RobertaME

It all boils down to this: You see the turn of events with little actual information and choose to interpret them in the worst possible light for Take Two. I disagree and have demonstrated how the same information can be seen from a different viewpoint. The difference is that I'm not trying to convince anyone that I'm right. In point of fact, I've gone out of my way, repeatedly, to state that. You have every right to your own opinion and to express it how you like, but when you try to shut others down for disagreeing, (such as veiled threats about being offended) it doesn't bolster your argument... it says you can't counter the argument and choose to instead attack the speaker. The Fidonet Rule should apply here: Thou shall not offend; Thou shall not be easily offended. (I know, I'm showing my age in that I even know what Fidonet is!) As such, if I offended you, note that it wasn't intentional. At no point in time did I call any individual, including you, a bully. I only noted that creating speculative narratives based on a lack of information is something bullies do to excuse their abusiveness, and that engaging in a similar behavior might make you want to re-think your approach. If you chose to take that label upon yourself based on that, then that was you that did that, not I. If you're still offended, then you need to abide by the second clause. In the end, each of us has to decide how to interpret these events. If you and others choose to interpret them as "vile corporate agency destroys weak independent developer" then that is your choice. If you want to try and persuade others to agree with you based on your presentation of the events, you are free to do so, but know that others who disagree are going to express opposing points of view. Getting offended at people poking holes in your theories convinces nobody of anything. Back to the meat of the matter: Take Two owns KSP. PERIOD. They can do what they like with it. They earned that right when they shelled out the money to buy the rights to it. When they hired Star Theory to write KSP 2, it was with certain expectations. When Star Theory failed to meet those expectations, as set forth in their contract, Take Two was not only fully within their rights to cancel the contract, but they would have been idiots to let it continue. Doing so could have left themselves open to being prosecuted by the SEC for investing shareholder assets in a risky investment scheme without first performing due diligence or disclosing the risks and prospects of the investments. Still, they liked what the dev team had come up with so far, and they're not heartless bas#@&#$, so they offered to let the team continue the work in-house. They could have just as easily fired Star Theory, left the dev team hung out to dry, and then turned the code (which belongs to them... after all, they paid for it) over to a new development team who didn't care about the product at all and just wanted to load it up with micro-transactions and ads, milking the property for every dime they could get out of it. They didn't. Instead, they hired the dev team to continue their work and gave them a free hand to be geeks and make a great product. So says Nate Simpson... former Star Theory developer. That says a lot more about their motives than any Press Release ever could.

Trying to get caught up on everything after 9 months away from the game, but I saw this and had a thought... What if it's NOT a placeholder or them just being silly and we're just not seeing the connection? Q: What is Uranium primarily used for? A: Power generation. Think of it this way; every part has a resource cost, but not all resources are materials that go into the product. Creating steel requires carbon, iron, and a crank-ton of energy. If instead of measuring electricity in KJ or watt-hours though, it can be expressed a different way... such as tons of coal, acres of solar panels, therms of natural gas... ...or kg of Uranium. Since the power density of Uranium is pretty constant, it makes a good standard when you want to measure a large amount of energy. Sure, you could use more traditional values, (KJ, w-h, etc.) but KSP 2 appears to be going for a "totally unique viewpoint" kind of esthetic. Look no further than the part description for the nosecone in question... the one they call a "big hat"... then making references to "obsolete engineering manuals" referring to it by an another name? Plus the overall "look and feel" of KSP 2 is very different than KSP 1, which held a lot of inspiration from our own various national space efforts. (Staypunik = Sputnik; Mk3 parts = Space Shuttle; Mk2 parts = X-15, etc.) By comparison, the stuff we're seeing in the early release photos and videos are very different and don't hold much inspiration from human space equipment. (the rockets in the editor previews for example look very unique in style and not reflective of any real designs) Just a few thoughts.

