Spricigo

Well, I will try to take a look and see if I can provide more info about it (logs, screenshots, etc) as soon I have time. Its not something that really bothers me since I didn't noticed any adverse effect. Mostly that is something unexpected that I prefer to know why happened. Well, as far I remember none of my mods should affect how mining behave. But I don't rule out something bundled with a different mod or just that I forgot something previously installed for testing. In my case there was no ore previously in the vessel. Also, not sure if that is what happened in you case, for me it didn't completely top the ore holds but there was still space for 100 units or so. Like if the availability suddenly peaked anr then reverted back to normal.

Still useful without it.

It sound kinda like the opposite he asked to me. It add even more to consider than If simply going with MJ. I may be wrong, given I dont use autopilot *. But seems that KoS can make a bigger omelette, and thus need to be break more eggs. *some exceptions but not relevant for the discussion. Pretty oblivious about what MJ or KoS full potential is. Try looking at Smart Parts Odd as it sound, partless Smart Parts seems not enterirely without merit. I don't mind the cost/mass but part count sometimes annoys me. But let me guess: KoS can do it?

Quite the opposite, if there's no such evidence I need to check the entire forum to be sure. OTOH you just need to point at a single post where it exist. I may search for that evidence myself, but why should I make the effort to prove your point? Is just not in my interest (either because I'm silly enough to want to 'win' the discussion, or I'm reasonable convinced I'll not find the posts you refer to.) Forget what? (Just to clarify, the remark I did was uncalled for, it come out as an awful acusation. Accept my apologies, because I failed, epicaly, trying to express the confusion with you comment. A catastrophic choice of rhetoric.) Did it matter? The fact that mods can be installed is enough evidence to me that there is no code blocking it. Even assuming that is in some way difficult/impractical/impossible to code there's still the other ways to create such rule (license, modding rules). I can do a lot of things, still it doesn't mean I'll do. Nor that I had the compromise to refrain from doing it. Without the compromise to follow a given rune there is no cheating when the rule is ignored. To use a previous example, and make it extreme: I challenge regex for a challenge: which one can reach the surface of the mun first. He is interested and ask what are the rules. I say "lets say nothing is forbidden unless expressly stated and work from there" (because I think I'm so smart that I can deceive him so he will not notice a way I'm planning to use and complete the challenge really quickly) Regex noticed there's something devious in the way I setup the challenge, but decide to play along. We discuss for a while about what is forbidden, the whole time I try to maintain the discussion about factors that are meaningless for my strategy (what parts can be used, vessel weight, forbidden parts from various mods, etc) at some point he mention the cheat menu and I say "infinite fuel, infinite electricity, no crash damage, hack gravity. ...all forbidden. That go without saying for me" We move to other subject, no one said set orbit is forbidden, and seems like regex didn't noticed it. We are satisfied about the rules and start the challenge itself. I promptly open the cheat menu and set orbit around the mun. Just after I point my craft towards the mun with engines at full power regex anounce touching down the mun surface. Congratulations, you beat me. And also made me feel dumb since I didn't forbid hyperedit. Under a more traditional KSP challenge that would be blatant cheating. But we decided that everything was allowed unless expressly prohibited. Set orbit wasn't prohibited, hyperedit wasn't prohibited, using vague/misleading language to induce adversary's error wasn't prohibited. We even decided to prohibit arguing about the result after the mun's surface was reached. Cheater is anyone claiming regex's victory is not legit, fair and square...at least anyone that made the compromise to accept the rules as we defined it. The stock KSP is a base for the mods build upon it. Not every player want to have a submarine or a crane, the parts for this don't need to be in the stock game (cluttering the VAB of many people that see no reason for that) but is nice to have it a few ckicks away for those that want it. Example given: KSP with toy solar system. KSP with stock solar system, KSP with real solar system. Yes, I call all those KSP. Not the same unless the distinction become irrelevant in the context. (E.g. KSP plus visual mods == KSP stock in the context of many challenges. KSP + MJ == KSP stock when asked if "my vessel have enough deltaV to reach duna?"....) We dont even need to add mods to have different set ot rules. We just need different setting or even different compromises with a given set of game settings. E.g we can both play with commnet enabled but one of us think is cheating to disable it at any time while the other is okay in turning it down to deploy antennas because " was supposed to be already deployed as soon it got out of atmosphere " . One can argue that in the context set by the first, the later is cheating. But" if he didn't had the compromise with this context, it make no sense to analyze him in that context. In that regard we can't choose a single one as a "base case" , we need to consider each one separately. Why? Because not everyone had the compromise to play with those base rules The fact I can break the rules is not enough. Matter of fact I "played soccer" for a while and no rule was break, then I stopped to play soccer. At this point I cannot cheat at soccer, I'm not playing it anymore. I just felt like to "play basketball". Using my hand was against the rules of the game and kicking the ball was totally acceptable under the previous rules, but now is the opposite. I'm still using the same ball(in the same field, with the same other kuds.. ), but I decided to play along a different set of rules. As long I stay within the current agreed set of rules I'm not cheating. And if I break some rule (which I didn't) that'd be cheating in the game I was playing at the time (e g. soccer) but not cheating in the stuff I'm using to play the game (ball). In fact there is stuff against the rules that I will not do while playing the soccer game (using my hands) that are perfectly ressonable, non-cheating, ways to handle my toy.

