Gavin786

Are you sure you can do this with the 4 new custom axis ? What would the settings.cfg file look like for that ? I did try to find a way to set to absolute and didnt see anything. As I said before I looked through whole UI plus the cfg file and just couldnt find this option. I use joystick gremlin to do all the curves etc I want but didnt know KSP could do it also. All I saw was dead zones there. It would be good if there was some documentation for all of this. Just re-read your post and "Sensitivity" is a power curve. Didnt know that. Its important to get documentation for that and the right value to get it 1:1 as most folks I guess would prefer to use likes of joystick gremlin or their joystick software for curves.

I think that there is one fundamental point that the OC has failed to grasp. Developers need to be paid to develop software. That money needs to come from somewhere. And that somewhere is the DLCs. IF they stop releasing DLC or people stop buying it means KSP development stops. Full Stop. That is the reality of the situation. I love this game and am delighted to spend $15 on DLC, if only just to support the devs in making more of this game. IF there was a "supporter pack" or upgrade that was cosmetic I would get that too, just to support the Devs. For some people, especially kids and those in the 3rd world, $15 is a lot of money. But if it wasnt for these DLCs there would be no KSP. To ask the devs just to work on main game and not get any money in from DLCs is not a realistic position. I dont know what it is but am nonetheless looking forward to next DLC. In my book both so far have been fantastic and added a lot of great stuff. Yes you can get a lot of that from mods, but I far, far and away rather things be in the core game than the mods, as I feel that is "real" gameplay and anything that fundamentally alters the nature of play is not for me. And I have loads of mods none of which do that, all of which are informational or allow game input to be streamlined. To be crystal clear about another point I loathe microtransactions or any "pay-to-win" mechanic. It would completely turn me off KSP if it happened. I loathe any game that has that and I just wont play it. Cosmetic items are fine, but anything that changes the gameplay that has to be bought on a per-item basis I just cant abide and even though it brings more money in for me it would totally ruin this game. Airships and Submarines would be a fantastic next mod IMHO and I would be happy to pay $15 God Willing. Gavin786

Stuff like that is a really great idea. I have always wished that one could use matrices for the controller inputs to the outputs and have that in some kind of general purpose format. Its not difficult and ppl dont need to know matrix math if the homogenous coordinate is hidden and it can be unhidden for transforrm(fixed value offsets) for those who know what they are doing. I really dislike and in fact do not use mods that alter stock gameplay but its definitely something well suited to being a mod.

KSP already does something similar surely? Each aileron or control surface is correctly mapped to input without having to manually configure it. It knows that if a control surface is behind the COM that a pitch up means the surface pitches down and vice versa. I am actually quite impressed with it so far. As far as a more advanced version goes that can compensate for flying at flight envelopes where your aircraft can get into a lot of trouble : 1. Yes, I would like to see scripting of some kind as a standard feature, then it would be possible to "roll your own" such features if need be. Some aircraft in real life like F117 nighthawk etc had a very dynamically unstable airframe and did use this type of software to keep stable. But it maybe was not a truly necessary requirement, the aircraft doubtless could have been flown without it, just that life limb and coin are at stake, and having it turns a very dangerously difficult(yet by no means impossible) to fly aircraft into one that handles a lot better and more importantly safely. 2. And there are a lot of KSP designs that do require careful flying with tight flight envelopes. That is fine. I think the point I am trying to make is that these "Fly by Wire" systems are not essential, they are only really needed when IRL when life and limb is on the line. In KSP good flying and understanding the characteristics of your aircraft aught to be a valid substitute for it. Your aircraft will stall at a given speed and AOA. Make sure that does not happen. Understand where when and why. In life yes a computer should do it to protect limb and property but in KSP good flying aught to suffice. If you truly cant fly the aircraft then it needs redesigned an no amount of assistance will help you. AND it would also also be cool to have some scripting options there to make a more sophisticated flight control system if one wished. 3. There is a great mod, https://spacedock.info/mod/1927/Kerbal Wind Tunnel which IMHO is absolutely essential for designing and flying any type of aircraft. Surprised it has not been mentioned in thread already. You can see a lot about where thrust will be low and its quite surprising a lot of the time just how the craft will perform at different heights and speeds. You can understand loads about how your aircraft will handle just by using this mod without having to go out and fly your craft. It is superb. Just my 2 cents. Gavin786