Admitting it's not proof doesn't excuse using their silence as being incriminatory. There are a million possible reasons for not saying anything, including, but not limited to: NDAs, (which are NOT invalidated by one party or another making statements that don't violate them) contractual agreements, (the agreement with the moved dev team might include terms that Take Two may not say anything negative about their former employers) legal limitations, (many jurisdictions consider any company's negative public statements about another company, even a defunct one, to be slander if it harms their reputation... even if the statement is provably true) corporate policy, (it may just be against established company policy to make negative statements about contractors or former contractors as it paints the company in a bad light for hiring them) or even simply a choice they made in this instance. Drawing conclusions from a company's silence is simply conjecture. Not having read them, I can only go off of what I've seen here... which isn't much as far as I can see, other than conjecture regarding Take Two's silence on the matter. If you have other pertinent facts, please state them. Glad we can agree on these points! Several sources, including the Bloomberg article, cite that Star Theory began trying to re-negotiate for a deadline extension as early as December of last year, well in advance of the Wutan virus outbreak. Trying to conflate Star Theory's inability to meet the deadline with the outbreak doesn't fit the timeline; Star Theory was already running behind schedule and Take Two had agreed to a six month extension (going from a spring 2020 release to a release by the end of Take Two's fiscal year in October) four months before lock-downs began. Add to that the fact that once the dev team switched to Intercept Games that they were granted another year extension, I think that firmly establishes that it is a fact that Star Theory was not going to meet their deadline... either the original one in spring or the revised one in fall. Again, multiple sources cite that Star Theory asked for, and was granted an extension in November, before any of this fell out. That would have had to be done through re-negotiation of the existing contract as the original contract was still in force at that time. Take Two canceled the contract in February, well in advance of the due date of the product. (pushed out to no sooner than April 1st or as late as March of 2021) and way in advance of the re-negotiated fall release. These are established facts. (ref: videogameschronicle.com Feb 20, 2020) They had enough money to pay all their employees two months severance and several more months of company-paid health insurance. If Take Two violated their contract, which I have established above was still in effect through the fall, for the cost of two months severance for ONE employee they could have retained a litigation attorney, who might very well have offered to sue for nothing but a percentage of the judgement and no up-front fee. Lawyers do this all the time and any lawyers offered to take this kind of case would jump at the chance; it's a cake-walk. If Star Theory had proof of contract violation, he'd be a fool not to take it... it's easy money and a guaranteed win! (juries LOVE 'sticking it' to corporations that break their contracts) As for Take Two getting out of the contract by some other means within the terms of the contract, exercising those terms typically requires a notice period and more often than not, have triggering full payment clauses that would have kept Star Theory in business for YEARS, not months. Before becoming a stay-at-home mom, I was a professional statistical data analyst, so I saw a LOT of data on a huge variety of topics, from nuclear physics, to legal proceedings, to contract litigation. I learned enough about each study to speak on it intelligently because that was my job; to summarize enormous data sets into easily understandable analyses, so I know the topic well. The contract was canceled and the team were offered new jobs at the same time, per the article I cited above. The new company didn't even have a name at that point in time and existed only as an offer. (companies that don't even have names yet can't "poach" anyone as they can't hire employees until they have a name to put on their paychecks; failing to file for the formation of a company before starting to pay employees will get you five years for tax fraud) Ethically, that is in keeping with established standards and practices within the industry and above reproach. Negotiations were no longer ongoing (terminated sometime in late January or early February) and Star Theory rejected the counter-proposal of acquiring them to resolve the contract dispute out of hand. (by acquiring Star Theory, the contract could be nullified as it would be Take Two contracting with itself, resolving the conflict) Yes, Take Two was very happy with the work the dev team had done... so much so they happily extended the contract last November. That isn't in question. Nate Simpson was/is director of the development team... not the director of the company. That would be Bob Berry and Jonathan Mavor, founders and studio president (Berry) and chief technology officer. (Mavor) The funny thing is, when Take Two announced last year that Star Theory was going to be the ones to develop KSP 2, I remember a lot of people moaning about Star Theory and all the claims that Star Theory was "stealing" the game from Squad, who "should" have been the ones contracted to make it, according to them at the time. Time changes everything, I guess... Talk about misleading... Star Theory had a total of 30 staff at the time of all this happening. When negotiations fell through and Take Two pulled the contract, which they really had no choice in as Star Theory claimed they couldn't complete the contract without more time (and money, of course) and refused to accept the counter-offer that would have resolved the dispute. (i.e. Take Two acquiring Star Theory) They knew their actions would impact the employees and offered an olive branch to the dev team to move in-house to an as-yet-unnamed subsidiary to continue work. Twelve members of the dev team, including Nate Simpson, the head of the project, accepted the offer. That accounts for 40% of the entire company of Star Theory. Their reasons are irrelevant. It was a gracious and magnanimous offer on Take Two's part. When Star Theory shuttered its doors on March 4th, (a mere thirteen days after the others left) several more (number undisclosed, but no less than four) additional members of Star Theory accepted the offer and moved to Intercept Games. Their reasons for staying those two weeks are unknown. You attributing their actions as "animosity towards T2" is not only pure conjecture, it's taking on yourself the right to state their reasons for waiting to move. You have no more idea why they stayed those two extra week than I do. It's equally possible they were under contract to give two weeks notice and were forced to stay the extra time... but note I'm not saying that's the fact of the case... just a possible (and highly probable) reason. The timing is well known and published. Twelve left when Take Two pulled the contract and the rest two weeks later when Star Theory closed its doors. All this is public information. That is the narrative; that Take Two did all this so they could move development in-house and load it up with micro-transactions. Every thread discussing it tries to make this claim, including posters in this one. It's not a straw-man as it is a part of the supposed reasoning of the detractors against Take Two; trying to demonize the company and provide a motive for their "nefarious tactics" where none exists. Calling my pointing out the flaws in that theory "a dishonest debate tactic" is straw-manning, though. Please don't. As said above, there are a number of reasons they are not speaking on the subject. PR may be screaming for a statement to be made, but management, for whatever reason, has decided not to do so. Maybe they can't due to some law, contract, or policy. Drawing conclusions from that silence is conjecture and not helpful, productive, or even wise. Again, the PR department may be begging to respond, but are being told "No" for other reasons. You also may believe it would be a smart move for them to say something, but they disagree and think nothing good would come of it and quite a lot of bad might. If I know saying something wouldn't do me or someone else any good and potentially be used to make me look bad by people that already hate me for something I did three years ago, why would I say anything?

