leave those alone.

I too would like to know, I'd buy this in a heartbeat.

One issue I have with TAC is that if you've docked two identical ships in a setup with lots of small tanks. It becomes impossible to discern which tank belongs to which ship the highlighter helps but is very clunky. Goodspeed would solve that problem because you transfer the fuel by clicking in the scene and not in some window. So kudo's for that! You say TAC works well in tandem with this mod. I personally don't see why I'd still want TAC after installing this mod Don't get me wrong... Tac does a great job I could not live without it at this stage. But it's interface is hopelessly clunky and simplistic. In the VAB you can add tanks via symmetry groups. Would it be possible to select and modify all tanks for a symmetry group? Or failing that... Would it be possible to select all similar tanks? And an idea just off the top of my head, would it be possible to auto assign the stage level as a priority to the tank? That would imply auto asparagus or onion staging depending on how you set up your staging. And it would help in the rare instances where you want a particularly heavy upper stage to drain into a lower stage before ejecting those extra powerfull engines. (If your upper stage happens to be a heavy low TWR inter planetary ship)

Instead of building your own language, or continuing on the "less than stellar" syntax of kOs. Why not simply implement an existing game scripting library? Like Lua, or Javascript? The obvious benefits are twofold... First of all you don't have to worry about language and syntax, only implementation, so you can spend all your time on getting the language to work with KSP well.. Secondly. People don't need to learn a new language which in it's initial stages is likely to be very fickle and buggy. And they get to use existing editing tools like luaedit and learn from existing internet resources. Your work would then be restricted to handling in and output to and from the script. Meaning you get to add lots of features in little time once the initial plumbing is done.

I'm about to do the same thing and I've done it before. IMO not using an apollo style lander is a waste of fuel on Duna. Every kilogram you bring down you must also bring back up again. Added bonus is that you can assemble an apollo style mission in near kerbin orbit. A mission to add the lander, a mission to add more fuel. And then after your mission you can send up a taxi to retrieve kerbals and science. Refuel the whole thing, send up more kerbals, and do the whole thing again. This time with more fuel because the lander is still in duna orbit!

Thanks Harvester for the info. That's what I understand from Harvester's answer too. And that makes the lab a usefull appollo style mothership. For example in the jool system you could visit various worlds with the lab and use a lander to harvest science. Then you could reset the science experiments via the lab and reuse the lander on another body. If you combine the lab with a few large fuel tanks you could also refuel the lander. Then when all is done you jettison the lander and empty tanks and head back home with the complete laboratory. Around kerbin you send up a taxi that docks with the lab and retrieves all the science to return it back to kerbin.

I don't know if it's possible, but has anyone tried using the science bay for storing experiments? For instance, take a sciece lab, a scientific lander and a ton of fuel to the moon and then use the lander to ferry the science from the moon to the lab and then afterwards return the entire lab home and deorbit it carrying all the science for all the biomes you've visited. Can you do that? I think that'd be a fair use for a lab.

What do you guys think about the science lab usability? If I understand correctly, and I have not had the opportunity to experiment with it (I restarted my career mode). The science module allows you to amplify the value of your scientific breakthroughs before you send the information back home and reset your science instruments so they can be used again. But the maximum achievable science is still limited by the 40% sent value cap isn't it? So in a practical effect you can only do the same experiment twice before you reach the cap. Doesn't that mean that gamewise there is no reason to prefer a science lab over just sending a second or third mission? Particularly because with a science lab you're also burdened with getting the two or three kerbals required to man the contraption home. I'm hoping I'm wrong and that the science lab removes the send cap alltogether so you can achieve 100% science on a planet by sending a team and then bringing them home.

I'm sold It's not what you set out to do but you might want to think about adding one or two proper cargo bay options anyway though.

That looks really awesome... I know it's been suggested before, but just to throw in my two cents (and so you don't forget ) I'd love to see an android version.