There are loads of great ideas in simple rockets 2 but the one I want to focus on today is : Parameterised Parts. It has already been done in simple rockets and works really really well. It can not be done in exactly same way in KSP but some aspects of it certainly can and will make a big difference so : Really useful and easy paramterisations that could maybe(pretty please) make their way into 1.8 : 1. Fuel Tanks having Configurable Oxidiser/Fuel ratio It stops the hassle of having to search around to find the right part with the oxidiser/fuel or just fuel and the frustration of finding the correctly shaped part but realising there is no 100% fuel option. No reason at all that has to be the situation. We have a whole bunch of fuel tanks of different shapes and sizes and a lot of duplication there with tanks of exactly same shape and weight but holding only fuel. Take leaf from book and parameterise these tanks to allow designer to configure any oxidiser/fuel ratio they wish. That will eliminate the duplication of many tanks, and give designers many more options. And open up the following gameplay : 1.1 Oxidiser being able to be used as a fuel on Eve and Jool and any future planet with hydrocarbons in their atmosphere 1.1 What about 100% oxidiser tanks ? Well on planets with methane or hydrogen atmospheres an oxidiser works exactly the same way as a hydrocarbon works here, oxidiser aught to be able to be used as "fuel" in these atmospheres and jet engines should work(given atmosphere density, pressure etc etc). These very simple changes are going to expand gameplay options a lot and its like a few lines of code to do this. Go to your boss Mr Squad Dev, get his permission, get it coded up and tested, sent to the beta tester guys in an afternoon jobs a good one. 2. Connector Parts which can be Configured Why have to wade through part lists, often only to find to one's frustration that the required connector has not been implemented, or it has but is an odd size for the design but there is a perfect one just a different size. There are many weird and wonderful connector parts. Connecting this size to that, some allowing connections to 2 or 3 or 4 sub sizes. Some are tall, some are short, some contain fuel, others do not. Have a standard set of connector part of varying heights(as they are now). And have what is connected on the top end, what at the bottom end and how many connectors as parameters. This means a lot of artwork and is not a task for an afternoon. But it is going to simplify things so much. What a great improvement. Conclusion There are many other great ideas to take on board, but configurability instead of having 20 different parts just having 1 and being able to choose the parameters is so great and competitors are doing it already. And it is a proven to work really nice feature that people love I think there is little risk of putting it into KSP because of that reason. It is proven already and would make KSP much better. Gavin786

Thanks man, you spent a lot of time on that reply.

Dear KSP, And please forgive me if I got the wrong end of the stick here, because this certainly seems like at minimum a glaring oversight if not a bug outright. I got now a warthog throttle, ch throttle and vkb flightstick. I got enough axes now that I want to assign 3 of the custom axes to a physical axis. So I go and do so. Now when I try and use the axis it is some kind of weird "relative" movement. The axis is greater than the zero point, the set point increases, less than it it decreases, there is no 1:1 mapping between the physical axis position(on the joystick) and the axis position(in the game). It is like "IF joystick_axis > 0.0 THEN custom_axis += something ELSE custom_axis -= something", NOT as it aught to be "custom_axis = joystick_axis". I notice that there are keys that can be bound to increment and decrement these axes also, maybe wires are crossed somewhere ? Surely this has got to be an oversight and not the intended behaviour ? What is the point of mapping them to a physical axis at all if it is ? IF it is intended behaviour then there really aught to be an options somewhere to switch between relative and absolute mode. Maybe this has just not come up as a problem yet as many ppl dont have a lot of flight controllers lying around. OR I am just an idiot and have missed some obvious switch in the configuration somewhere, but I did look through all the options both on the menus and in the settings.cfg file. SOLUTION : There is a tiny button under the Custom1->4 axis in the VAB/SPH action groups page, NOT the settings from main menu like all the other control configurations are. This is actually better as anything that gives more control and flexibility and I am all for anything that does that. Gavin786

OK got it, so it is both Module Manager AND Kopernicus. Module Manager sees Kopernicus as incompatible and does the cats. Explains why it stopped when Kopernicus was removed. Why did the cats start appearing? I have had incompatible modules before but no cats.

