thereaverofdarkness2

You're not wrong per se, but there's an easy workaround and forums have been using it for some fifteen years now without problem. Only recently have any forums used the WYSIWYG pre-rendering method. When they don't use it and I copy+paste pre-formatted text it doesn't recognize, it simply un-formats it. I was never bothered by this because it allows me to select the exact formatting I want. But the text-rendering editor is also nice at times because it can allow you to paste pre-formatted text, although you won't always get the same result as what you copied. There's no issue with it at all. If anything there's more issue with pre-rendering the text, because that's a new feature and therefore more prone to bugs. But people like it and so forums choose to use it. But seriously, it would be incredibly easy to add the option for users to not have it pre-render text, and it would cause zero problems. These bugs were all worked out over ten years ago.

Sorry, I guess I'm just a little frustrated. I stepped out of line.

There's a surface collection facility which is actually a unit used to collect surface material rapidly. It has drills built into it--probably a shorter kind of drill than what you use to get ore. The facility just grabs whatever it's sitting on, so it'll work fine in the water. But it could also be fun to use drills to gather surface material into ore cans. I'm just tossing ideas out for that one--mostly I wanted players to be rewarded for logistical efforts to carry the samples. Actually collecting them is supposed to be easy. Good point. I could set non-scientist base to 25% and scientist base to 50%, and let them go up 10% per level, so they still get to 100% max. Now it's a lot more important to use a scientist. The processing speed boost could be 10% but it doesn't need to be very high. The processing module doesn't take that long anyway, so it's a minor bonus. Consider how much speed boost you get with three level 5 scientists. The bonus to maximum science needs to be small. At 15% max bonus, it still makes a huge difference. Say you sent a probe around the Joolian moons gathering 80% of the max science for gravity scans from each biome, gaining 160 science for each one. Later you can come by with a level 5 scientist and gain 70 more science from each one. I don't think leveling up your scientists should essentially refresh all the biomes. I'd rather encourage people to visit new places. It might make sense to grant a recovery bonus for scientists. I didn't want the base recovery to be too low, or the max recovery to go above 100%. But maybe just take all the existing values and that'll be for level 5 scientists. Each level lower will collect 2% less, and non scientists will collect 80% on recovery. These smaller percentage values on recovery are multiplying larger numbers than on transmit, so it'll still be just as important to have a scientist for recovery as for transmit. Also a good point! Perhaps 4 would be the max, that works well with various symmetrical designs. It'll also allow me to set amounts without actually constructing a mathematical function for it. For example: Base recovery / Base non-scientist recovery / Base scientist recovery / Max scientist recovery 1 Science, Jr.: 50% / 40% / 45% / 57.5% 2 Sciences, Jr.: 58% / 46.4% / 52.2% / 66.7% 3 Sciences, Jr.: 62% / 49.6% / 55.8% / 71.3% 4 Sciences, Jr.: 64% / 51.2% / 57.6% / 73.6% 1 Science, Sr.: 80% / 64% / 72% / 86.25% 2 Sciences, Sr.: 90% / 69.6% / 78.3% / 103.5% 3 Sciences, Sr.: 95% / 76% / 85.5% / 109.25% 4 Sciences, Sr.: 97.5% / 78% / 87.75% / 112.125% 1 Field Laboratory: 100% / 80% / 90% / 115% edit: changed Science, Sr. to recover closer to max when you use multiple units. It makes the Science, Sr. a better late-game tool and makes the enormous Field Laboratory less of a necessity.

If the editor doesn't recognize my syntax, the forum won't recognize it, either. You'll still be able to quote it just fine. My guess is that the real reason they don't want to give us that option is because mobile users are the new sheeple and our new corporate overlords want to give stupid people a leg up so they can push intelligence out of the population and make us easier to control. But hey, that's just a theory that fits existing data.

Well, let's try it. Mm..it's tedious, but functional.

Excellent! Some of those options are confusing. In particular, the one that says " Method to use for content I follow automatically: " A notification when new content is posted -- when I was reading it, I was thinking 'A notification on the forum, or an email notification? I don't want an email every time someone posts something. But maybe it means notifications without email? Nah! Why would it be at the beginning of the list!?' Cheeky. =) Yes, very helpful! Now I just need a workaround for this darn double-spacing I get when I hit enter!

