TheBeardyMan

Not sure if you'll be able to fix this - it might be part of the base game that mods can't touch - but if you select Urlum's moon Wal in the R&D Archive view to show it's sub-satellite Tal, nothing you do in that view will cause Tal to become hidden again.

Now that Kerbal Space Program has Steam Cloud, there are some improvements that could be made to the way it uses it: A save is not just a single file - it's a directory containing several files. That directory is the thing whose state should be synced. Syncing the state of invidual files only can lead to the creation of saves that are hybrids of two different versions of the same save. Saves should not be shared between KSP installs that have different sets of mods installed.

I'm currently deciding which mods to use for a modded career game. I'd like to use both Outer Planets Mod and Kerbal Planetary Base Systems. But Kerbal Planetary Base Systems uses two non-stock resources, Enriched Uranium and Depleted Uranium. Those resources are added by one of its dependencies, Community Resource Pack, and it appears that combining Outer Planets Mod with Community Resource Pack leaves me with some blanks to fill in. Community Resource Pack adds many resources and planet specific configurations for some of them. For example, the resource Alumina isn't found on gas giants, so the Alumina.cfg file has a section setting all of its values to 0 for Jool: PLANETARY_RESOURCE { ResourceName = Alumina ResourceType = 0 PlanetName = Jool Distribution { PresenceChance = 0 MinAbundance = 0 MaxAbundance = 0 Variance = 0 Dispersal = 0 } } It has no such sections for Sarnus, Urlum, and Neidon, so those are some of the things that need to be in the configuration file that I'm missing: PLANETARY_RESOURCE { ResourceName = Alumina ResourceType = 0 PlanetName = Sarnus Distribution { PresenceChance = 0 MinAbundance = 0 MaxAbundance = 0 Variance = 0 Dispersal = 0 } } Note that Outer Planets Mod itself already has these sections for the outer gas giants and the stock resource Ore. And in the exact same file where Outer Planets Mod has those sections (OPM_Resources.cfg), there is also a section to disable ISRU contracts to extract Ore from the new planets that don't have it: @Contracts { @ISRU { @RESOURCE_REQUEST[Ore] { Forbidden = Sarnus Forbidden = Urlum Forbidden = Neidon } } } Community Resource Pack's configuration files don't appear to have any sections to disable ISRU contracts to extract new resources from Jool. Is this because the stock configuation for ISRU contracts can only generate an ISRU contract for the stock resource Ore, so there's no need to disable them for new resources? Regardless, is disabling ISRU contracts for new resources from the new gas giants something that should be done in case another mod enables them? I imagine that this would require a configuration section like this: @Contracts { @ISRU { @RESOURCE_REQUEST[Alumina] { Forbidden = Jool Forbidden = Sarnus Forbidden = Urlum Forbidden = Neidon } @RESOURCE_REQUEST[Dirt] { Forbidden = Jool Forbidden = Sarnus Forbidden = Urlum Forbidden = Neidon } } } Is multiple @RESOURCE_REQUEST sections in a single @ISRU section in a single @Contracts section the correct syntax? And will it combine badly with the stock configuration for ISRU contracts that doesn't generate contracts to extract non-stock resources? And where would the new configuration file need to be installed? Add it to the GameData/[ModName] subdirectory for Outer Planets Mod or Community Resource Pack? Or in a new GameData/[ModName] subdirectory? Would it need to be loade d after both of the mods that it affects? And if so, how do I ensure that? Am I re-inventing any wheels here? Has someone already created this missing configuration file?

I seem to remember that if a vessel used any orbital infrastructure that existed before you accepted a contract - for example, a spaceplane carrying a satellite docks at a space station to refuel before delivering the satellite to its target orbit - the contract wouldn't be satisfied because the vessel would no longer count as being launched after the contract was accepted. Is this still the case for the latest version? If so, is there a mod that fixes it? I'd consider trying to implement a mod to fix this this myself, but I don't want to reinvent the wheel.

If a relay satellite is not within physics range of the vessel with focus, what aspects of the satellite's situation affect its ability to function as a relay? For example: Does the relay antenna consume power? Do the solar panels produce power? Is there a risk of power loss if the satellite's orientation makes it impossible to aim a solar panel at Kerbol? Is there a risk of power loss if the satellite is eclipsed?

Make an aircraft with 5 landing wheels - three forward and two aft. Displace the central forward landing wheel slightly down relative to the aft landing wheels, and displace the lateral forward landing wheels slightly up relative to the aft landing wheels. Your aircraft now has landing gear with three useful states: Take off: aft landing wheels down, forward central landing wheel down, forward lateral landing wheels up. Gives a positive angle of attack when on ground - easy to get in the air. Flight: all landing wheels up. Landing: aft landing wheels down, forward central landing wheel up, forward lateral landing wheels down. Gives a negative angle of attack when on ground - won't bounce on landing.

On Xbox One, placing a symmetry group in the VAB fails if it would make the part count exactly equal to the part limit for the current VAB upgrade level. However, it succeeds if it would make the part count one less than the current VAB limit. To work around this, in order to achieve a part count exactly equal to the limit, the last part placed must be a single part and not one of a symmetry group.

When using the rotate tool on an LT-1 or LT-2 landing strut in the VAB/SPH, the axes of the tool are aligned with the strut's deployed position, which means there isn't any axis to rotate the part in a plane parallel to the surface to which it is attached - the only way to achieve an approximation to such a rotation is to disable angle snapping and use multiple axes. The LT-05 micro landing strut isn't affected by this problem - its rotate tool axes are correctly aligned with the surface of the part to which it is attached. Is there a workaround for this e.g. by editing something the part's .cfg file?

Kerbal Space Program was mentioned in a discussion about Newtonian mechanics in games on a forum for the now defunct project 0x10c. I googled it and downloaded the demo and was hooked immediately; I think it was still version 0.15 then.

The absence of the phenomenon of straight lines appearing curved is common to all 3D rendering systems that use matrix multiplication to convert world space co-ordinates to screen co-ordinates. There are rendering systems that can simulate that phenomenon e.g. raytracers, but they're too computationally expensive to be used for accelerated 3D graphics in realtime games.

Reaction wheels. Not for the quantity of torque that they can produce, but for their ability to counter external sources of torque (e.g. aerodynamic forces) without accumulating spin and melting their bearings.

When you accidentally refer to SpaceX as Rockomax when discussing real life space exploration. Well, close enough, they both end with X.

When a "Vector" engine is picked from the parts menu, the default mouse hotspot is so close to the top attachment node that it's almost impossible to attach it to another node. With that mouse hotspot, whenever the engine is in a position that would otherwise qualify for stack attachment, radial attachment wins. If you want to attach it to a node, you have to drop it and pick it up at a different point to change the mouse hotspot. It would be better if the default mouse hotspot were further away from the node, like the other engines.

Biome agricultural viability testing: plant some seeds from Kerbin and keep checking up on them periodically to see if they're growing.

1920 x 1200