There seem to be 2 opinions on the reply, that its Kopernicus or that its Module Manager. Thing is I had the warning from Kopernicus a lot already and the cats never appeared before. Nor have they ever appeared before. I just got rid of Kopernicus and the cats are gone. Looks like that was causing the problem. Its strange as it just started happening and I had Kopernicus before come up with the compatibility warning yet no cats.

Much thanks.

At first I thought it could be malware, I just did a scan with Kasperski, and tried to run other games and see if it happens there but it seems ok for now. Is this an easter egg or is a mod creator taking the fk ? Anyone else get this ? Gavin786

Dear Humans : Its an engine that can give increased torq than normally allowed by combining the breaking ground motors. It has the high torq engine in front and the standard one at back for comparison. This design uses the light weight rotator. The design can also be applied to the heavier rotors which is more practical if the high torq is needed. These images should be sufficient for any human in the correct order of intelligence to create such engines : View of test craft. Single rotator engine is in the back for test and comparison purposes. View of Engine from the side View of engine looking down : View of engine from angle : Cconnection of fixed engine nodes to the support structure: Connection of moving engine nodes to each other : However, the design file may be downloaded : https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1772422135 Gavin786

I didnt see any link to applying for upcoming plans/NDA etc. Just looks like application for jobs at SQUAD. What am I missing, sorry to be so obtuse ?

hi Guys, Dont really know a good title for this topic. "Mods and Stock Features Replacements" chosen eventually. Anyway, the thing about it is that : I would like to show the Editor a little bit of love. There are a good few mods that do some good stuff, I think I can go a bit further maybe and tie a lot of that together. PROBLEM IS : I dont want to put a lot of my time and effort into this if SQUAD are going to be doing the same kind of work in stock. It is just a total waste of my time then. And this is just an instance of a more general problem that modders face: Of their work being introduced as core game features, rendering their effort obsolete. Is there a roadmap or such, that modders can get access to, even if we need to sign NDA that would let us know what is coming up so we dont waste our valuable time creating things that are going to become stock? Is there any general advice on this topic from experienced modders? I am looking for practical and not moral or philosophical advice/perspectives please. Thank you all who took the time to look, and thank you twice to those who took the time to reply. Gavin786

Thank you for your reply Lisias, it was very helpful. To those in the same or similar situation, this is what I have uncovered so far. It seems that the Unity executable will not load any image that is not cli/safe. Even if tools such as CorFlags are used to change the executable signature it seems that KSP will not run the code(I have yet to EXHAUSTIVLY test this but it certainly seems so for now). The bigger problem though, even if one was willing to convert existing c++ code to cli/safe is that the Pdb2Mdb conversion tool does not seem to work correctly with c++ images. Use of a debugger is a red line for me; I must have access to this. My current situation is that I need to modify Pdb2Mdb to properly work with c++/cli or accept that I need to code this in C# or Visual Basic(more than likely) or some other .NET primary language. I will try and modify Pdb2Mdb and see if I get any luck there.

