Sean Mirrsen

Why no jet engines? A rocket with jets ascends no faster than a regular rocket, and a spaceplane would take extra time to get up. Likewise, ion engines won't set any speed records - let people use them if they want. I mean, you only score by time taken, not by design or efficiency, after all. I don't mind rules, I just like it better when the rules make sense.

I tried landing a spaceplane on Duna once. Complied to all rules except "no downward engines" as it was VTOL-capable. This is all that was left of it. Might try again. I am assuming that refueling in orbit is allowed?

Stock parts offer advantages. For one, they are never outdated unless the game itself drastically changes. They can be shared with impunity. They and their limitations are well-known, and when someone showcases a "stock" craft, you immediately know what sort of design challenges it implies. I find that I look at the creations made with the various spaceplane and rocket part packs, and I don't know the first thing about what kind of design achievement they actually represent. Not to mention the flight-computer-plugin-that-shall-not-be-named and its effect in devaluing achievements in precise flying by hand. Plus you can't report bugs if you aren't flying stock, and KSP being in alpha state I find that a decent incentive.

You could just, y'know, condition yourself to keep track of your staging. After it's been such a pain in the ass several times in a row, I've been making a point of re-checking the staging before hitting "Launch" in the same way I recheck my pockets for things I might have forgotten before I close the door and go somewhere. It's saved me more time than any hypothetical save-staging button ever could have. Because if you forget to check it before launch, you can forget to save it after changing it. Just not falling to it in the first place is a lot easier.

^ this.The game's sold as "early access", and we are all testing it and helping its development. The preliminary testing is just to weed out the crashes and glaring gamebreakers, finding the rest is our job.

Since I feel like I should at least appear on the new version list, here's the latest addition to my roster of crazy overdesigned SSTOs: The Padmasana. On runway: Performing shuttlepod tests in orbit: And back on the runway: I wasn't taking the traditional set of ascent/descent pictures that time, so I might repeat the mission with a little more detailed report later.

If it's SAS-equipped, this may be something like the infiniglide bug. Rover wheels exert force on the vehicle proportional to what they exert on the ground - i.e. due to gravity. This is why rovers are so sluggish on the Mun. When you're driving up a slope, the terrain pushes up at the wheel as the rover accelerates, the more the steeper the slope and the higher the speed, so you get a constant increase in effective power. SAS adds to this, exerting force to try and keep the rover horizontal, and pushing down even more on the wheels that go up the slope. Something like that could be the cause.

Therefore... why have these security things there in the first place? If you're worried that someone can use your source code to reverse-engineer a hack to your other software's login system... can't you, y'know, not have the login system in this program? Since it's not required, ultimately.Seriously, when what is essentially a glorified frontend has more DRM than the game it's a frontend for... that's a seriously sad piece of software.

Well, I couldn't recreate the effect you had (because apparently my decouplers are flush with the tanks), but I got a little clip of a similar effect of an RTG creating a pulsing, wavering shadow on the tank. It's really just shadowmap granularity and the motion of the lightsource. https://www.dropbox.com/s/cmllk2x8lqbk6qe/KSP%202013-07-29%2019-26-34-871.avi

Considering what your program is for, I'd say it's paranoia first and foremost... and some kind of misguided sense of superiority second, judging by some of your comments on the first page of the thread. >_> Exactly what would people benefit from hacking into a mod manager? I.e. you're obviously not going to be doing store integration (that's kind of Squad's own agenda), and Spaceport doesn't require any credentials.

Thankfully it's long past morning here, and I can blow off work as much as I like.I've just now taken a contraption of wheels and metal panels out for a stroll in the morning sun near KSC. Sad to report that I see no anomalous shadows, at any angle. Besides, I think any shadow that would be cast onto a part would be cast onto the ground as well. I'm going to try a fuel tank with a decoupler attached next and see if I can't recreate the effect you've gotten.

