scimas

Hmm, I should read up on this. I have definitely misunderstood the concept.

I have no idea. That makes sense. Yes, principia modifies the stock system so that the Jool system is stable. But if you make any changes to stock, it will treat it as a new planetary system and won't make stability changes to Jool system, you will have to do those on your own.

No, that's not what ephemeris is. Ephemeris, in the context of principia, is how the integrates the motion of celestials. The integrator to use and the time step size of the integrator. But then you have the problem of not being able to extend to arbitrary solar systems. In its current state principia can adapt to any planet pack as long as it provides proper configuration files. Which means you can start playing RSS with the state of solar system at any time in the past or future as long as you provide the proper initial state. If you were to solve the system in advance for thousand years, you would need to store about 52 million instances of the system, an instance being position, velocity and angular orientation of each body. That is about 5 billion floating point numbers. And if I did the (rough) calculation correctly, that would be about 35 GB of raw data. Of course you could come up with clever tricks to compress it, but how much? And even then, I have no clue about the comparison between time taken for doing the calculation live vs looking up the values from a table for every update. Actually the number of vessels can grow quite big in a career game, and very quickly too. You have all those satellite contracts, your communication satellite networks, planetary bases, space stations and what not.. I'm not completely sure about this, but I think I remember it mentioned sometime that celestials do ignore vessel influence. Although I can't think why that would be; you are anyway computing the force on a vessel due to a celestial, the force on the celestial is just the negative of the one on the vessel..

Can confirm this happens. Don't know whether the devs are aware or not.

@eggrobin The change log says "this version supports 1.3.1 and 1.4.x," does that mean I can use it with 1.4.3 too, or only 1.4.4? Also, the topic title is still showing "[1.3.1, 1.4.3]."

So you want to rotate one vector towards another by some angle? Yeah, the rotate functions probably can do it, I personally find them hard to understand sometimes. So you can figure them out for yourself and in the meantime use https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodrigues'_rotation_formula , which I find easier to use.

Use the abs function. Let's say you want to limit steering angle to (-20 deg, +20 deg). And lets call your steering angle ANG. So, if (abs(ANG) < 20) then {steer as per ANG} else {steer with -20 or +20}

SHIP:VERTICALSPEED

I'm not a tech expert myself, but isn't almost every PC since at least about 2010 a 64 bit PC? I'm not a developer either, but seems like you figured it out

@Zeiss Ikon As far as I know, simply cloning the dev branch of RP-0 and using the GameData folder works in 1.3.1. Well, it works at least in windows, I have a working installation.

@Just Jim @Dman979 @Nivee~ Oh, I see. Of course I know who Gandhi is, after all I am an Indian! The wrong spelling got me. "Gandhi" is pronounced totally different from what the "Ghandi" spelling suggests.

Who or what is "Ghandi"?

https://github.com/mockingbirdnest/Principia/wiki/Installing,-reporting-bugs,-and-frequently-asked-questions Check the linux section. The working directory needs to be the KSP directory for principia to run on linux, apparently. On windows, there is an option in a shortcut's properties that determines in which directory an executable is opened. See if something similar is available to you if having the shortcut is important.

No, as of now such an option isn't available. It is also advised to not install or remove Principia in the middle of a save. Reference

Thanks guys! @Tyko I found the line you are talking about. I will test it for myself, but will probably end up leaving it as is since it's intended and not a bug.

I don't know if this has been reported before or not, or may be it's even intended. I'm still in 1.3.1. The Mk1 command pod from VSR is somewhat off centre. Exactly what is off centre? I don't know. But the kerbal engineer reports a torque of 0.07 kNm with as simple as a (Mk1 pod, FLT100, any liquid engine) configuration. The torque isn't present with the stock command pod. Is there any simple way of keeping all other parts from VSR and just remove this pod? Like 'move these bunch of files out of the game data of VSR and done'? The naming of the parts in Squad folder vs VSR/Squad folder seems very different and I can't figure out which files to play with. And if it's going to require changing some cfg files (for MM or something,) just tell me it's not possible. It isn't that big of an issue, I can wait till this is fixed in some future release.

I'm not a console player myself, but every time I read a "no news about console version?" I feel sad. You console players are like Harry Potter from all of the 'Wrong Boy Who Lived' fanfiction stories. Squad are like Harry's parents that remember about him once every few years, throw a sweater or something at him, only to forget everything 2 seconds later. Except that Harry ends up being victorious in those stories; with Squad, it doesn't seem you guys are ever going to win.

