OdinYggd

Wait for it to unload and hope its something interesting.

I really could go for an official KSP Navball. Fully functional (minus direction markers).

KSP already only barely runs on a typical PC, most iOS powered devices haven't the system requirements. It would also take an incredible amount of work to port it to any other platforms, and I think we can say beyond reasonable doubt at this point that it will not be happening any time soon. Please refer to the "What not to suggest" sticky at the top of this section.

Why are you posting this on here? Don't you know what this kind of thing is worth if it actually works? You should take it straightaway to the US Patent Office and protect your rights on this invention before other inventors viewing this forum steal your idea and take it for themselves. Patent pending means nothing at all if you havent actually filed a patent application, in which case you must show the application number.

Going by what you are saying, if you tie a magnet to a stick, and then tie another magnet to the same stick a little ways from it such that they are attracted to each other, the stick should experience a thrust that attempts to pull it out of your hand and across the floor. In reality this is not what happens. Because both magnets exert force of equal strength and opposite direction on the object they are attached to, the stick will simply bend slightly from the resulting strain and will not yield a net force in any direction. So in the case of your ship, the forces involved will attempt to bend the structure you mounted the docking ports to, and the vessel would experience a net zero force because both docking ports are exerting the same force on their structures- which are linked together by the ship frame. Magnets do not work when used in a carrot on a stick kind of approach, all that happens is the resulting attractive force will bend the stick while the object being propelled remains inert. At this point your suggestion is effectively asking Squad to deliberately implement a bug in the game physics. As such, I can tell you that this suggestion will not be added any time soon, if ever at all. Thread closed.

Strictly speaking this is no longer necessary. Just put it on the pad and send it on its way. If it doesn't go well, use the revert to VAB feature. That will roll back the save file as though the flight never took place, allowing you to perform dry runs of equipment to prove its flightworthyness without making any lasting changes to your save file.

If the whole point of this is to make magnetic bearings and/or a magnetic motor, they already do. Whenever the docking ports get within range, the magnent kicks in targetted or not. Not too long ago people were using this behavior to create stock roller bearings using docking ports and wheels to make functional stock helicopters. It won't stay spinning by itself, but it will levitate well enough that you can guide it using landing wheels.

Or it could result in lessons in good engineering- making your designs serviceable. For instance instead of putting a stack of batteries right in the main column of the ship where they cannot be removed, you instead put them on docking ports on short pylons along the main beam. That way when the packs have gone bad you can launch replacements, dock on, and replace them while in orbit. Already my solar arrays use this approach, I launch a lightweight vessel containing 4x 2 meter trusses each carrying 2 gigantors, and a module tug to install them. Like so I can build any size array in orbit with relative ease, and if my solar panels eventually degraded it would be a simple matter to remove and replace the worn out segment. But other than RTGs decaying, most types of depletion/wear accumulation are better left to game mods meant for people who seek the increased realism they offer. Actually I'm not 100% certain on where to hook the API for batteries to make a wear-out mechanism for them. Solar panels and RTGs could get by using an ISP-like correction factor, and would apply that factor based on the time they've been in service. Fuel boiloff is even easier, fixed percentage per tank in a given time period. KSP recommends C# for making game mods. Although the API isn't terribly well documented, you can usually get help from other people familiar with it here on the forum or on the IRC at #kspmodders

Worth noting- kerbal engines likely use a substance similar to real world RP1 (Kerosene) with LOX for their liquid fuel engines, while RCS is likely nothing more than compressed helium for use in a hot-gas thruster. Although RP1 and compressed gas helium would have very minute losses over long periods of time, you would definately have to factor in LOX boiloff when planning a mission. Ultimately at that point you're getting to a level of realism that would make the game confusing for new players and irritate people who just want to do things in space without worrying about the details, so it might be better to implement this as a game mod rather than a stock feature. It wouldn't be hard to do either- work out equations to determine boiloff rates based on a percentage of the current fuel volume in a given time period applied as a very gradual frame by frame rundown. RTG and solar panel degradation would be treated the same way, in effect your 'durability' then becomes implemented similar to ISP changing in response to hardware age instead of atmospheric pressure. It's completely do-able that way for people who want to experience it. So yes, this is a very achieveable suggestion. However I think it would be better implemented as a game realism mod rather than as part of the stock game so that people who don't want to have to worry about such things don't have to.