The statement I made was comparative. When you're doing something bullies and tyrants do, you might want to question your methods and motives. Taking silence as incriminating is being a bully. Yes, you have the right to believe anything you want about Take Two's silence on the issue, but when you try to use their silence as proof of nefarious intent, you're just as guilty as the jury that sends an innocent man to jail simply on the grounds that he refused to testify... which he has every right to do and would be an idiot if he testified. You also have the freedom to try and convince others that you're right, but I and others have the freedom to counter your arguments with our own, that your "proof" of wrongdoing... i.e. Take Two's silence... is not proof of anything at all. As far as I can tell, Take Two did nothing wrong. If they had, the former management of Star Theory would have taken Take Two to court for violations of their contract terms (canceling a contract without cause is almost universally a violation of contract terms, and neither party would have been stupid enough to agree to a contract without those protections) and half the development team wouldn't have jumped ship to work for a company that breaks contracts without cause. Would you? Would anyone? If they knew Take Two violated their contract terms with Star Theory, why would they ever believe Take Two would honor the terms of any employment contract? Even one of them, let alone over half of them. You say "we look at the available evidence, and consider which scenario seems more plausible", but you have no evidence short of silence (which isn't evidence of anything other than silence) and offer no other facts; just conjecture. Let's look tat the actual facts: 1. Take Two owns and has full rights and control over the KSP IP. 2. Take Two contracted Star Theory to develop KSP 2 with a spring 2020 scheduled release date. 3. Star Theory was going to miss the release date they contracted to meet. 4. Star Theory tried to renegotiate the contract, including an extension on the release date. 5. Take Two refused the revised terms and canceled the existing contract. 6. Star Theory did not threaten to sue or file suit against Take Two for canceling the contract without cause. 7. Take Two offered all of Star Theory's development team jobs at the newly minted Intercept Games. 8. Almost half of Star Theory's team quit and moved to Intercept Games. 9. Star Theory closes its doors and lays off their entire staff. 10. Several more Star Theory former employees move to Take Two. Bonus - The head of the development team comes HERE to say that Take Two aren't making them change anything about the game to maximize profits as alleged. Given all that, it's hard to find where Take Two is the villain here. I see a product I think is good... so good I pay the developer of the idea a mint to own it. It's now MINE and I can do what I like with it. That's called Intellectual Property Rights. I want to do something great with this property I bought, so I hire a contractor to make me a salable product that people will enjoy. (and thus spend a lot of money to get, recouping my investment in the property and making even more) I have every right to do this and it's neither scummy nor shady to expect to realize a profit for my good judgement in buying the property and contracting to make something out of it. My contractor agrees to certain terms, including WHEN the product will be ready for sale. A few months before its supposed to be ready, they tell me it's not going to be ready for sale on time and in fact they need another YEAR of being paid to make it... at MY expense. My first thought is These guys are just trying to soak as much money out of me as they can get... maybe they can't even do the job! They have now violated the terms of our contract, so I fire them. (as is my right to do so... says so right in the contract) I still want my product though, and I don't want to have to start over from scratch, (loosing all the money I spent on my now defunct contractor) so I offer the employees of my former contractor a job, doing exactly the same thing they were doing before, but now answerable to ME so I can make sure my product gets done. Again, I have every reason to be suspicious of their ability to get it done because they already missed one deadline, but I give them the benefit of the doubt and really blame their old bosses for mismanaging the whole thing. Of course I don't want to SAY that to anyone, because a) I can't prove any of it and b) it makes me look like an idiot for hiring them in the first place, so I keep my mouth shut and just trust in the product to be worth all this hassle in the end. Is that what happened here? Maybe... maybe not. It's at least as probable as your opposing theory, but without the plot-holes. (i.e., if Take Two yanked the contract just to ruin Star Theory and poach their dev team, why didn't Star Theory sue them for breach of contract? Why did Star Theory just take it, roll over, and lay off their entire workforce if they did nothing wrong?) Yes, this isn't a court of law. People are free to interpret the events how they see fit and use their own judgement in deciding what to do about it... but so far I've only seen one narrative, and the known facts just don't fit it. So I offered a counter-argument that does fit the facts and point out the inconsistencies in the existing narrative. People are also free to listen to me and others like me and make their own decisions... but I just couldn't let the prevailing faulty narrative stand unchallenged. YMMV.