Fellow Kerbonauts, I am now ready to start developing my mods which I have planned for KSP. I have a massive library of pretty nice c++ code that I have developed and maintained throughout the years. I would really like to use this in my mod. Many years ago I did use this in a hybrid managed cli/unmanaged program which was a total nightmare for a number of reasons: 1. There was no incremental linking meaning whole thing needed to be relinked on any code change(which took aaaages). 2. MS implementation was absolutely full of bugs(this was back in mid 2000s) 3. It is just plain miserable and ugly way to code Has anything changed that will make this prospect any saner? My c++ library compiles on Clang and GCC; having my mods run on linux and osx would be a real nice to have, there is no particular technical reason they should not compile as long as there is not some kind of barrier there I dont get. Are there any massive difficulties in having managed/unmanaged code run under mono(as its not 'real' .net) ? Anyone know of any nice ways to do this ? I have been away from serious .net development for many years(except aspx) and am absolutely new to mono and unity (and ksp modding). Helpful advice is welcome. Unhelpful advice like do it in c# is not. Gavin786

I did have a similar problem to this. For anyone who is having the problem of clicking on "Attach Unity Debugger" and not having any unity instances listed and not being able to attach. You need to press on "Open Log File". Then you need to look for the line : Using monoOptions --debugger-agent=transport=dt_socket,embedding=1,defer=y,address=0.0.0.0:56900 The last value on that line in this case 56900 is the port you need to connect to. Please be aware that so far the port changes from run to run. Perhaps there is a way to stabilize it that some of the ppl more familiar with Unity have found out? Anyway if you go to "Attach Unity Debugger", and then "Input IP", specify your PC's IP then use the port 56900 in this case, whatever the port number in the log file specifies. You can then debug your KSP mod. I hope this saves someone some time and ball ache. Gavin786

Well I have been searching around both using Google and on the forums for at least more than 15 minutes now and havent been able to find this information. [snip] If you search Google(as you suggested) "Kerbal Unity Version for Mod dev for KSP 1.6.1" this thread is the first search result. There is no definitve answer to this question on any of the links in the first page of Google results. Only clue is for "Unity Part Tools" which is NOT the same as Kerbal unity version which gives a version number of : Unity 2017.3.1p1 KSP 1.6.1- > Unity 2017.1.3p1 download: ( https://beta.unity3d.com/download/02d73f71d3bd/UnityDownloadAssistant-2017.1.3p1.exe ) page : ( https://unity3d.com/unity/qa/patch-releases?version=2017.1 ), unity version now confirmed working I have no idea if this is right or not. [snip] Gavin786

Thanks Klesh, I just read the terms of the agreement re:user created content. It seems pretty explicit about the meaning of what that content is: screenshots, videos, etc that are created by using the software. Basically anything that is created by use of the software(in theory) belongs to take two. Really this game borders on being an engineering tool especially if certain mods are brought into play. If you for example designed a completely new type of jet engine(for use in the real world) then used KSP to create and test that would it be then owned by Take Two? I think not. Proportionality and fairness come into play also. POSSIBILY they would have the right to use the design in the game. Definitely they would have no right to use it in the real world especially if it were patented and kept secret from Take Two(or reasonably was believed to be) until the patent was granted. It is actually an interesting area of discussion. One of the purposes of this clause is to prevent people from designing a ship, putting it on YouTube then suing whoever creates a copy or derivation of it. That benefits us all. And it is right that this clause exists to make sure we are all protected from such nonsense. There is a line I think between using KSP as a tool and using it as a game; you can create something in KSP in a fraction of the time it would take in SolidWorks or such then get a pretty accurate simulation if it would work or not. If you then put it on YouTube you cant then cry foul when others' use it. I think the dividing line really should be if one makes the design public. There have been some amazing creations in this game that have gone well beyond the initial intent of the developers. I just saw stock propellers today. Wow. There may very well come a day when the above clause needs to be tested. When it comes to Mods. Mods are not created by the use of the software. They are 3rd party tools which interact with the software. Mods are not covered by this section of the agreement, only works derived from the use of the software are covered by the section beginning "USER CREATED CONTENT". Mods are not derived from use of the software, therefore they are not the property of Take Two(according to my understanding of this clause anyway). Mods are created by 3rd party tools then linked with libraries(possibly supplied and being part of the software). I have not created my first mod yet so I dont know the full technical details I am just looking into things right now. If Squad implemented a programming language into the game and the mod was then created by using that language it could then be reasonably argued the mod belongs to Take Two under the 'USER CREATED CONTENT' clause. If you create your mod in C++ the mod was created by the compiler and not by KSP. And every compiler license gives you the right over your own work created by the compiler. And all of this is theoretical stuff. Most mod creators do it out of love and have other stable sources of income that is their 'real life'. In practice most mod creators are delighted when their ideas become 'canonized' and integrated into the main software. Please remember I am not a lawyer I have just spent a lot of time reading about law. Do not take anything I say as legal advice and even if it were good advice it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Especially a lot of weird things like how copyright is intepreted varies from the USA to EU. So please dont bet your life savings or a year of your life on my words! Gavin786

