XLjedi

Based on a video I saw... the game takes over your keyboard lighting and does things like incrementally turn on/off certain key lighting based on game events (launch countdown for instance). I use both Logitech keyboard and mouse and this game disables the lighting on both of them. My drivers are up to date, just reinstalled today to double-check in fact. I can't see my keyboard and I can no longer tell what mode my mouse is using because all of the lights on my mouse are gone too. It's rather infuriating that a game would take over a users keyboard and mouse accessibility lighting, give zero warning that it was doing it, do it by default, and give no options to disable it in the setup menu. As I type this, I can't see the keys on my keyboard. Thankfully, I am a touch typist and can manage, but this is a pretty egregious overreach by the devs in my opinion. I can forgive a LOT, but this game is breaking things outside of the game.

Ya know, I've tried to start that game (Rimworld) at least 2 or 3 times now, and never get much further than the opening tutorial where you build a square house, add a few beds and trinkets, fend off a few attackers... and meh, I lose interest. How long did you have to "stick it out" before the actual addictive component kicks in? Wondering if I'm entirely immune to its effect?

Well, if they can pass the test in MSFS, they probably fly better than 75% of all private pilots already! I think all they would be missing is ATC comms, and some ground school.

I know. My point was, it was a bit harder to fly the planes in the game than it actually is in RL. For me I think it was mostly related to the feedback you get from sitting in the plane and peripheral vision. In the simulator, I found it unusually difficult/tedious just to fly in a circle around a fixed point and maintain altitude. IRL, it's a nothing exercise that you do in like your first couple hours of flight training. Lack of rudder pedals probably didn't help me either.

Last time I tried playing that (and don't get me wrong, it's good an all) I tried to qualify for the pilots license or something like that with the C-172 and couldn't pass the test. Got frustrated and just stopped playing... apparently, there is no option to take a pic of your RL pilot license and just send that in to qualify for a license in MSFS.

Looks good. Gonna add it to my wishlist and follow a bit.

This week it's been: Jurassic Park Evolution and Carrier Deck ...and my hand is starting to cramp from Carrier Deck

Can't blame you... the gameplay is presented (thru tutorials) that lead you down a path of destruction and rage quitting. It's when you realize the engine that drives all aggression towards you is entirely under your control, that it begins to feel like a simple sandbox.

Lately... It's been Empyrion.

Given the state of things... if they fixed all the bugs, it would be a major update.

Prefer not to have my posts used to shut down threads... nothing I can do to stop it. [snip]

For me, it would be nice if the research were a bit less generic. I would propose the generic "Science" be replaced with tokens earned in maybe 4-6 different disciplines. Then have a branching tree where the items on the tree cost a combination of the various tokens. Maybe no item cost more than 2 or 3 of any discipline token?

...but is that the Mothership from Homeworld? Is Eve Online somehow tied to the Homeworld storyline?

There are two concepts the file covers with regard to part scraping. I pull the part info from the craft file of course, but I also have code associated with the "parts" tab that scrapes all part data from the game itself. Let me know if you have any questions on either. The "Files" tab also includes code that pulls all subdirectories from a give directory, which helps tremendously in that respect. So I guess there are three tools at play. I suppose a first step in your case would be to make sure the "E:" file reference at the top of the "Parts" page is correct for your directory structure and then try to identify which line of code in VBA is causing your error.

@Cruesoe I was able to confirm the file still works fine with the latest version of KSP. I was able to load a 1.11.1 craft file without incident. I'm using Office Pro 2010 When I have had problems in the past it was most often caused by not updating the craft file folder extensions correctly. That would be the first place I would look. Do you have the file directory structures correct for the craft you want to analyze? I do have a version of O365 that I will also check with the same 1.11.1 craft file just to make sure it's not something wonky with Excel.

Never tried to run it on O365. I haven't tried it lately, and there have been a few updates to KSP. So let me see if my version even works.

Which version of Excel?

OP was thinkin: "Yeah, I'll be too busy applying for colleges and reviewing test results with my teachers." I was thinkin: "Yeah, I'll probably be too busy applying for AARP and reviewing test results with my doctors."

The threat is actually from non-space games... which are now beginning to dabble in space. Question is, will they employ orbital mechanics?

Keep in mind, these are comments coming from someone who is a pretty big fan of KSP.

Because in more advanced sandbox games... You build the interior of the craft, program dials on the dashboard, build your own navigation systems, design deck layouts, electrical systems, piping, you build the engine you need using engine parts, you program HUDs to show you what you want to see. You wander around inside of your creation performing tasks to accomplish the mission. ...sometimes with friends on board. You work on huge craft with robotic parts and hinges that allow you to deploy and retrieve craft from the hangar bays of your ship. Comparatively, In KSP... You start with "Fuel Tank", slap on "Cockpit", add 3 "Fins", attach engine... Launch. Anything much more complex than that and you risk the wheels of your craft bouncing you off the surface of a planet, or not being able to use the fuel in your craft because the game is hopelessly bugged. So in a game about space, you end up spending most of your time piddling around building neat little jets and cool stuff on Kerbin and seldom leave the atmosphere. On the rare occasions you do venture into space, they don't bother to give you the spaceflight systems for the most basic of trajectory planning. Relying on mods for things like transfer windows and launch scheduling is just ridiculous.

Hard to say... I'm half-afraid that by the time it's released, other (better?) sandbox games will have my attention. The system of large pre-built parts seems to be sliding toward obsolescence, if not already there. ...they still got cuteness going for them though; hopefully they don't lose that along the way.

Sure, you can make that. You'll need reaction wheels for yaw control and the craft will just be slow.

The right way to make a conventional tail rotor helo in KSP is to not bother starting... They are at best clunky. You can create something (I have) and it won't work well, and maybe you land it on a helipad or two around the KSC. ...so toy quality with little mission usefulness for KSP rescue ops is what you end up with. The most mission capable rescue helos in KSP that I've been able to make are coaxial designs, no tail rotor, and jet propulsion with reaction wheels for extra stability and yaw control. They can hold hovers, and land on boats or water and travel several hundred km to retrieve downed Kerbals from sea or mountain. So people say my designs are not real "helicopters" I think Sikorsky would beg to differ; the proper modern term is "Compound Helo" (ref: S-97 Raider). ...they have also been referred to as gyrodynes in the past. They are not however gyrocopters.

Positive buoyancy sub deployed via seaplane (Mk3 Cargo). So a viable option for interplanetary delivery. All my craft are on KerbalX https://kerbalx.com/XLjedi/UV-14-Barracuda