I like the system they have going right now, my only issue is that a player will reach their best science-collecting potential only after the science collecting is done. I like collecting science, I just want to be able to unleash my full science collecting potential and still have collecting science be worth something. I think players just wouldn't feel right about getting reputation for performing science experiments, even if it is realistic or works from a gameplay perspective. We've been programmed to think that anything called science in games yields technology unlocking points, and I don't see that as a problem. Also, the reputation system is confusing and somewhat useless. It's too easy to max out your reputation, too hard to tell how much you have, and it seems to have no major impact on gameplay. I'd love to see the system reworked, but as it is it's not a decent reward for all these experiments and the work that goes into collecting them. I'm not trying to make things bigger and heavier as a reward for new science, but rather I want a large and a small option and it makes more sense to give the small option first. In a way, the small one is better, because you can do anything you want with it. It has no real limitations. The big modules are more powerful but it comes at a cost, and a later game player is more likely to be able to offset that cost. But you don't have to--the early game modules are great for use in late game so it's up to the player to choose how they play. I have a few ideas about changing my proposed processing labs both for less confusion and for more variance: 2.5m x 1.5m small lab: Automated Experiment Processor This module has a mass of 1.2 tons and is unlocked for 160 science. It can be operated by a single kerbal in order to clean experiments and process the data for better transmit value, but it is only able to process up to half the bonus you get from other processing labs. It has the special ability of being able to operate from any part of the craft without inserting the science data into the module, and it can be operated by a probe core which gets the same bonus as a non-scientist kerbal, which is +25% transmit value. Unfortunately, the Automated Experiment Processor cannot store experiments. 2.5m x 4m medium lab: Mobile Processing Unit This module has a mass of 3.5 tons and is unlocked for 90 science. It can be operated by up to two kerbals to process experiments to increase transmit value. It gets the full bonus but provides no other functions. It can store most science experiments in unlimited quantities but only has a small amount of room for surface samples. 3.75m x 4m large lab: Field Laboratory This module has a mass of 8 tons and is unlocked for 550 science. It can be operated by up to three kerbals and is able to process and clean experiments, perform the best materials study experiment, collect surface material, and it has a significant amount of storage room for surface material as well!

I edited my post to show an image of the size comparisons of the proposed science parts. I used existing parts that were of a similar size and shape to demonstrate about what I'm picturing.

If you look closely in the video, you can see there are multiple dynamic objects casting shadows on other dynamic objects. For instance: at the top of his spacecraft, there are solar panels casting shadows onto the command pod.

Perhaps it is a DirectX bug. Clearly it is possible to eliminate it. Case in point:

The Copper Rule: Do unto others as you would do unto them. The Iron Rule: Do unto others before they can do unto you. The Lead Rule: Do unto others and let God sort 'em out! XD

I like to say there are three rules: The Silver Rule: Do unto others as they have done unto you. The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The Platinum Rule: Do unto others as they would have you do unto them.

It should be addressed, yes, but apparently not everyone experiences it. If everyone was experiencing it as strongly as you and I are, it would have been fixed a long time ago. I'd be willing to bet, based on how few posts there are about it, that most people don't have the bug at all or it's so minor they wouldn't see it unless it were pointed out to them.

Yes, it makes a difference, but it doesn't affect the core issue. At current it seems to be affecting how crisp the shadows are, but other times I've seen it have other effects. I can only turn it up to 4 now, but it doesn't seem to need to be any higher than that. But some people don't have the issue. I've seen a few pictures and images showing where it should occur but doesn't.

No, it changes, and there are people who report different things. I've already seen a few posts in the other threads from people saying they have never seen this before. Also, it doesn't really make sense. It's not that GPU intensive to draw shadows that don't flicker, and I don't think the sliding triangles would really save GPU anyway.

I've been looking for a while now, still haven't found this shadow bug on the bug tracker.

Disclaimer: I posted this topic once before and it was merged into another thread. It doesn't fit there, it's not the same topic. I am re-posting it in the hopes it doesn't get re-merged into a place it does not fit. There's this bug that has been present since I started playing KSP back in 0.17, in which the shadows create triangle artifacts which slide along the edge gradually as the sun passes overhead. For a long time I'd just been putting up with it, figuring oh, the devs will fix it eventually, this game is in alpha. Well at some point I realized time had passed and this game had been in full release for a while, and this bug was still very much present. I decided to go browse a bit to see just how many times it has been mentioned. Much to my surprise, I can find next to nothing about it. I stumbled across just a handful of posts talking about this phenomenon, and most of the people responding seemed completely oblivious to the bug, like they'd never seen it before in their game. I might not have been surprised had I always experienced it in the same version of the game on the same computer, but it has been present every version of the game, on multiple computers, with different operating systems and different video cards from different manufacturers. Changing the graphics settings of the game never fixes it. So that brings me to my question. Are any of you actually not experiencing this bug? And if so, can you show video footage or images of where the shadows would otherwise occur, but aren't? For clarity, the glitch is seen along the edge of shadows that cast from one craft part onto another craft part, or sometimes (especially in older versions) on the edge of shadows cast onto the ground. To replicate this bug: look at absolutely any shadow cast from one part onto another part, ever. Video:

I found my thread, it's now a post in another topic. That's a little bit annoying, given it was not the same topic and now it doesn't fit where it is.

