kerbnub

Edit: After comparing with stock volumetrics, I do see a similar but less pronounced tile effect. It might be more obvious here because there are larger and relatively flatter clouds areas. Also, I was probably unlucky when testing JNSQ volumetrics the first time to load at a time when there weren't really lower level clouds. I still think there might not be enough low level cumulus clouds compared to higher altitude clouds, but will fly around more. Overall Kerbin looks great though! Another thing I noticed which seems weird so far, Duna looks like this: At other times it looks like there are global dust storms, but I haven't seen it look normal yet. Original: Is it supposed to look tiled like this? And is it mostly 1 layer?

1. The proposal here is not about actively spamming people or knocking on doors, but adjusting the now dishonest messaging about KSP2 on the page it's being sold/advertised. 2. People here care about this for KSP2 because this is the KSP community and as you seem to understand, can inhibit the community's growth. My analogy wasn't exact, perhaps not even a good one, and seems to be distracting from you the points I was trying to make, so I'd rather address them directly.

We're talking about changing the messaging for casuals/prospective new players, not spamming veterans. Maybe it's annoying to see such initiatives on the forums repeatedly but you can just not click the topic if you truly don't care.

That's like saying we shouldn't tell people to lock their doors in a rough neighborhood because they'll learn when they're robbed. And again, people care so much about this one super niche part because that super niche part is this community.

It need not be about being/staying mad at all. But as things stand now, the Steam page is deceptive, sells a product as more than it will ever be. I'm generically opposed to inaccurate advertising. And as KSP branded product, I more specifically don't want people associating the negative surprise they'll be getting with the KSP. For us fans it's obvious what has happened, but there are still people out there who have heard vaguely good things about KSP, see there's a sequel and assume the sequel naturally must be better. So they try it, get turned off the franchise, and we lose people who might have played KSP1 instead and stayed. Such people should be more critical consumers, but we also should try to make things clearer for everyone.

Sorry I haven't been here in a while. You probably figured it out already, but in case not, it's a module manager patch. You make a new text file, paste it there, and save it as a .cfg file somewhere in the GameData folder. You should probably make a new folder for your custom patches named zzzzMyPatches or something (the zzzz's help them go last if not specified, as they're loaded in alphabetical order) and place it there. To learn more, there's this: https://github.com/sarbian/ModuleManager/wiki/Module-Manager-Handbook And many examples of simple patches here: You can do A LOT with module manager patches; edit any stat of any part, make copies of parts, resize, and tinker with mods like this, etc. It's the next level of KSP after you start modding.

This actually seems to break something for crew modules that only have 1 option, making it so the slots can't be swapped out like this : I can't figure out why this happens, so I just made the patch apply to parts that have only both RDU and TV module options. @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[Sickbay]:HAS[#title[TV]],@MODULE[Sickbay]:HAS[#title[RDU]]]:FINAL { @MODULE[Configure]:HAS[#title[Sickbay?Modules]] { @slots = 2 } } As usual I have very little confidence in my MM skills but it seems to work properly. The last thing I couldn't figure out is how to prevent the game from allowing 2 RDUs or 2 TVs on one part. Not a huge deal since I can just not use 2.

Ahh, thanks again. I should have caught that, but after spending like an hour on it originally, was prepared to believe it was just cursed....

Appreciate the reply but that one doesn't work either >.<

I didn't like that the 3.18 change (Fix #851) made it impossible to have both RDU and TV on the same part, as was previously the case, so I wanted to increase the number of configure slots to 2. I tried the following MM patches (and tried messing with the filter too ) but couldn't get it to work. I can't seem to get my MM patches to work half the time anyway. I ended up just directly editing the slots in the original sickbay.cfg in GameData\KerbalismConfig\System Just posting this in case anyone might want to do the same or knows why patches didn't work. // Increases the number of sickbay slots from 1 to 2 so you can have both RDU and TV @PART[*]:HAS[#AddConfigurableSickbay]:Needs[Kerbalism]:FINAL { -MODULE[Configure] MODULE { name = Configure title = Sickbay Modules slots = 2 //1 SETUP { name = None desc = Empty slot for mass and cost savings. } } } // Increases the number of sickbay slots from 1 to 2 so you can have both RDU and TV @PART[*]:HAS[#AddConfigurableSickbay]:Needs[Kerbalism]:FINAL { @MODULE[Configure] { @slots = 2 //1 } }

Is it possible to have only the scatters without the terrain tessellation, or are they tied together? I'd like to disable everything except Kerbin's trees.

They celebrate by having a wholesome meal at home with family....... What did you expect, they're not animals! Everyone needs a break from chaos and near death.

My favorite thing about Kerbalism is probably the science rework. Is there anything else that does science similarly? I like pretty much everything about it really, not sure how I could play without it. Sure, there are other mods for LS and part failures, but none as in depth as Kerbalism, and they don't have persistent simulation for unloaded vessels as well afaik. Ironically I probably have the most problem with radiation. I love the belts, but feel like there should be a better way to handle solar storms especially on planetary bases and rovers, where you would basically have to make a hugely impractical protective belt or abuse some part clipping to shield it properly. Imo, crewed parts should have radiation exposure calculated individually, and only those parts occupied with kerbals should be calculated during a storm, so you can have them in a sheltered area while also having a greater living area otherwise that's less shielded. And I sometimes get weird spikes of radiation, even with properly oriented vessels. Also the RDU feels kind of out of place. I don't think there are any actual real solutions to radiation yet, but it feels kind of like a magic wand just to make interstellar travel feasible without even more ridiculously large vessels.

No it wouldn't. It would just be a a different, lesser cost, but it's still finite and a mass penalty, while malfunctions really aren't. I'd say it's arguable which one is more realistic to expect by the time we're actually doing interplanetary missions, in a time where I'd expect 3d printers to be much more advanced. The main reason I want it though is for station or other infrastructure maintenance. With EVA construction, you can literally bring spares and replace broken parts, but that can be cumbersome to impossible if the broken part is deeper in the craft's part tree. I had some fun designing with this in mind at first, making sure parts like chemical plants or reaction wheels or engines are node attached with no child parts, where they could be seamlessly swapped, as I can imagine this being a design consideration/constraint IRL as well, but this leads to higher part counts in making sure I have enough attach nodes. It also gets silly with crewed modules' LS systems, where I would have to use external ECLSS modules to continue this. I would happily do this if high part counts didn't tank performance, but they do, and my save is starting to drag. So I'd rather abstract it out into repair kits. Maybe kerbalism just isn't compatible with the "space program" style of gameplay. I'm not sure how things will work when I go to Jool, let alone Nara (outermost planet in JNSQ).

Well I really wanted all of Kerbalism's functionality too in terms of tracking, MTBF, radiation, etc. What does it take to edit and rebuild a dll?