SkyFall2489

Well, if this is the case, then PCG is likely incorrect about MMO?

3525

Well, if we take out the hype, here's what we know for sure: 1. "agencies" - players belong to them, each agency has its own launch pad (i'm thinking maybe teams or factions?) 2. multiplayer will be there 3. some form of time is implemented, so players can "race" - meaning that they compete to achieve some predetermined goal before their competitors do. 4. rocket science. after all, it's KSP, but 2. Right? Or are there other things that we know that I haven't heard of? Now, more speculation: Vl3D's MMO idea might work, but personally I feel it still breaks some realism to keep everything synced. Note the use of "friends" in the quote from simpson - small scale multiplayer will be supported, not sure about larger scale. It sounds like a multiplayer save will be its own world, so looks like Encounters will NOT be the system implemented. To me, it'll either be vote to warp, subspace/leapfrog, or MMO. I expect subspace because it's been implemented before and seems to work just fine, while still functioning at larger scales than vote to warp.

Ah well. Maybe put out the save file, and see if someone else can salvage it?

It's very similar to vote to warp. I don't know the exact sequnce of actions in vote to warp, but it falls under that category. Yeah, vote to warp is better for things like encounters and small worlds with a few players.

Also, one other thing to consider: A while ago, players did space battles in KSP by setting up a complex turn based system and exchanging save files. While this has serious limitations, maybe we could do a very simple "time is the same for everyone, and use the encounters consensus based warp control system"? We don't need to over complicate anything.

Yeah, it's all about what the players want. As for preference, what would be REALLY nice is if mods could implement their own multiplayer systems, and experienced coders could get KSP multiplayer in any variation that is implementable. However, if there are too many systems, then the big servers on any one system that supports it would have less players comapred to if less systems were available.

I still say leapfrog or encounter. Leapfrog has been implemented before, and it's worked great. I doubt any of us have the coding experience necessary to actually implement any of these systems, but leapfrog/subspace has been implemented before. Encounters can't be too hard, as the time is the same for everyone. A reminder of my encounters idea:

Fuel cells. Lots and lots of fuel cells. They'll provide all the power you'll need, and take barely any of the ISRU's output. Also, take a look at where the ore concentrations are higher, or bring more drills.

The DMP/LMP model is called Subspace warp, referring to how the players at different times are in different subspaces. It does seem to be a pretty good system, with most of the little bugs knocked out given that it has been implemented in KSP1. I have an LMP server, and subspace usually works fine. Only thing though, what about PVP combat? Your enemy's space battleship could simply escape to the future, and if you chased after them the battle would be delayed indefinitely. Maybe have some way to have 2 players agree to lock their warp to eachother or to 1x? EDIT: I guess KSP really isn't a space combat game. Looking at Children of a Dead Earth, a space combat game with realistic orbital mechanics, it looks like the problem of multi player time warp is solved by only having one player against AIs. The AIs plan their maneuvers in advance and are executed during warp instnatly. After thinking about it, what if: 1. all players are at the same time 2. everyone must agree to warp together 3. Then, time warps by the agreed amount Actually, mayeb it's better to be able to lock the warp of multiple players in agreement in combination with leapfrog/subspace. Normally it works that way, but players can agree to lock their times temporarily for combat or other reasons, like formation flying across the same transfer window.

wait, so what's this leapfrog thing? Right now, I'm still for the encounters model. It doesn't allow huge servers, but play with a friend or two is totally fine.

The right one looks sleeker, but maybe have a solid panel instead of glass on the floor section.

Does KWP interact with water? Does it have the same currents as wind, or different ones, or stay still? If it's not option 1, can I make a sail boat?

ah. I was hoping for the other type of sail...

Sail? That would be great! Basically all you need to implement is a thruster that changes thrust value based on direction relative to the prevailing wind, and map the prevailing wind. Maybe just always blow in the direction of planetary spin. Along with making wings produce a large amount more lift under water, is enough to implement sailing. Don’t know how a sail would work under water though.

@Angel-125 did you figure out what was going on with that mini smelter part for sandcastle? I still don't see it in either mod's GitHub.

Sad. Has anyone ever been given permission to pick up the project in their absence? I figure if we were allowed to, a bunch of people could get this back up and running.

I've got absolutely no idea how EVE's config structure works, so I doubt I'll be able to help much here.

No idea about the specifics of your mods. So, if I’m understanding this right , EVE and AK are not interacting right. Either EVE doesn’t see AK, or EVE has no patch to support AK. Can you dig through EVE and AK to see if either of them have things marked NEEDS[AK] or NEEDS[EVE]?

Idea: Might be too late for this, but in your JNSQ career mission report, the lore seems to be that B2 was developed from old MOLE parts. Perhaps theres still some old MOLE things hiding in parts of the B2 modules? Say, old mission patches, MOLE-era equipment...

Are there ANY CFG files saying :FOR[AK]? Anywhere? If not, yeah, After Kerbin might be breaking things.

If a patch is in a certain folder in gamedata, it is FOR the name of that folder. If a patch is in a folder with a patch with a FOR, it also gets the FOR. If a patch is in a folder with a DLL, it is FOR the name of that DLL. At least, that's what I think. Testing may be required.

Thanks, then! I don't have much time at the moment, I'll test your ideas out on saturday.

Wait, so A or B: A: Laucnh the missile, use MJ to set a node to "intercept target in N seconds", where N is <dist to target in m> / 400. B: Launch the missile, aim at target, accelerate manually until TGT vel is 400, then set MJ to fine tune closest approach to target, 0 m.

Thing is, MechJeb's docking autopilot won't do that. You know, because docking generally involves NOT smashing int the target at 400 m/s... Is there a way I can make it do that? Wait, you mean accelrate, then use MechJeb's manuver setter to do it? that's an interesting idea.