How about: one of his rules is "any rule can be changed at any point" ? But the point is that any rule will be added to the game that use the toy, not to the toy itself. I may use a ball to play soccer for a while and at some point just decide to play basketball instead. I'm still playing with the same toy ( ball), is just a different game. Off course I can just throw the ball around and watch it bounce and roll.

In other word, you refuse to provide a single evidence that it hapenned. Fine, I don't need to provide any evidence that it didn't happened. If you say so...but I still don't get what you meant. Starting to suspect that you don't want to make it clear. No evidence. Nothing in the code, nothing in the game license, nothing in the official documentation that rule out the use of mods of any kind. Quite the contrary, there is an API that allows for a lot ot customization, a section of the official forum dedicated to modding and game mechanics developed to be easily expanded by mods. I wonder what @RoverDude would say about that idea that some of his mods aren't in touch with the official idea of the game. Ahh see your own words. It's still KSP if you add a mod. It may be a different KSP, or a variant ot KSP, but KSP anyways. The original question was "what os cheating in modded KSP?" ...is using the unmodded variants cheating?

And what exactly you want to say with that? That cheating is not about attempting to gaining a unfair advantage or that the examples I provided are not unfair advantage/disadvantages ? Either case I can't see what your reasoning may be. Nonetheless, if we are talking about going against rules or intended use is necessary to know which rules are those. You talk about implicit rules as if that was a incontestable reality but there is no evidence squad think the same way. And, while the onus to provide evidence of your claim should by on you, let me talk about a guy know as Roverdude. He happens to be a dev that helped to create the 'implicit rules of KSP', he is also a modder that created stuff to make the game easier/simplier* than stock is. That idea you have about the vanilla game being in some way a better (non-cheating) way to play the game is nothing else than stock elitism. *construction docking ports, ballast tank, water propulsion, articulated parts. ...

Mining is something I have neglected by a long time to only recently decide to play with it. As such I decided to take the contract that asked me to get 500 unit of ore from the Mun and put it in Kerbin's orbit. Was planning to land my mining vessel, start to mine, go do something else and come back after some time. But due to crashing and losing most of my solar panels overseeing the moniny procedure turned a requirement. By this point I was expecting a long and tedious mining (low ore concentration, low level engineer, energy shortages) but then it happened. A series of messages showed up saying "25% of [some descriptive] mined", "50%... ,"75%... "100%... and in a few moments my ore tanks were almost full, (more than enough for my imediate needs). Based on previous knowledge from forum discussion and guides, I was under the assumption that ore concentration was fixed for a given location and no deplention occurred. Well, the apparent finding of a rich vein is a bit conflicting with that supposition. I have a bunch of mods, but none supposed to change ore availability. Question are: What happened? Is that some recent change to the game or just something that I misunderstood previously? Any idea of what are the chances of find those rich veins? How much ore can those veins holds? Difficult settings affect it? Can it be detected by survey scanners or otherwise? Can it be disabled? (Some people prefer the game not too easy) Can it be an effect of an anomaly? (Seems unlike to me, but not impossible) Thanks in advance for anyone that can give some insight on the situation.

Maybe It was indeed the effect of aerodynamic forces that made it start to climb again. But I'd not hold my breath in doing it part of a useful and efficient desing. Angling the fuselage also added a lot of drag which is very undesirable for atmospheric flight. A different explanation is you just passed the periapsis of your trajectory that happened to be well above the surface. Falling but missing the ground. Btw, I think you should have posted it in the Gameplay Question subforum. Anyway, I suppose a moderator will move it if necessary.

You are seeing implicit rules that may well only exist in your mind. Squad's stance in regard mods is pretty clear. Mods are supported with a section on the official forum, nodding tools and often game mechanics are developed with mods in mind. Stock elitism is not a vision the devs have for the game. Well, more general to the broad subject of the thread: Cheating implies attempt to obtaining an unfair advantage. I point can be made that someone that can play for several hours daily have a clear advantage over someone busy with work/family/whatever ane only have a limited time at weekends. Some people play in low performance computers that struggle to keep the game playable. Or that one can have impaired vision, poor motor skills or some kind of medical condition that add a difficult that most of us don't even imagine. The list goes on but the fact is there is a lot of reason one can be in a much worse conditions to extract enjoyment from the game, and hardly any of those reason can be called 'fair'. Calling those people cheaters just because they made some adaptation to enjoy a game is mean. Let alone the waste of time and effort.

