Sunclover

There's some stuff in the Steam page about planetary colonies and interstellar travel. It's also possible that it'll start with a version (possibly improved, or not) of the Kerbin system just like in the first game. Then you can research and expand, eventually allowing travel to some *other* star system that has a gas giant with rings. There's also a screenshot in one of the promos of a big green gas giant, which seems pretty likely to be Jool. The Kerbin system is pretty unique, nearly as much a part of the identity of the game as the Kerbals themselves. (There's also the part where the Kerbin system is already built, and being able to show "before" and "after" pictures of say, Jool with flat green shading and Jool with detailed clouds makes for great hype screenshots.) I'm not sayinging they *can't* ditch it and have the game be set somewhere else. Just that there's probably some factors that would require really thinking about it first.

Given the track record of games like Metro: Exodus, having a Steam page is no guarantee that it won't go Epic Exclusive. Metro did it, the Outer World devs were apparently making updates to Steam Achievements literally minutes before Private Division announced it was Epic Exclusive. It would be nice. But at this point, I'll believe it when it happens.

I want to be enthusiastic about this. But I have concerns. I uninstalled KSP when Take Two changed the EULA, and I haven't seen anything to say they've really backtracked on what I found unacceptable. And Private Division seems to be really, really big fans of getting that sweet Epic money for Epic Store exclusives. It seems pretty likely that they'll do that again here. But maybe I'm wrong, and it'll be fine. And if not... well, maybe I'll take a look in three years when it's finally available from Steam and GoG.com, and it's on sale.

My apologies for my misunderstanding then. I must have missed the post (or posts) where you added it. The first post in this thread doesn't list it as supported or recommended, and I'd read far enough to have seen several replies where you had stated that you didn't think it fit your design. I'm not certain what "forking" the code would mean exactly. But I tend to download new plugins from their original authors when they update them. If you modify something from another mod, and then that mod gets updated, is there a chance that the files you altered might get overwritten and break stuff? Especially since for most mods, I think it's a recommended part of switching to an upgrade that you delete the old mod folder and then install the new version. I don't know enough about programming to know what the best course of action would be though.

This looks like an interesting mod. I do wish that USI-LS was supported though, without having to depend on a third (fourth?) party mod to a mod. That sort of thing almost always turns into a giant can of worms, and usually isn't worth the hassle. It is your mod of course, and as you said, USI-LS doesn't fit your vision. Unfortunately for me, Snacks and TAC don't fit my playstyle. And I've already got many of the other USI mods. (They also support Snacks and TAC of course, but I felt USI-LS best fit the overall theme of the game. Which is playing with physics that are "close enough" to real, while still nodding to the fact that you are, in fact, shooting bobble-headed muppets into space.) Thank you for taking the time and effort to make this. It looks like you've put a lot of care and research into it.

I saw a video for this in Kottabos' mod review / overview series. I'm guessing he made it during a *much* older version of KSP and this mod, because at the time he seemed confused by the material bay constantly spamming "new science" alerts when he reset it. (I'm guessing that at one point, it wasn't a one-per-flight experiment and he didn't realize at the time that resetting the bay was dumping the experiment, which is why the experiment was suddenly available again.) Anyway, in his video, he mentioned that the toolbar mod was required to use this. Since there doesn't seem to be a listing for mod dependencies in the first post, is this still the case? Or will this work with the stock UI now?

Additional info: After building the test ship, I added a handful of other mods, including the Stock Bugfix mod and Kerbal Joint Reinforcement. It's possible one of those changed something that affected the propulsion unit. I just tested it in my current game however, and it's not possible to attach the DERP engine pod in any configuration except inline with an actual connection node. I will provide a list of all the mods I currently have installed if that might be relevant.

Thank you for the reply. I'll try that. As a possible future feature request though, it might be nice to have the ability to open and close that info window without using a third part mod. Most ships will be neither shipyard constructors nor supply ships for one, and it shouldn't be necessary to install a completely different mod just to close a window, in my opinion. I don't know anything about coding though, so I'm not going to pretend "it would be simple" to add.

Is that a required mod now? It's not listed in the requirements on the front page. Is there some way I can delete the window instead? My copy of KSP is reliably crashing due to memory overflow every hour or so now, without installing a mod I don't want. I'd rather do without the readout, if that's possible.

Hello. I was trying to use this mod with MKS. I have both installed, but now when I try to build anything in the VAB or SPH, it brings up what appears to be a resource window for this mod, with no way to configure or close the readout. I don't really need the info for every ship, so I'd like to keep that window closed until I specifically need it. But I'm not seeing a stock toolbar icon or any way to change the settings. Am I missing something somewhere, or is this just how the mod is intended to work?

Hello. I was curious, is it working as intended for two of the science modules to be destroyed during any water landing? I was launching rockets in various directions around the space center, and noticed that any water landing results in two of the science modules being instantly destroyed. I'm pretty sure the default values for how dangerous water is have changed since this mod was last updated, so I'm wondering if the lack of waterproofing is because of changes to KSP's oceans, or if I should just avoid trying to launch the sounding rockets towards the ocean. I can check later to see which two keep getting ripped off, but I'm pretty sure it's always the same two experiment pods. I also tried putting them into a materials bay on a ship with enough parachutes to land at about 4 meters per second, and the parts still vanish as soon as it touches the water. Or are they just meant to be that delicate?

Hello. I had been messing with this mod in 1.02, and I had a couple of questions. First, the description says that the propulsion pod should be surface / radial attachement possible? I managed to build one test ship where it allowed me to stick the combined DERP / propulsion pod to the side of an inline cockpit, but when I tried to add DERP units to a space station in the VAB later, I couldn't get the propulsion pods to surface attach. At all. I think I had possibly updated one of the other USI mods (maybe UKS with the version before the one that broke save games, I'm not certain.) Is it possible I broke / overwrote something, or is this a bug with KSP? Is there a config / version file I could check to make sure the propulsion pod is working properly? Second: Is it working as intended that tourists can't use the DERP to evacuate? They can enter it and be launched, but they don't count as crew for the purpose of actually landing it. And with the current winged version, an uncontrolled landing on Kerbin is more or less the same result as pushing them out the airlock. (Well, the same end result, an ex-tourist. The DERP does result in a fiery crater, where the airlock would be more burning and less splat.) I was also curious about the floatation devices - they seem to have the same buoyancy regardless of whether or not they are deployed? I tried to use the floatation ring on a Mk 1 capsule with a probe core on top (for juggling tourists who only wanted a sub orbital flight) and the resulting pod would almost always flip more or less upside down, regardless of whether the float was deployed. In fact, inflating it seemed to push the cockpit farther underwater, presumably because the edges of the float were farther from the center of mass and had more leverage. Is this just a result of how KSP handles the buoyancy of parts in general? I'm mostly just curious how the parts work, since I'd really only added the float for looks anyway. Rocket parts in KSP seem to be made of styrofoam anyway, so it's not like I needed to worry about drowning my tourist if the pod didn't self destruct as soon as it hit the water.