Ahhh... the age-old cry of the bully and the tyrant... "They wouldn't have run if they were innocent!"... and "Of course they're guilty! They wouldn't testify, so they must be hiding something!" Companies have a right to privacy just the same as you or I do. They are, after all, made up of people. Claiming they must be up to something just because they won't discuss the issue doesn't mean they're guilty of anything any more than I'm guilty of something because I'm 'hiding' behind a username instead of my full legal name. Same as you... and I'd say just about everyone here, with a few exceptions. (such as the OP) I get it. You've been told Take Two did something nefarious and you've publicly condemned them for it. Now you're committed. If you reverse course now, you run the risk of looking like a hypocrite... or worse... someone easily misled. Face facts. You, and a whole host of others, jumped to a hasty conclusion based on speculation and almost no actual proof and ran with it. Now your faulty accusations have been called out and, lacking a real counter-argument, you fall back on claims of "incriminating silence"... which is a pretty weak excuse for all the pitchforks and torches I see running around these days. Especially for a company that didn't HAVE to make KSP2 to begin with, let alone leave the development team so much freedom that they're passing up a chance to make a dump-truck full of money with micro-transactions and such. Reality Check: An absence of information is no excuse for slander and false accusations; it's just a lack of information. Maybe Take Two figures that no mater what they say it'll be turned against them, so better to say nothing and let people think you're a sneaky bas!@&# than make a statement that makes you look like a total jerk. Maybe Star Theory royally messed something up (like missing the deadline by over a year and lying about it?) and they don't want to embarrass anyone over it because if they say what really happened everyone will just say, "Well, that was a kinda rude thing to say about Star Theory now that they've gone bankrupt! What jerks!" You don't know. I don't know. Nobody really knows, except the people that were there. You heard from one of them as the OP of this thread, and he says everything is cool, KSP2 will be total awesome-sauce, and Take Two are giving them a free hand to be total geeks. Why listen to people that a) weren't involved b) don't have access to information about what did happen and c) apparently have an axe to grind against Take Two for past grievances instead of the guy who was there? Just chill and let it go. It's not worth getting your panties in a twist. :^Þ

Having been away from the game for the last 9 months, I'm just getting up to speed on all this. Given the available information, (which isn't much) the YouTube article and other sources are making a LOT of assumptions they can't possibly know for a fact, making me highly skeptical of their overall accuracy. Given that, all this hate on for Take Two, who owns the game rights and has for years, is not only unfair, it's displaying willful ignorance. The truth of the matter is that the only people that know everything that really went on between Take Two and Star Theory are the people involved. Speculating on reasons why Take Two pulled the contract, which they have every right to do if there was a breach of terms, (and given the fact that Take Two wasn't sued for canceling the contract without breach makes me believe they had very valid reasons for doing so) is just playing guessing games. Just because someone says something in an internet article doesn't make it true. There are YouTube videos "proving" that the Earth is flat. That doesn't make them true. Why is everyone so eager to believe the worst of Take Two just based on outside opinions? One of the actual people involved in all this says that everything is cool, but people still believe the outsiders? Sorry... that's willful ignorance. To those saying "No mater what, I won't buy KSP2 because it rewards Take Two for scummy corporate behavior!" I would ask, "How do you even know what they did was scummy?" There are a thousand legitimate reasons to cancel a contract. Contracts actually list what terms allow either party to pull out of it without fault. Doing so when the other party isn't in breach of terms gets companies sued. Was I "scummy' when I paid off my mortgage early and exercised my rights to terminate my contract with the mortgage company? Those people were counting on me to pay interest on my loan for another twenty years! How many people did I put out of work when I did that? Oh sure, my mortgage contract says I can pay off at any time without penalty, but that was really scummy of me to take away over two hundred thousand dollars of income from them, huh? Just because the contract said I could! What a scumbag I am! ...or maybe the mortgage company wasn't managed very well if my exercising my contractual rights and the loss of my interest payments caused them to close shop... Is Take Two scummy because they exercised their legal rights? Would half the Dev team jump ship to join Take Two if they were being scummy? What was going on with Star Theory that made so many people willing to leave for the 'scummy' company that is just full of nothing but corporate greed and dark-vile-evilness and "ruined our beloved and innocent Star Theory!"? Answer: The only people that know are the ones involved. All else is just guessing. Maybe Star Theory was to blame for their own downfall... Maybe Take Two was being greedy... Unless you were there or have proof to the contrary... YOU DON'T KNOW. TL/DR: Stop speculating. None of us know what really happened between Take Two and Star Theory and probably never will. Contracts have terms. Getting out of them without getting sued requires you to be in the right.