There's no profit here. Turning them on all at once would flood the market with energy without causing a corresponding increase in utilization due to the logistics of energy distribution. The result is the market promptly being flooded out and the prices crashing hard, long before you've paid off what you spent to do this. To date I've never seen a perpetual motion machine that demonstrates a working model without relying on some type of flywheel behavior or drawing energy from its surroundings in some way. The closest would be the drinking bird toy, which is in fact powered by evaporation of the water.

This is suggested quite often, and for good reason. All too often people building orbital stations will have a mismatch in their action groups leading to unpredictable behavior and ruined craft.

If you time warp the positions of the planets in your client will be different relative to everyone else. There are ways around this of course, none of them really convenient to implement.

I'd say that statistic is pretty close. The only threads to not end up that way are the ones where they get locked early on for being what not to suggest and lacking actual discussion to justify the discussion tag. So many multiplayer threads exist, that by this point in time nearly every easily conceived multiplayer approach and even a few farfetched ideas have been theorized and discussed. Ultimately anyone wishing to create a multiplayer mod for KSP could find everything they need to do it except the actual working codebase just by searching the forum for different ideas people have had and the advantages and disadvantages of them. At the present time Squad has indeed maintained that they will not add multiplayer anytime soon, due in no small part to the sheer size of the codebase required for it to work as well as the fact that they would rather make a working and enjoyable single player game first. If multiplayer happens at all it will be done as a mod. A lot of people now have said they would accomplish this, but to date nobody has succeeded. The closest so far is KLF, which lets you chat with other players and displays moving markers on your map where they are. It does not yet support interaction with other vessels due to the complications involved, and timing is not synchronized. For now since you guys seem to have a discussion going I will leave this thread open. However please note that posts along the lines of "in before lock" and the like can and will result in punishments for spam/useless posts. They serve no purpose in a discussion and only act to derail it or incite an argument.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/47076-Is-Cold-Fusion-really-impossible?p=608369&viewfull=1#post608369 This is what I was just talking about. Although it does work, making the required muons consumes all of the energy yielded by it and then some. We would have to invent a more efficient means of generating muons for it to be practical.

There are currently two versions in circulation- the (ultra-dev) 4x, and the release 3x. 3x does not work in 0.21, but 4x does as it was intended to be released for 0.21. At this point in time Insewwerants has not given anyone permission to distribute modified versions of it. Although it probably will see a release from him in the not so distant future, he is currently having difficulties with reality taking away from his time available to work on it. You must be patient with him. Life gets the best of him at times, and having been through similar conditions myself I can say it would be highly depressing to check in on a rare visit and see people complaining about the lack of updates when he just plain hasn't the time to make them. He will be back, and when he does mapsat will come back with him. Until then the only thing you can really do is fix it yourself and share your notes on how- but do not distribute modifications of his source code or binaries generated from it. At best you could probably get away with distributing code snippets you've made along with instructions on how to patch his code with them, that way people can build their own fixed copies without actually distributing his source.

The cold fusion I know of relies on the use of muons as catalysts to lower the temperature for plasma fusion type approaches. Although in testing they were able to induce fusion this way, the muons are so notoriously difficult to obtain and dissappear so quickly, that it would take far more energy to make a steady supply of muons than the fusion resulting from them gives back. I haven't heard about this other cold fusion method, but the physics involved don't quite add up in my mind. Actual fusion only happens when the nuclei of the atoms overcome their electrostatic repulsion and get within range of the nuclear strong force to bind them securely. I don't believe that there is such an easy chemical-based method of doing this, as chemical reactions do not yield the necessary kinetic energy into the nuclei to ram them through their electrostatic repulsion into fusion.

Alright, we already know where this thread will end up without even going there. Sure, NASA does indeed use automatic guidance for a lot of tasks. Craft like the Saturn V had fully automated ascent sequences in order to more accurately control the process and respond faster to situations. The space shuttle was mostly automated as well. But both vessels had their crews highly trained to fly the ship in the event anything went wrong beyond what the automation could tolerate. They still had to knwo how to fly, and at all times they manually cross-checked everything the automation did to make sure it was working correctly. However, historical accuracy aside, KSP is meant to be played however you see fit. And just like in real life, automation is all well and good until it messes up, or your ship messes up in a way the computer can't handle. Then you'd better know how to fly or the mission will not be completed. KSP is a single player game. The only standards for cheating that it maintains would be using the builtin debug menu for such fun as infinite fuel- and even then some people who just want to build things and don't care for the flight aspect might have more fun flying in infinite fuel mode all the time stationbuilding. Any argument beyond that over the legitimacy of game mods is purely a matter of personal preference. Squad provided a modding API for people to use, they intended for KSP to make use of game mods as the player sees fit. Berating someone else for their opinions is unacceptable behavior, and only contributes to hard feelings in the community. Ultimately the problem is not Mechjeb. It is the human factor- people disagreeing and choosing to disrespect other people about their opinions. But since the time is not yet right for these discussions as people insist on getting heated, I'll be closing this thread now rather than waiting for it to go down that road and continue the cycle.