I am planning on making some mods for KSP so thought I need to brush up on my high school physics and something is annoying me and maybe some Kerbonauts more knowledgeable than me in this area can help. So here is what is annoying me. There is something called the Oberth Effect which means that at the Periapsis of an Orbit(when the space ship is going faster), changes to velocity impart more kinetic energy than they would do at the Apoapsis when the ship is going slower. This is because Ek = 0.5mv^2 Now the Force applied at either periapsis or apoapsis is the same as F=ma, m is the same and a is the same(our delta v does not change based upon ship speed), so the same force for same amount of time is applied at both points in the orbit yet a different amount of kinetic energy is imparted to the space ship?!? Isnt there something called the law of conservation of energy? Energy imparted is same in both cases but gives different amounts of kinetic energy? What am I missing ? Any help with that would be appreciated. Gavin786

I see a lot of ppl talking about part clipping as being a problem. I have just started playing KSP(and really love it) and never noticed it nor do I really know what it is ? What is part clipping and is it still a thing in the game? Gavin786

This topic has upset me a little bit - as I intend to create some mods for KSP. This is my first post on this forum, so you can see that I do feel strongly about this issue. Firstly, I have now looked up the consumer legislation and it appears - that in Europe at least - this forced arbitration clause is not enforceable in law. http://arbitrationblog.practicallaw.com/consumer-class-arbitration-in-the-uk-where-we-are-and-what-next/ . There is strong legislation protecting consumers from this type of thing. Secondly, to opt out should not necessitate sending a confirmed letter to Take Two HQ in New York. This has been said ONLY to discourage people from doing so by creating a barrier of hassle and expense in order to opt out. Courts abide by the concept of 'fairness'. If you have signed a digital agreement by clicking an 'Ok' button then it is only fair that you can opt out of an optional clause digitally also. An email will be sufficient(I am not a lawyer but have read a lot about the law, so pls dont take this as gospel) to opt out. As it is only fair as the agreement has been made digitally. One could also post a formal opt-out statement on this forum(as it is owned by Take Two), it will likely be considered a valid opt-out by most courts(if an opt out is needed see point 1 above). Thirdly, I strongly recommend, especially for everyone who has(or might in the future) create mods for KSP to send such an email, or otherwise post on the forum or otherwise communicate with Take Two to opt out of the clause. It might even be a good idea for someone to create a thread for people to opt out. If you are a serious mod creator and intend to somehow profit from your hard work, I would(just to be safe) send the letter also, but I strongly recommend everyone to send the email or post in forum that they are opting out if it is too much trouble to send the letter. Odds are very high a court will accept this as a valid mode of opting out. Fourthly, it is my opinion that the forced arbitration clause is specificallly aimed at mod creators to take away their rights. It makes it very hard for them(being mostly private individuals) to get any justice if Take Two breaks the terms of their license agreement or uses their work without permission. Which I strongly suspect is in the pipeline for some features only offered by mods to be made into stock features - that is probably the driving rationale behind this drive by Take Two doing this. The law is actually on Take Two' side - for as long as they create a feature from scratch(which they will; they wont want to use other's code I suspect) - they can make a feature identical to a mod without it's violating copyright - there are a lot of test cases about this. Mod creator might not see things that way however. I hope this(as my first post) and controversial and probably will annoy Take Two that it does not get deleted! Thank you mods if people do see this! Sigining Off, Gavin786