Well, THAT was the most interesting 9 months since my sons were born! Sorry to everyone that I had to take a hiatus from KSP. Real Life issues that were compounded by all the craziness this year. I missed out on five updates and now have NO IDEA where my mod stands on compatibility. I've only just today DLed a copy of 1.10 and haven't had a chance to do much more than run it once to look at the pretty comets. (then close it to get laundry done) It'll be a bit before I get all the other mods updated, load them up over a few weeks, (load new mod, run game, stress test for breakage, close game, lather, rinse, repeat...) so it'll be a bit before I can update. Still don't have either of the DLCs and now I'm even more broke than I was last year, so likely not going to happen. (maybe next year...) Has anyone tried using RTT in any of the new versions? (or am I just talking to myself here?) I know 1.10 introduced some new parts, so they'll need balanced and moved to whatever node best fits their tech level and such. Thanks to everyone who helped me get this project out of the mess it was in when I first launched it!

New version is up which eliminates the dependency for Grounded. v.0.1.6 - Implemented work-around for players without the Grounded Mod (only in effect if Grounded isn't installed) - Add a scaled-up Prototype QBE at 20x weight & EC usage, no SAS, and a 50km internal antenna range (with the type 1 tracking station) to Start - Add a Prototype Z-10 Battery with a tenth of the EC of the Z-100 with no other changes (same weight & size as the Z-100) - Both of these will be made obsolete once you get the Physics & Chemistry node (this is by intent; they're just stop-gaps to get your first science and then be replaced with smaller, lighter and more capable parts) - Bugfix - Fixed issue with BonVoyage Module upgrades not moving to their correct new nodes - Several smaller fixes to eliminate minor errors (including spelling) The new parts... A prototype 3-ton Rover (with TweakScaled prototype batteries) roams around KSC. (plus a little showing off of my custom KSC!) Close-up showing the rover is only made of 9 parts... the 4 TR-2L wheels & 2 M-1x1 Structural Panels are stock... while the Prototype QBE and two Prototype Z-10 batteries (TweakScaled to maximum size and weighing 320kg each) are only present if you don't have the Grounded Mod installed. Next update should have full integration of the Parts List into the Spreadsheet, making it possible for anyone to customize the Mod to their own tastes with much less work overhead. Sorry this update took so long. My younger son's cat died so Mom duties took precedence.

After extensive testing, (including 3 Crashes to desktop) I tried removing the libmpg123-0.dll from the KSP_x64_Data\Mono directory and converting all my music over to ogg... Bingo! No more AOR errors and music never gets hung up such that it won't advance to the next track... and that with nearly 200 music tracks and dozens of flight scenes. (I haven't tested ALL of them yet, but the ones that were getting hung up are fixed, so I suspect that the others will be working now too) I'll continue testing to be sure, but if anyone is getting a lot of errors and Crash to desktop you might try doing the same thing and see if it resolves your issues. Edit: Just did a full-up test with the game successfully switching from Editor to Pre-launch to Flight to Suborbital to Orbital, then reversed to Suborbital to Flight to Splashed without a hitch and no errors in the log. I think we have the problem nailed... it may well be the libmpg123-0.dll that's throwing the errors, even if you're not playing an MP3.

Stupidly large is a matter of opinion. I for one think they're stupidly small and should include the gravity of at least one other body to make it work. It's not hard, but then I'm not the one that has to code it and maintain it. (and neither is anyone other than the Dev team... which, while I can see wanting to ask for what you want, making it sound like they're just slacking is unfair and rude, IMHO... you aren't the one that has to make it work and KEEP it working for the foreseeable future, on top of a million other "requests" from the fanbase)