And I'm open to it being the shadow of a ghost tower, but until there's a more definitive proof of either, I am leaning towards the noise theory. Because shadowmaps usually do create patterns like that, and the motion speed looks about right for a slowly moving lightsource and a shadow cast at a very flat angle. Like I said, somebody needs to build a huge roving array of panels and try to catch that shadow if it exists.

I'm not so sure about the old tracking station, honestly. To me it simply looks like shadowmap granular noise moving across the model due to the rising sun. It's the shadow cast from the decoupler in that case. Somebody make a giant platemobile and see if it catches any odd shadows where there's no other parts to cast shadows on them.

I'm tempted to say no, since for me the game pretty much works perfectly. However, I wouldn't rule out another update to fix whatever new bugs may arise with the new terrains and spaceport buildings, plus of course further refinement of the SAS.

You can manually transfer fuel between completely disconnected tanks. The option to toggle off crossfeed on docking ports was added so that the mothership wouldn't drain fuel from docked vessels. That said, a whole lot of designs would be easier if we could selectively disable crossfeed on specific parts... The waiting for tweakables continues...

That was on the brink of the switch from 0.20 to 0.21, a step so major that a lot of players stopped playing due to the breaking of save compatibility. Likewise, mod developers also stopped, waiting to see how the new version will affect things, so as not to perform futile labor.

I don't do a whole lot of modding for KSP, but I do have different mod projects of my own, and I'd happily present the source materials and code for anyone to reuse if it meant a benefit for the game and community as a whole. As such, I only support this idea. The more eyes on the code, the better. (the developer of a certain recent 4X game seems to be greatly benefiting from his game's code being unobfuscated C#. The community hunts down bug causes and introduces new features like you wouldn't believe.) Put it this way: you're unlikely to profit from a mod. You're unlikely to reuse the code or content you added to your mod elsewhere. Why would you feel a need to hoard the source materials at all?

Thing is that it shouldn't be so impossible, with an aerodynamic (you could almost say hydrodynamic) enough vessel. Has anyone tried making an Eve ascent SSTO with FAR?

The Futurama way of "fired". Out of a cannon and into the sun.

Allow octagonal struts to be surface-mounted and define the attachment node so that it's attaching from the side rather than the center. It's been a while since I modded KSP, so I've no idea what the proper syntax for that is nowadays.

I don't use "no mods at all", but I fly stock. Getting easier every version, with KSPX slowly merging in. As such, removing mods to make a perfectly stock install is no hassle. All I use is the Subassembly Loader, and am considering re-getting the Kerbal Engineer. I mostly do it so I can share whatever I make with anyone, but coincidentally it also makes reporting bugs much easier. Also, reporting a bug like this, especially a location-specific bug that can be on a distant planet, can further expedite the bug's confirmation. Because, for instance, a whole lot of people may have a rover on the way to Eeloo, or already on Eeloo, and you asking to check if the bug still works in a completely stock install won't be near as much of an inconvenience for them as it is for you.

Your poll is missing the right option. If it's a bug I can recreate, and I have utmost certainty that it has nothing to do with mods, I will report it anyway, policy be damned. I'll explain the bug and the situation, and ask stock-using people to attempt a recreation, and/or attempt to recreate it in stock form myself later on. A bug is a bug. If you don't report it, it will go unnoticed. Even if it does turn out to be mod-related, all you're doing wrong is posting it in the wrong subforum. Lesser of two evils.

Plus the higher the speed, the more effect the canards have, and the roll is the most sensitive axis.

You can also just blithely copy the game install out of the Steam directory elsewhere, or just install it into the folder you need from within Steam itself. And keeping a shortcut to the game directory is what I do. Useful for both screenshots and modding.

The problem isn't so much with the singing, it's just that's it's a very sharp, repetitive soundbite, that you hear every time you are in the Space Center scene. Plus it's not affected by the Environment or Music volume sliders. Some variation to it, and some other sounds than just birds at different times of day (chirping crickets at night would be nice), would make it a lot more bearable and interesting. Maybe add in a rooster if you time it exactly right and have the scene open at sunrise.