Terwin

GTA V sales top 80 million units as of May. When GTA IV topped 20M units sold, it was announced that the franchise had sold over 100M units(before the release of GTA V). As such, things that are worth while to do for GTA V or GTA in general are not necessarily worth the time and effort for KSP. As the comparisons made in this thread are to GTA or GTA V specifically, one must remember that GTA has sold roughly 90 copies per copy of KSP sold, and GTA V has sold roughly 40 copies per copy of KSP sold, with GTA also selling for a much higher price than KSP. (and this is not even counting the GTA online micro-transactions) I love KSP and I think it is a great product, but it just does not have the bottom-line impact of the product that it is being compared to in this thread. And as GTA V is sold on four different console systems, with more than 45M units shipped several months before the windows release was even available, I would hazard that it also has a smaller percentage of mod-users than KSP(as far as I know consoles do not generally support mods). In fact, looking at the sales numbers and the release dates, one might come to the conclusion that non-console users of GTA are mostly an after-thought(both GTA IV and V were released much later on Windows, with no support for other PC operating systems listed), making the maximum size of the GTA mod-using community an inconsequential fraction of the GTA community as a whole. After reading the rest of this thread and then looking at these sale numbers, I sort of get the impression of someone looking at the regulatory hurdles of building a 100 story sky-scraper in Manhattan and bemoaning the impossibility of building a 3000 sqft ranch-home in rural New Mexico.

I believe the mechanic is 1 + year of hab for pilots or if on a body with 500% colonization, or 50+ years of hab in any scenario will give indefinite hab/home time. None of my planets are above 300% yet, but I have bases on the Mun, Duna and Moho with indefinite hab time because I have 50+ years of hab for the number of kerbals on-station.

Many people seem concerned that T2 is all about profit and this will be the end of KSP. Remember, T2 did not just buy KSP, they bought the IP(as in they own Kerbals and can now release kerbal-branded everything). Also, it is not just profit, it is high profits with minimal investment. Adding DRM to a released product is hard. Anything tacked-on will be trivial to circumvent, and anything integrated will require a massive re-write. (considering how much of the core functionality is over-written by things like FAR(Aerodynamics), Kerbalism(background processing), and RO(lots of stuff, I am sure), there may not be a lot of code left where they can add DRM that is not *already* circumvented by existing mods, and I do not think any lawyer wants to be in a position to try and argue that even though A existed for years before B and has not substantially changed since B, A is specifically and maliciously intended to circumvent B) It is far cheaper for T2 to produce a re-skinned mario-kart clone, and two dozen other low-barrier-to-entry games using Kerbals than to go back into the existing KSP code(which is still being re-factored and cleaned up) and try to add DRM that is more effective than a post-it note saying 'please do not steal this.' Actually, if they made it racing rocket-ships with magnetic turns that could be pretty cool(obviously the default setting would not have 'realistic' physics on the turns, but it would provide a good reason why you need to choose between more steel(easier turns, but slower acceleration) or more carbon-fiber(more acceleration, but harder to turn), with magnets as power-ups and ...) I would expect most of the required development effort for those would just be appropriately funny cut-scenes and skins(that may or may not make Kerbals look a lot like the 3 stooges which may or may not be accurate depending on your views...). Easy to port to all consoles, etc. For monetizing KSP, DLC is the obvious choice, even if the core product will need occasional updates to make sure everything needed for the DLC is supported. Anything beyond that is probably too-much effort for the expected profit.(it is possible even DLC for KSP is too much effort for the profit, but they are using 'Making History' as a trial balloon to see if it is worth pursuing further) KSP is a niche product and I strongly suspect T2 is more interested in the Kerbals themselves than in KSP. I am expecting a large number of children's games featuring large-headed green people of Kerbin(which are already established and clearly not a derivative work, even if they share the same easy-to-draw characteristics of some well known characters, they even have the start of a non-violent but curious culture that would mesh well with children's games)

While I can see why you would want them on the bottom for the purpose of creating images, don't most water planes have wings much higher up? That lets them do things like turn at low altitudes without having a wing ripped off by the water...

If you only want the hab-ring, you can just use a mod like janitors closet to hide all the other parts(but it may be easier if you inflate it after it is in orbit, and that will mean you need one or more cargo crates to haul material kits). It is not like having MKS installed will force you to use the full functionality if you only want one part(but that part does use some of the custom DLLs so I would not expect it to work if you try to remove anything other than unused parts form the MKS folder).