You're assuming SOI's the same size as current ones. There's no game mechanic reason they can't be larger so long as the two most influencing ones are both effective at the same time. It's just a value set in the game. I.E. When you're in Munnar orbit, you're in the SoI of the Mun, Kerbin, and Kerbol. So long as the gravity of both the Mun and Kerbin are being taken into account, and your trajectory, instead of a perfect conical section, is a prediction line, then how big the Mun's SOI is would be irrelevant. It could stretch halfway to Minmus and encompass four of the five LG points and still work. And we have plans to use the L4 & L5 LG points IRL because they're self-stabilizing. as well as several spacecraft that have orbited (and many are still orbiting) the L1 and L2 points with enough fuel to last decades... so they aren't just curiosities. (not to mention the opportunity to teach a few million people how they really work and that only L4 & 5 are permanently stable and why) But my entire point is that the desire for n-body physics is reaching for the Mun (pardon the pun) when 3 or 4-body physics is entirely doable without the problems of n-body physics. It also occurred to me the other day that the whole excuse behind the Devs not implementing n-body physics, that it make the Kerbolar system self-destruct, is a straw-man argument. The vast majority of people asking for n-body physics aren't asking for it to model the system, they're asking for it to model their stuff. (i.e. probes, satellites, craft, etc.) They could put everything larger than an asteroid on rails and still have n-body physics. (or just 3-4 body physics... or even make it a difficulty slider) So the only reason the Devs aren't implementing greater than 2-body physics is because they don't want the headache of modeling it. (and I can't fault them for that... it's hard stuff to wrap your head around unless your an autistic geekette like me who taught herself differential calculus and Analytic Geometry in the 7th grade because she needed to figure out how to do Fourier Transforms for fun... what can I say... I'm special!)

Getting the same thing, sporadically. I noted each time it was accompanied by this from the Log: [EXC 03:29:53.336] ArgumentOutOfRangeException: Argument is out of range. Parameter name: index System.Collections.Generic.List`1[UnityEngine.AudioClip].get_Item (Int32 index) MusicLogic+<PlayList>c__Iterator2.MoveNext () UnityEngine.SetupCoroutine.InvokeMoveNext (IEnumerator enumerator, IntPtr returnValueAddress) UnityEngine.MonoBehaviour:StartCoroutine(IEnumerator) MusicLogic:ConstructionMusic(EditorFacility) <OnLevelLoaded>c__Iterator0:MoveNext() UnityEngine.SetupCoroutine:InvokeMoveNext(IEnumerator, IntPtr) From what I can see, it's generating an ArgumentOutOfRangeException when the Iterator tries to do the MoveNext function. Weird thing is that it occurs in odd circumstances. (not while flying in atmosphere, but errors in the Editor, R&D complex, or in Space) Possibly due to the way the playlist files are being processed? I'll try looking into it and see if I can sort things out. I simply CANNOT play this game with music enabled without this Mod! The same old tired tracks repeating for hours on end grates on my nerves!

It all depends on how big you make the SOIs. If the Mun SOI goes all the way to Kerbin, then that gets four-out-of-five because you get 1 , (between the two bodies) 2, (opposite the two bodies) 4, & 5, (60° ahead of and behind the second body) but not 3. (opposite the second body) Make it smaller and all you get is 1 & 2... make it bigger and you get all five. (but it starts causing problems when you take into account multiple satellites) But that's just a playtest variable that you tweak until you get it to work right. Since SOI is body specific anyway, you can tweak each one to suit the circumstance. Is it more complex than "on rails"? Sure, but it's WAY simpler than n-body and less prone to "unintentional star-system disassembly", which is their main argument against it.

What I don't understand is why everybody is so set on n-body physics when simply going from 2 body to 3 body would do SO much of what the players want... namely La Grange points. You don't need n-body physics to do that... you just need 3-body physics. Keep the SOIs, but now if another body is within another's SOI, (just as the Mun's SOI is wholly within Kerbin's SOI) it's modeled correctly and its gravity AND that of its parent body affect objects within the smaller body's SOI. If two moons orbit a planet so closely that their SOIs overlap, then the parent body's gravity get ignored and those two are the only factors. It's a hierarchy where smaller bodies take priority over larger ones. You're always in Kerbol's SOI, (at least until you go interstellar) and when you're in low orbit around Kerbin (and thus in the SOI of both Kerbin and Kerbol) both bodies would affect your orbit. If you move into the Mun's SOI, (which would extend a good distance toward Kerbin) Kerbol's influence is discarded (as it's nearly imperceptible anyway) and only the Mun and Kerbin's gravity affect you. Like that. So if you have two moons in a Trojan orbit around each other orbiting a planet, since you'd be in the SOI of both moons, only THEIR gravity would affect you and the planet's gravity (and the star's) would be insignificant and could thus be discarded. Yes, it would be harder to set up geostationary orbits that occasionally passed through a moon's SOI... but that's what people say they want... REALISTIC! (well, as realistic as you can get with a game about little green men) Just thinking out loud...

NM.... maja beat me to it!

Verified that it works in my Mod. ::sigh:: I wish Squad would have made up its mind regarding capitalization! That was VERY irritating! Thanks @Starwaster and @maja!