Well there you have it. Your experience is different from mine, and it must be based on something other than our in-game settings. For you, the sliding shadows suddenly became a big thing in Unity 5. For me, it was just as big before that. It has been highly distracting for me in all versions of the game. It has never not been really strong.

No, I checked there and it's not there. It doesn't seem to be anywhere on this forum, as if it simply blinked out of existence with nobody any the wiser.

I don't want to sound like I'm complaining, but honestly it's difficult for me to tone down my hatred any further. I feel I have to let you guys know of the things that have been bothering me about changes to this forum. It all seems to go along a strategy of streamlining input which is presumably to make posting easier, but it actually serves to make it more difficult if I want to maintain the same quality of posting I used to on my old forum account. It's easier if I'm okay with all the default settings and actually understand how they work--but if I actually understood how it all works, why would I be satisfied with the way it works? It's a self-defeating setup. Text Input Pane The text input pane automagically renders everything the way it'll look when you post it--well except for the margins being different. This is great for people who know very little about computers, but it really should be optional because it makes it extremely difficult to edit the post exactly the way I want it. It doesn't allow me to place the cursor in a spot that distinguishes whether it's at the end but inside an HTML function, or at the end and just past an HTML function. That's an important difference, but the forum chooses for me and it chooses at the end but inside, which is honestly the one I'm less likely to want. Why can't I have the option to just not have it all automatically render? I don't want it to. I could go on for hours why it makes trouble for me, there are that many problems with it. Just let some of us not have it do that, please! I had to add in the paragraph headers after typing the whole message, for one, because of the way it handles changes in font/size/settings. It makes it almost impossible to get back to the setting you were at before, and it's actually easier to construct your post in a different order from how it's supposed to be read. Quoting Other Posts I can't quote two different posts or split one quote into two. I cannot select the quote, only the text within it. I cannot make my own quote boxes because I do not know which HTML quote style is used, if any, but the ones I have tried using don't seem to work. So instead, I have just made multiple posts for multiple quotes, and hoped the forum would stitch my posts together--another thing that is automatic that I have no control over. Sometimes I want to stitch two posts together but it won't do it automatically and I don't have the option to fix it myself. Sometimes I want them separate for a reason, and I don't have the option to fix that. Email Spam My email is inundated with spam from this forum. I've tried to change the settings, but at best all I can do is make the default setting be to email me once a week, and I have to set every individual post I follow to not email me at all. Why is this even a thing? I should have to specifically request to receive emails. Instead, there seems to be no way to not receive emails without going out of my way to make them stop coming in! I don't think that's a very popular setting. Why is it forced on us? There's a bunch of settings related to emails, they're confusing, and everything defaults to sending as many emails as possible. Why is there not one easy-to-find setting that enables you to receive emails, that defaults to off? It just makes my experience here on this forum so much more frustrating. Sometimes I come here to say one simple thing, and I leave in a rage after having spent a half hour not figuring out how to accomplish what should be a simple task. This never happened on the old forum.

I posted a topic in the Technical Support (unmodded installs) forum about a bug with shadows, and I was asking how many others experience the same bug, but I cannot find the topic anywhere and it's no longer in my followed threads. Can someone look it up and try to figure out what happened to it? It's just mysteriously missing. I posted it only yesterday, it should still be on the front page.

That might explain something, then. I've always had it as bad as it is now, though the size and speed of the triangles vary. I always assumes turning shadow cascades up would help, but I could never see a distinct enough difference to verify it. Some people might not have it based on having different graphics drivers or other operating system details that we can't test without getting new computer components.

It can work, with some restraint. Don't use too many parts mods, get the mod that streamlines textures, and load them all at 1/8th resolution via the mod, not via KSP's texture resolution setting.

My shadow triangles usually slide rapidly like yours, but lately I can't get them to do anything but slide really slowly. P.S.: It's not Unity 5. Every version of KSP (at least as far back as 0.17) has done this.