dave1904

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1QVdV1PaYEHdB9JtaUGIEwj8ZTEpJ0Oln Did not include the Extra or Local folder. I do not think it matters but you should know everything. Edit: I also did not use the version of module manager included since I am using ModuleManager.4.1.3

I dont think engines can work from that far back without changes to them.

I got this man and did not have the balls to start. I am curious now. What do you need?

I am not certain if this is a remotetech issue but the 3 icons in map mode for the different connection types appear to be low res. Its a minor issue but annoying. Bottom left of image. http://prntscr.com/ql9j44 The issue is both in tracking station and flight. Edit. Fullscreen screenshot. http://prntscr.com/ql9m2q

I am getting a warning on start up. If you want logs to help you fix issues I can upload but otherwise I can wait for a future version.

Is axial tilt a thing or not in KSP2?

http://prntscr.com/ql6fwt Look at date modifed. The model is from 2013.

The ones with bugs that can crash the game as he said. I am still using some parts(RCS trusters) from Aies that have not been modified since april 2013. That would mean they are from 0.19 Some config files are from jan 2014. Thats still 0.23.

oh, I kind of avoid mods that are outdated.

so I finally updated to 1.8.1 from 1.5.1 and all I can say is wow. Everything is so clean and perfect.

well if there is a mod you ever want to make it compatible with, it would be BDB. KW faring bases are still damn fine. Nice work! Finally I am forced to design my craft around fairing bases again.

I think the crashes are memory leaks when its after a long session. For me KSP never crashes. It crashed yesterday for the first time in ages when I booted my huge 1.5.1 mod folder from a HDD for the first time oddly enough. Its a 120 mod game folder and I do not want to go looking why it crashed or if it had anything to do with being on a HDD vs SSD. A few crashes sounds like a bit to much to me. How much ram you have?

I finally updated to 1.8 from 1.5.1 today because I wanted to play the DLC I bought way back for the first time. I have 80 mods installed and was wondering is the huge performance gain the clean install or is 1.8 that much better than 1.5? A bit of both for certain but 1.8 feels so much nicer.

Imo it would be easier for people if you added the config from 1.2.2 to the latest version because it can be a bit confusing when you say 2 files are required. I had to read the post 3 times before I saw the part that says the configs from 1.2 are compatible. I guess most people use ckan to be fair but for the manual installers it would be easier.

Yes.

Stellar movement is no different to the current orbital mechanics. If star systems were implemented just like planetary systems then the overall design would remain the same. Its a performance issue. It all depends on how big the galaxy/cluster or whatever it is in ksp2. That being said performance is more important to me than interstellar anyway.

I dont really expect that much of a leap in the new game. Best to keep exceptions at a minimum. For me performance matters the most but even then I do not expect wonders.

Ok I think we are actually on the same page about this but lost I must have missed something. This is the scale I was talking about. Visually It doesn't look great and to be honest and I would rather it to be a bit more spiral like the milky way. If you skip forward you can see a galaxy core near the end. The mod is really basic but good for people with warp drive mods. I cannot remember the performance anymore because I just tested it for a few minutes. I doubt it works great however. Maybe it does. I'm just thinking the scale would be good. You do have a point that it could be more confusing but my thought is that people that have absolutely no idea about how the galaxy works will get a basic idea on how stars orbit. Both of us will agree that a galaxy with 10-20 systems is extremely far fetched but imo it is the most realistic way to approach it. Maybe not. What the hell do it know. I do not like your second point because even though it would have basically no impact in gameplay it feels like a lie. Its a bit ironic in that the visually more realistic approach is more unrealistic from my point of view. I am 100% aware of the point you are making. Elite dangerous. Its a 1:1 scale of the milky way. Plants and moons orbit at a scale of 1:1 but stars do not. Its pointless from a game play point of you. Since elite is far beyond the scale of KSP I am looking at it from a different approach. I do not understand why you are explaining how the milkyway works to me. I know enough about the milkyway to know I know nothing. I hope you get what I mean by that

That doesn't mean it should not give players the basic picture when they open the galaxy map. I do not want to be sold an illusion that the stars are orbiting a center of mass. I want them to orbit it no matter the noticeable difference. If it can be achieved with current mods there is no reason not to do it. To be fair I forget if those mods had any performance cost. Last but not least they were obviously nowhere near the scale of the milky way but neither is kerbin. From what I understand you just want a cluster of neighboring stars right? What difference does it make anyway? As you said the scales will be massive and I do not think they will have any major effect on calculations. If it did cost performance I would be ok with a star cluster as long as players are somehow given the picture that the cluster orbiting a core.

Why do you even play the game if things like this bother you? I would think its a joke but your other 2 points are valid. Lagrange points would be nice to be fair but them not existing, does not give the players a wrong impression because giving the wrong impression and no impression are 2 different things. I think they should be possible but still stand by my point. Personally I think orbital assembly is easier with apas docking port mods because you always get the perfect rotation you planned. If the UI is improved docking should be to because rotation is important to overall craft design.

You are not convinced because its not true. Its a fact that keplerian orbits don't scale on the galactic level but we still observe stars orbiting a core. Do you mean you are not convinced by dark matter? Its an issue. I do not think it would be unrealistic to give players the basic picture that stars in fact orbit a galactic core.

I do no if visual would be enough. I read some of your past things in this topic and now really want to be in low orbit around a black hole. LET ME DREAM!

It would give players the wrong impression.

Even if its only 2 solar systems in the game they should still orbit a galactic core like we have in mods for kopernicus. The game needs to teach players the basics of orbital mechanics and showing them an unrealistic galaxy is worse than none at all. Even if its only one massive black hole I am ok as long as basic galactic orbital mechanics apply. If the devs do not have orbiting stars it would make me very very angry about it.

Thats abit vague. System requirements are meaningless for the most part. KSP has minimum requirements that many pcs have but once you get into the more complicated things the minimum requirements will become more than the recommend requirments.