I was a bit spoiled I guess... I got the C128 with the twelve additional keys, the 10-key pad, could run at TWO megahertz, and display 80 columns of text! But then I didn't get either the 1530 Dataset tape drive or the 1571 DSDD 5 ¼" drive when my parents gave it to me, (nor a proper monitor... and my mother didn't want me monopolizing the TV so I was relegated to using her old 12" B&W set... all that beautiful VIC II chip's 16 color wonders gone to waste!) so I could write programs, but the minute the power bumped or it was time to go to bed, it was all gone! (I later bought a 1530 with my allowance, then the next Christmas I got the 1571 drive with 360kb of storage! Hot stuff!) The only game I ever bought for it was Project: Space Station... so I guess not much has changed for me! :^Þ If I could have the thousands of hours I spent writing programs and music in 8502 Machine Language I... well... I could play as much KSP as I already have over again!

Curiouser and curiouser. (if you'll pardon the expression) I'll go see what that MM gurus can make out of this mad scenario. Thanks!

For some reason, other MM code patches won't change the tech nodes for the upgrades. Here is the code I am using: @PARTUPGRADE[BonVoyageUpgrade_v2]:NEEDS[BonVoyage]:FINAL { @TechRequired = advancedMotors @cost = 10000 @entryCost = 30000 } @PARTUPGRADE[BonVoyageUpgrade_v3]:NEEDS[BonVoyage]:FINAL { @TechRequired = experimentalMotors @cost = 15000 @entryCost = 45000 } @PARTUPGRADE[BonVoyageUpgrade_v4]:NEEDS[BonVoyage]:FINAL { @TechRequired = experimentalMotors @cost = 20000 @entryCost = 60000 } @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[BonVoyageModule]]:NEEDS[BonVoyage]:FINAL { @MODULE[BonVoyageModule] { @UPGRADES { @UPGRADE:HAS[#name__[BonVoyageUpgrade_v2]] { @techRequired__ = advancedMotors } @UPGRADE:HAS[#name__[BonVoyageUpgrade_v3]] { @techRequired__ = experimentalMotors } @UPGRADE:HAS[#name__[BonVoyageUpgrade_v4]] { @techRequired__ = experimentalMotors } } } } I can verify in the ModuleManager.log that the lines are running: ...and that they are running AFTER your Mod, but in game the upgrades are still in Unmanned Tech for V2, Automation for V3, and AI for V4 and nothing I do short of editing the original CFG files will move them. Does your Mod not support MM re-definitions? How exactly are you implementing your Tech node definitions? I have verified I am using the "BonVoyage-0.5.3" version and it works perfectly if I edit your CFG files, so it can't be anything to do with my installation. My Mod re-defines almost every part in the Tech Tree, (as well as changing the tree itself) so I need to be able to dynamically change the nodes for the upgrades and I REALLY don't want to do it by replacing your files as it makes uninstalling my Mod problematic without making the player go and re-install your original files. I love your Mod and want to properly support it with mine and I'd really appreciate any assistance you can give me. (and if you like I can in turn teach you some MM syntax that might help you, such as @FreeThinker was talking about)

I know I can use NEEDS on values and nodes, but currently the only part that you have at start that can do science if you lack Grounded is the thermometer and Barometer. Given two possible Biomes to use them in (Launchpad and Runway) without a command pod (so no Kerbals... no Crew Reports... etc.) and no autonomous control at start, you can't actually DO any science without Grounded installed. I've gotten SO used to it being there that I forget that it's not Stock! As for the DLC internal names, they aren't in the Wiki (which is a shame as all the other Stock CFGs are there) and my internet searches didn't find anything... so if someone put them out there they did a good job of making it hard to find! (whether that was their intent or not... they succeeded!) For the time being, I'm making Grounded a Dependency and recommending that DLC not be used to get around the issue. I may have the new version up soon. (depends on how much time I have available... my stepfather's funeral is today ) Edit: Updated to new Version. I highly recommend everyone use the current version as it fixes a few irritating bugs (not the least is the Recycled Parts issue having been fixed) as well as some streamlining for people that want to tweak the CFGs.

It occurred to me yesterday that there is a flaw in my Mod. If one doesn't have the Making History DLC or the Grounded Mod, the game becomes unplayable in career because there's no way to do science at the start. Speaking of DLC, since I haven't gotten either Breaking Ground OR Making History, it should be noted that neither of these are supported by this Mod. (that is, the parts are not relocated to their appropriate tech nodes... they still show up, but in nodes that may not make sense given the other parts there) Since I don't have access to the DLC internal part names, I can't move them to their correct nodes to properly support them. I REALLY want to properly integrate the parts into this tree, but I just can't justify the expense of getting them at this moment. ::sigh:: I'm starting to think that the entire project just isn't going to work unless I make Grounded a Dependency and suggest that the DLC NOT be used with this Mod until I can properly integrate it. (either that or just pull the Mod entirely as unworkable until I have the time and money to do it right) Thoughts welcome.