Seems to work the same in 1.3 s it did in 1.2: some of the gimbals do not work properly on the lightbulb. I just copied my Atomic engines directory from 1.2.2 to 1.3 and my career game with lots of lightbulbs works just fine. (The first time I loaded up a heavily clipped vessel from 1.2 into 1.3 it exploded, but all the other vessels were fine(even clipped ones), and after adding in a couple mods I had over-looked, I was able to go back in and everything worked fine, including he ship that previously exploded)

The mod in question for GTA admits to reverse-engineering the game to figure out how to modify it.(but we only did it as much as needed for modding, scout's honor!) That is quite some distance away from creating mods that use a published API. As far as I am aware, none of FAR(aerodynamics), RO(lots of fundamental changes) or Kapernicus(altering Kerbol system) required any reverse-engineering of the KSP source code, and if you can modify KSP that thoroughly without any reverse-engineering, I do not think there is much danger to the mod scene, even if T2 continues to take a hard-line against reverse engineering source code. As far as going after mods that only use the published API, I am pretty sure T2's lawyers know that they would be laughed out of the court-room. Now if any SQUAD employees use insider-knowledge and unpublished interfaces to create their mods, they could potentially get a C&D letter, but I would be pretty surprised if anything like that happened beyond 'oops, we intended to add that to the published API but it got lost in the shuffle, we'll add it to the next version.' Admittedly, I have not looked into if any mods actually reverse-engineer the KSP source-code, but generally that is not something that is much needed when there is a mod-friendly API that has been published.

If you have the full GC mod(as opposed to just GC core) then the stock ISRU will (slowly) convert ore to material kits. The only reason I Can think of to use RocketParts instead is if you have Extraplanetary Launchpads installed and are using that manufacturing path instead.

I find that before unlocking the Klaw, you can generally also use a KAS wrench to surface-attach the pod to your vessel and either carry it down with you, or transfer the kerbal over and release the pod to drift again. This does require that you take up an engineer with a wrench however. (in my first 1.3 Game, Bill is rapidly catching up with Jeb and Val in flight hours as I expand my roster)

What would you consider the Hitchhiker storage container if not habitation space? Mk1, Mk2, and Mk3 passenger compartments? 2-4 kerbals with a lab, a couple hitch-hikers, and perhaps a Mk3 cockpit or a smaller cockpit and a Mk3 passenger compartment seems like plenty of space for a nice, quick 100-day transit to Duna just using stock parts. (a 3 year transit means leaving at pretty much the worst possible time or making multiple Kerbol orbits before encountering Duna, so I agree that that is pretty unrealistic since they can be there in less than 2 years, with the first year and a half of that staying home and waiting for a better transfer window) Admittedly, I like USI-LS as it gives some nice habitation options in addition to nicely configurable Life support and habitation requirements, but even stock has plenty of parts that make for good RP habitation.

The way I see it: Worst case scenario: I have installs and install files all the way back to 0.90 and I can happily play 1.2.2 and 1.3 for many years yet. Best case scenario: T2: RoverDude, we have been looking at USI, and we want you to be the new creative director for KSP. We are also doubling the size of your team, so get out there and make it Great! Notes on pay-to-win: 1) single player game with no clear objective, so what is 'win' anyway? 2) we already have an infinite fuel check-box in the cheat menu, along with add/remove buttons for both funds and science, what else could they possibly add? The ability to jump into just about any orbit of any body, turn off reentry heating and collision damage? We got that too! 3) the game resource files are all text based, so most players who are able to manually install mods can probably go in and 'improve' just about anything they want even without mods. Main Sails with 10,000 ISP: sure, Verners that can lift a 25x3.75m stack taller than the VAB? how many Gs do you want at lift-off? I think it is pretty safe to say that even if they wanted to, T2 could not add 'pay to win' in any meaningful way. I think Squad was doing a fine job, but I see no reason to get worried as I can still play 1.3 until I need a VM in a VM in a VM to run an OS with backwards compatibility to windows.

I did not say there was anything wrong with it(I did say it was fun), I just did 'huh, Let's try this' until there was little similarity between the parts as I was using them and as they started out.

I believe this was identified earlier as a CKAN bug. But even if that were fixed, unless the stand-alone GC core has been updated, you could not install from CKAN anyway, as the only currently released version of GC that I am aware of comes bundles with MKS, and CKAN would not recognize it as being available.

The stock part upgrades are quite different from the R&D upgrades, also anyone who wants better parts can just edit the config file for that part and change it. There are also lots of parts packs, including some very powerful engines like the nuclear light-bulb for example. Also, part of the challenge of KSP is working under the tyranny of the rocket equation and finding a way to make it work, in spite of the limitations of the parts you have on-hand. I mean, how much of a challenge would the game be if you had an engine identical to the mainsail but with an ISP of 10,000? My 1.2.2 game using R&D was fun, but I was launching everything from Kerbin as a SSTA using a single upgraded nuclear lightbulb engine and carrying a large ISRU with 80% mass reduction and > 100% production increase, so every ton of ore would give me > 2 tons of lf. When a probe is biome-hopping on Tylo without bothering to refill the ore tanks at most stops because you can lift-off with more than 10km/s in the ore tanks, it is not quite the same game as when you are only visiting the 3 smaller moons of Jool because you do not have the TWR to lift off from Tylo or Lathe, and cannot make your first landing on Val because you do not have enough fuel left after the transfer.(almost all of the parts I used regularly were at 80-90% weight reduction so with nearly 3 times the thrust of the already OP nuclear lightbulb this gave me ~25 time the effective lifting power of the standard lightbulb with an ISP almost as good as an ion engine. My primary challenge was building self-sustaining colonies and managing all the oncurrent flights I had going, fuel was not even an issue any more, making it not really a rocket-game.)