You quoted the wrong guy there. I don't mind much at all, but if it was me, I would have said "reentry effects are the ugliest I've personally seen." They could have been uglier in older versions, but I've been around since 1.2.2 only.

I never said that, you clearly need to read again if you think that I did. You have written the rest of the post from the perspective of a person who has been following the development of the game from its earliest stages. For a new customer, precisely what you're expecting when you release a DLC, I don't imagine the game looking bug-free, let alone polished. I have written my post partially from that customer's perspective. If you don't appreciate that viewpoint, I can't do anything to convince you otherwise. You definitely haven't read through the rest of the thread or you wouldn't have said some of those things. Again, as some others have said, the difficulty level of a job is not a customer's problem. I, or any other KSP player I imagine, wasn't sitting in squad's office with a gun pointed at them and forcing them to release an update, they did it on their own schedule. If it's hard to diagnose and fix bugs, take your time and fix them. Don't release an end product that is even worse than the previous version. And just for fun, try using that "it's a hard job" excuse next time you have a university exam or something. "Professor, you have to give me an A for the answers I have written. I know that there are a lot of mistakes in there, but calculus is hard, you know? Give me an A now and I will have all of the mistakes corrected in 2 or 3 months."

Go on principia github and hunt down a closed issue. The issue was about supporting different gravity models / integrators for different solar systems through config files. That issue had another github profile linked. That linked guy specifically designs solar system that should be stable even under proper N body gravitation, ie stable with Principia. I will try to find it myself once I get on a pc, but hopefully you will find it before that.

To all those defending squad with "it's a small company, stop being demanding," "it's software, of course it's going to have bugs," "software development is totally different from other manufacturing / development, you can't same QA from both," "they updated unity engine, that is a big change, bugs were bound to happen" and the best of them all "stop whining." No, just no. I don't care whether it's software or a piece of furniture or a submarine, it's a product, a product I paid money for; a product that was working almost perfectly fine in 1.3.1 and was then broken by an update. And then subsequent updates failed to mend those broken things. Yes, I'm going to demand a bugfix. And are you saying that squad are amateurs? That if you could figure out that updating unity would introduce bugs then they couldn't? What were squad doing then? Shouldn't the update have been through even more rigorous checks if it was going through a big change? Someone has posted a module manager patch for landing legs. That is wonderful of that person! I think they even said "it is a very simple MM patch." But the point is that mods should exist to add or improve functionality, not for bug fixes, however easy it may have been for you to fix. If I just bought the game and have no idea that it is moddable or that ksp forums is a thing, and I have no idea that I can grab a previous version of the game that is more bug free; I should still be able to play the game without difficulty. If I managed to send my first rocket to space, the re-entry effects shouldn't make the rocket partially invisible. The effects shouldn't change suddenly depending on the camera position... The list can just go on and on. The criticism they are receiving in this thread is very much deserved in my opinion.

Hey @Poodmund, this is wonderful tool! I was wondering in which software did you create the spreadsheets? Because it works flawlessly when I use it in google docs, but if I download it as an excel file, the whole file gets messed up. The drop down lists show only deep space network 1 (repeatedly in place of all antennas), it somehow interprets blank cells as not numbers and so generates a ton of division by zeros... and so on. I wanted to know if there was any way to fix that.

It may not be officially posted, but the RoverDude dev has confirmed that the fairing drag has been fixed, it's on the first page of this thread.

I have no comments about a KSP 2. I'm happy to have the current bugs fixed, how that is managed is upto the devs. And I don't have any significant programming / arts development experience to argue about whether a different engine is needed or not. I was just saying that pricing shouldn't be an issue, provided the quality is as expected, if an overhauled 2.0 was to be released.

I don't think the complaining was about paying for the DLC. It is that the DLC feels far too underwhelming for the price tag put on it. As I had commented in the 1.4.1 discussion thread (the patch with which MH came), in my currency, the DLC is priced at about 52% the price of the game KSP. The contents of the DLC definitely don't feel like I'm getting almost half of the game. I don't see why people would complain about AAA pricing if the quality of the released title is also AAA. Do you have a source for this? I'm curious.