I would, as I used to use it and enjoyed it a lot, but the changes in the last few versions turned it into something that feels more like "Real Fuels lite" which I don't like and so I've dropped it in favor of the old Atomic Age Mod that is now part of the Recycled Parts Mod. The Atomic Age models are great, the designs are well balanced, and you don't need to overhaul your entire game with every tank basically getting the Modular Fuel Tanks Mod that I think breaks game balance too much. It was so much better when KSPIE was simple and elegant and just a parts Mod like back in version 1.3.1. I very nearly dropped Near Future Propulsion for the same reason... that it uses two new fuels, but since it handles them in their own fuel tanks like Xenon I found a way to make it work. (I actually did in fact drop Near Future Electrical due to the changes that it makes to the basic game functions of electrical power that over-complicate the game IMHO... which is a shame as it was a fun Mod to play with) Even if someone gave me all the data for the current KSPIE in a ready-made MM patch, I don't think I could fit it into the existing tech tree re-configure as it makes too many changes to other parts because Interstellar Fuel Switch is now mandatory. (along with Interstellar Hybrid Rocketry and Filter Extensions... which is billed as "optional" but the game throws lots of errors if it's not there... and picking through a few thousand lines of MM code to re-balance it all would be a full-time job) I made a serious effort to get it to work, but it just doesn't fit with the stock parts and a lot of other Mods, unfortunately. Basically it fell by the wayside when Atomic Age was re-released as it did a lot of what I wanted out of KSPIE without the headache. Thoughts welcome!

You would be correct in assuming that this is geared more for people to take advantage of the higher parts of the tech tree, much like CTT is, by taking advantage of Mods. A lot of the Stock parts are in fact in the lower nodes with the later nodes mostly filled with parts from Station Parts Expansion Redux, the Near Future Mods, Kerbal Planetary Base Systems, OPT, Feline Utility Rover, Heat Control, etc. That's why support was added for so many Mods from the start. Just out of curiosity, which version did you play through? Was it before v.0.1.3 where I implemented the entryCost mechanic? That would make a career game WAY too easy as you wouldn't have to pay to unlock any parts. If you haven't gotten the 0.1.4 update I would recommend it as it made some good game balance fixes. Since I don't play Stock, I would be very interested in your perspective! Thanks!

It comes down to a matter of interpretation. Additionally, there is only one (two if using CTT) Survivability node, which means to spread them out over multiple nodes of progression you would need to use other unrelated nodes. (such as Flight Control or Command Modules) The advantage of using the Construction tree is that you have many more nodes to use. Of course, this assumes that you WANT a progression. If you just want to put them all in the same node (or two) then Survivability would be as good a place as any. (though in Stock and CTT that does make them sort of easy to get to in the early game... and even under RTT Enhanced Survivability only takes 75 science points to reach) My thinking stems from the flavor text used for Survivability and Enhanced Survivability that indicate the intent is to improve CREW survivability, not so much CRAFT survivability. (the exact lines are "The art and science of landing and walking away from it." and "Decrease the number of tearful goodbyes by increasing the survivability of our pilots.") But it just comes down to a matter of preference in the end... I can only tell you where I think they should go. YMMV. Understandable. That's why I modified the flavor text... so it's notable. I also did the same thing on the Clamp-o-tron Jr. which under my Mod is NOT crew passable if you have Connected Living Spaces installed. (the part is physically smaller than a Kerbal, so they shouldn't be able to pass) The flavor text is altered from "kerbals need to hold their breath and wiggle to slip through." to "adult Kerbals cannot fit through the hatch... but they could pass snacks through. (or fuel hoses... or data tapes... you get the idea)" Thank you for the compliment! I really appreciate it!

It already changes the description text to add "At least it gets good gas mileage." to indicate the change. I honestly feel this change is needed, otherwise the Ant is effectively useless. Since it's available in the same node as the Spider, which has almost the same cost (110 vs. 120) and the same weight, but the Spider has an atmospheric TTW ratio 3.5 times that of the Ant. So with that in mind, why would anyone use the Ant? It's effectively useless and obsolete as soon as you get it and becasue it's node attached instead of radial attached, able to be used in far fewer circumstances. Given that, giving it better Isp(v) than any engine in Stock at LEAST gives it niche use. If someone wants to remove the effect, (or even just tone it down) it's easy enough to search for the word "Ant" in the CFG and delete the lines. I do appreciate the feedback though! Thanks!