The parts in question are for EL(Extra-planetary launch pads) which was used prior to GC(Ground Construction). EL was not as good of a fit to RoverDude's vision for in-situ construction, so it was always a temporary addition. Ground Construction is pretty much exactly what RD planned to create, so you can expect it to be supported at least as long as the rest of MKS.

If you used Steam to install, you will need to look back in this thread to find where other people said you can find the steam-installed game, as I do not have KSP through steam nor do I let it use default locations for my other games. Otherwise, look for the folder where you installed KSP, and just copy the folder(select the folder, right-click it and select copy, then right-click on an empty area and select paste, should create a folder called 'copy of ...' where the ... is the original folder name). That is all you need to do to create a full, playable back-up of your KSP game including all save games and installed mods. There is no copy-protection and no DRM to get in the way of having as many copies as you want on your computer(as I said before, I probably have more than a dozen old copies sitting around)

Have you tried hitting 't' to turn on stability assist? Is your thrust lined up with your center of mass? Is your drag also lined up on your center of mass? In general, I would recommend that you always install a new copy of KSP, or copy your old install before updating(if you got it through Steam, that means copying your install to a different directory and playing from that new directory so steam cannot break anything on you). I have probably about a dozen working copies of the game on my hard drive, mostly with old saves that I left behind after an update.(as KR&D looks to be abandoned now, I am not expecting to update my 1.2.2 save game for example, and in all likelyhood I will not even bother to finish my in-progress Jool-5 mission) They are all working copies and I could easily return to any of them should something happen to make a new version of KSP unplayable.

The original poster(and presumably mod creator/maintainer) is @-MM- According to their profile, they have not been on the forums since March 2nd, so I suspect that this mod is on either a temporary or permanent hiatus.

What is this 'uninstall' nonsense you speak of? Is it somehow related to running out of HD space or some-such? Or perhaps you refer to removing it from the active list of KSP installs in CKAN?

I have not used TAC-LS myself, but from what I understand USI-LS is more configurable and requires habitation as well as supplies(TAC-LS separates supplies out into food, water, oxygen, etc, while USI-LS combines them as you always need the same proportions anyway) USI-LS is also more integrated with USI-MKS and there are some parts of USI-MKS that are not available without USI-LS(generally parts or functions that only affect supplies and fertilizer)

I believe the GC calculation uses level-hours, so level-0 engineers are the same as non-engineers, as they provide no levels for production. Send them to orbit to get their first star and they should work fine.

Early game: Get ISRU then NERVA Late game: Build self-sustaining outposts on promising bodies.(USI-MKS) Expand them into colonies. Keep adequate transport ships on-hand to get everyone home should something make the situation untenable. Current Kolonies: Mun Current outposts: Minmus, Moho, Duna(expansions and Kolonists less than 100 days out) (Gilly has been identified as not-sustainable, and Ike only has an automated outpost thus far) I also have science probes heading for some outer planets looking for any additional colonization targets (the Jool probes have farmed Tylo and are working on Vall; Dres probes are still en-route)

It is not just life support that has a problem, it is all forms of production, and even the idea having significant numbers of vessels in parallel do not work with background processing as opposed to the stock catch-up mechanic. 1) Kerbalism replaces the stock catch-up mechanic with a background processing mechanic, but that mechanic does not take into account everything that is needed by MKS(RoverDude wrote both the stock catch-up mechanic and MKS, so anything written by someone else is unlikely to work as well if at all) 2) the background processing mechanic was *not* used for stock because it does not scale. Say you have 10 small outposts averaging 100 parts each, that is 1000 parts that need to be simulated in the background on top of whatever vessel you are trying to fly at the moment. Even if they manage to cut down the processing to 50%, that is still like trying to fly around while being followed by 10 50-part ships always in physics range... (Personally I have in excess of 2000 parts across my 11 outposts plus perhaps 2 dozen other ships laying around for things like kolonist evac, scanning, or refueling in addition to whatever mission I happen to be flying at the time. Imagine trying to fly around with thousands of parts being simulated in the background and you see how that is not a sustainable approach)

All of my MKS parts produce and consume EC, perhaps it is a different mod?

I'm pretty sure that harvesting nodes(and probably sifting dirt) produces Karbonite even without a Karbonite mod installed. I have seen karbonite accumulate in my ISMs set to hold fuel, and I have not yet tried out the Karbnoite mods. Accumulation is pretty slow and it does not hurt anything to have it there, so I have just been ignoring it, but I am pretty sure MKS *Can* generate Karbonite without the mods that let you use it.