Well, the orbital decay become less an issue higher you go. At some point the game would stop to keep track of it just to save computing respurces. 70km looks like a good arbitrary heigh like any other to me. OTOH people would just put the stations at higher altitudes where they would stay for much longer periods, effectively makings the feature meaningless.

So just put your heart in the aesthetics (or whatever you want). You don't need a autopilot for it. In any case, I feel that such extensive automation is conflicting with squad's vision to KSP. While the players can do a lot of different things, piloting is supposed to stay in the core of the game. Otherwise we would have at least the option to execute planned maneuver by now.* Fortunately there is MechJeb, it may take a few more steps than what you suggest, but certainly a very effective autopilot. *which IMHO would be a good 'accessibility option' along with auto-land.

Well, if you are feeling brave enough, you can EVA a kerbal and push. Not only EVA backpack have a generous amount of fuel but also are replenished when you board the vessel again*. Another possibiliity its to send a rescue ship, either to refuel or to get the kerbals. *except for external command seats.

The only "argument" I made was that you are overreacting about something avoidable and , honestly, of very little consequence. You are talking as if the game didn't offered the opportunity to save your ship but in fact there was enough opportunity to you save in the wrong moment. And that is the mistake (your mistake) that caused your problem annoyance. So is up to you to decide if you will focus your energy in avoiding repeating that mistake or in pretending that KSP is a 3d modelling tool .

In the first case you altered the vessel and didn't save. later you removed those parts and saved the vessel without those parts. You didn't even considered it important enough to save as subassemble. The criteria is simple and evident: If there is some unsaved changes to the vessel there is a warning/prompt else just proceed. No matter how much you want to blame the game, that was just your own mistake. You should had noticed that 15 stages with hundreds of parts were not attached and, like in previous instances, those would be lost when you left VAB. Not to say that a "unattached parts will be lost. Proceed?" warning is not a good idea. Personally I have no use for it but, as long there is a [don't ask again] option, no problem. KSP is a game . If you want to convince the devs to change a feature you need to convince that makes a better game. Whatever a "real modelling program" can or can't do is totally irrelevant

Incidentaly something that may help to make your rocket more stable is ading fuel tanks. Not because those have some kind of special effect on stability, but just because your rocket will be longer and your winglets can have a longer lever arm. Also, depending on the weight of all those parts, it may help to make the CoM move up. It can even be made in a rocket functional enough to not require infinite fuel to reach the moon if you decide to try. You have a lot of power in this engine (TWR 10+), what you need is, lets put it in a kerbal way, MOAAR FUEL.

There are mods that only purpose is to change how stock parts looks. Unfortunately I don't know any that specifically change antennas.

DeltaV is the main factor to consider but there is a few others(that will affect how much deltaV you need to reach orbit) You need a TWR > 1 to lift from the ground. Also a low TWR means more time for gravity losses building up, while a higher TWR may cause drag issues. Another possible cause of inefficience is a suboptimal trajectory. That can happen with a bulky payload or overpowered rocket (e.g. launching a satellite on top of a Thumper SRB)

Don't seem to be a missing animation to me. Rather that you don't like how deployed positions. In that regard I feel there's some inconsistence on how different antennas are positioned. But seems just a odd, in my opinnion, design choice.

Consider it by the potential helper's perspective. It's a lot of trouble for something that may be solved by a quick look at a screenshot. The whole file can even be unusable if the wannabe helper happens to not have access to KSP at the time he is looking at this thread. (Like me.) If so, enable the CoT indicator and make sure you have the thrust aligned with CoM. You may need to move engines around to get a balanced configuration alternatively your payload may be the offender. If you don't know something, you can learn it. And people that know can teach. There is a lot of good guides around. And lots of people willing to give advice. Ask and we will try to point you in the right direction.

And looks like the same apply to the forum.

Inclination change is cheaper at lower velocities (higher orbital altitudes). The Oberth effect play no role there. Seems more like the opposite of Oberth. But Is just adifferent situation where different factors need to be considered.

Except that may not be the optimal time. I mean, doing a inclination change in Kerbin's SoI may be cheaper than doing it in Sun's SoI because of the lower velocity. OTOH the inclination change relative to the Sun will be smaller than the associated inclination change relative to Kerbin. Notice that is highly speculative. Just something that crossed my mind and I'm expressing in the hope for a comment by someone with better grasp of the math involved. Another point is that, everything else being equal, two separate maneuvers in different directions are more expensive that single combined maneuver.

Silly me...thinking a thread in this forum would count as a valid way to look out for that info.

This guide expliain commnet in detail. Signal strengh is related only to max range ane actual distance between the crafts. Max range is in tirn determined by the formula : RANGE=SQRT (VAP1*VAP2) VAP is Vessel Antenna Power. In that particular the relays are irrelevant. All communication will be handled by the direct (stronger) link between your craft and KSC. The whole point of relay is to act as link between your craft and KSC. Either because your craft don't have a strong antenna or because LoS issues.