By chance could someone make a radial version of the spacedock identifier? The game gets really irritated when you put stacks of thin objects together- like a probe core, dock identifier, and battery. It will begin to bounce and wobble no matter what you attach to it. So far all I've managed in attempting to copy the spacebuilt part and turn it into a spacedock is a glitched part that sticks weirdly out of the side of my vessel. I'll keep tinkering at least to see if I get it.

Most of the time I rotate the entire craft in the VAB to match the orientation of the pad. In previous versions that had the launch tower, such attention to detail was absolutely critical so that the tower would rest harmlessly in the corresponding notch in the craft layout to avoid certain large explosions. In the current version it is not nearly as critical, but this does remain something of a nuisance issue. After a while you remember which side of the rocket faces out when it is on the pad and can manually position it in the vab to give the correct pad orientation.

As a matter of forum policy, we do not discuss bans in public. If you want to know where Chobit is now, PM me. I've stayed in contact since then. Thread closed.

It looks like all you have to do for that is make duplicates of the config file and switch what resource is contained. I'm currently test driving this in combination with Kethane and Orbital Construction to create an all-new rendition of my old Skynet series ring stations, this time with far fewer parts thanks to these tanks.

Please note that this thread falls under the category of "more parts" in the official What Not To Suggest list found here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/36863-What-not-to-suggest . If you really need bigger parts than the stock game has, there are plenty of game mods that provide it.

Alright, I believe I explained this earlier in the other thread. To have your own parts added to KSP, all you need to do is convert them into the format KSP uses and write up a configuration file to describe their behavior. Guides for how to do this exist, or you could ask somebody familiar with making mods and custom parts how. Implementing weaponry of any kind has already been listed as will not happen, at least not as part of the stock game. It is on the what not to suggest list visible at the top of the suggestions board, please take the time to read it. And as for what you describe, it's already done. For 'arcade' mode fly around without worrying about the details, use the debug menu (alt+F12 on windows) to enable infinite fuel and infinite RCS. Then you can fly around as you wish without worrying about the details, add Mechjeb if you want it even easier. For 'realistic' mode, there are mods as well that you'll want. Mostly FAR, Deadlyreentry, Kethane, and Remotetech. Right now the stock game is a very adaptable hybrid of arcade and realistic modes, and as such appeals to a very wide audience. All it takes is a little customization to make KSP playable however you want to enjoy it, or you can play it as-is and have tons of fun too. But what I am seeing here is a situation where Warsoul has made the same suggestion too many times in too short of a period. It already was borderline what not to suggest, and what you are showing would probably be better suited to a mod than anything needed in the stock game. As such this isn't the right place for this suggestion. Thread closed.

Why not? Mind you I flew this one back in KSP 0.16, it lacks the refinements of docking and electrical systems. But it's still completely do-able in KSP 0.21, and now can be done stock by someone determined enough to solve the engineering challenges of keeping it together and lifting it intact. Warsoul, what exactly are you requesting here? I can't tell if this is a request to make a 'stationbuilding' sandbox mode, which is already done by turning infinite fuel and infinite RCS on, then flying with mechjeb to handle getting your modules into LKO and docked. If it's a request to add your part to the game, this really isn't the right section for it. Somebody familiar with the making of KSP parts could probably walk you through converting that model into a KSP model and writing up a corresponding configuration file for it.

This. Although RP1-LOX is less efficient from an energy standpoint, from an economics standpoint it is much more cost effective than cryogenic fuels. RP-1 is effectively just a highly refined Kerosene, differing only in additives and purity from JP-1 jet fuel and K-1 heating kerosene. It also is a lot easier to handle, making the required fuel tank simpler and cheaper to construct. By the time all is said and done, it would cost more to use the more efficient fuel. Sound familiar? Although diesel engines are far more fuel efficient, they cost more to make, and use a more expensive fuel. So everyone uses gasoline/petrol instead.