daver4470

Is it out yet? How about now? And hi everyone! It's been a while.... A few thoughts. 1) I understand the concern about store exclusivity, really. But honestly, it's silly to think that Epic or anyone is going to pay for exclusivity on KSP2. KSP is a niche title -- a good selling niche title, but niche. I know Steam sale numbers are.... dodgy at best, so with a grain of salt I'll say that KSP probably has sold a few million copies on Steam. Per SteamSpy (grain of salt again), it's in the 2 million to 5 million estimate range. For a little perspective, that's about half as many sales as "Don't Starve" is estimated at, and nobody would call "Don't Starve" a blockbuster sales hit. Good game though. I recommend it if you're interested in that genre. For a little more perspective, a true AAA title -- like Counter-Strike Global Offensive -- will sell 50x as many copies. (And at a price point more around $80, too.) THAT'S when you pay for exclusivity... as exclusivity requires you to compensate the publisher for expected lost sales that would have been made on other platforms, you don't do it unless you're banking on a gigantic sales total. KSP2 just isn't that. And a niche title like KSP2 can't afford to throttle its own exposure by going exclusive, so it's a bad idea from their end too. But I'll give you that nothing is certain, and I certainly wouldn't bet my life on a lack of exclusivity. You never know. 2) I'm not particularly enthused/interested in interstellar or multiplayer, but hey, it's a sandbox game. If I don't like it, I won't use it. 3) Also hoping that many of the key mods will be in the game natively now. 4) Also curious to see which version, and what features, of Unity are going to be involved. 5) I suspect we don't have a great deal of actual gameplay footage because it's butt ugly right now. Textures and texture optimization are usually (to my knowledge) something that's done later in development. First you get the architecture right, then you hang the drapes.... 6) Is it out yet?

HR, I believe.

Wow. I was thinking about how I really wish I had information like this in the in-game Kerbopedia. And this is EXACTLY the sort of thing I was hoping already existed! Thanks very much for this!

Best wishes Dan!

I was having issues with Mechjeb not showing up (and the Outer Planets mod, too), and traced the problem to the AVC GUI mod. Uninstalled that, and everything was back and normal again. I'm a windows Steam user, though, so not 100% the same. Still, thought it might help.

Just learned of this -- I'm a little behind -- but Felipe, I wanted to thank you for one of my favorite games of all time, and wish you well in your next adventure. I can't wait to see what you come up with next... (And whatever it is.... make sure you Kerbal the hell out of it!!!!)

Claw -- sorry to take so long to respond to your feedback re: my sticky launch pad issue. I can send a craft file if you like (I'm at work, so I can't do it now, however), but based on the other people who have posted this issue in the past few pages, I see commonality that might be the issue: (a) the "Swivel" engine, and ( multiple side-mount boosters with the "Swivels" which align lower than the "main" central engine. I'm wondering if it's a mesh issue like you suspect, but possibly the cause is that the craft initially "settles" on the main central engine, which would leave the side boosters in the mesh, or something like that, and it's not adjusting enough....? Just a thought; I'm no expert in such things. It's simple enough to just put a launch clamp on the craft, so no biggie from my end. Just curious mainly.

Just want to report that I had a problem with the gimbal fix, too. It did not play well at all with MechJeb's ascent autopilot. Every craft I launched wound up with an immediate -- like, within seconds of launch -- oscillation, that increased in intensity until the craft went out of control. Tuning down the gimbal range on the engines just lowered the intensity of the oscillations. Removing the fix solved the problem entirely. Also, does the "sticky" T2 pad fix not work for craft files created prior to the application of the fix? Because I'm still getting stuck... Thanks for making these, BTW. They're greatly appreciated. (Especially the modularity of them. Pick & choose is the way to go!)

Hey guys... question re: the ascent autopilot on the current dev build (445).... I'm confused as to whether the ascent profiles are working correctly or not. To make a long story short, in a career game I have an early-ish stock rocket with the basic "Swivel" engine. Ascent profile is more or less default -- 15km start, 75km end, shape is 50%ish, 100 m/s speed. Rocket is small, so fairly high TWR and fairly high COG (not high enough to cause significant instability, though). The issue: It appears that the gravity turn starts at the lesser of the input speed or the input altitude. With this smallish rocket, speed is the first mark hit by a longshot. (The craft is at 100 m/s by about 5000m, give or take.) The gravity turn starts. The result I expected is that the gravity turn progresses based on the shape from that point until the target end altitude. What actually happens is that the turn progresses, it appears, based on something else. I can't tell if its speed, or % of desired final orbital altitude (as determined by current apoapsis), or what. I wind up with a craft that's finishing its gravity turn at about 35,000 m, and is at the desired final orbital angle -- i.e. pretty close to horizontal -- and is accelerating to hit the desired apoapsis. 35km is a low atmospheric density region... but it ain't zero. I'm getting frictional heat generation, inefficiency in the overall ascent profile, etc. If I set the gravity turn starting speed to be something higher than what I expect to be flying at 15km altitude.... perfect gravity turns. So tl;dr I'm not sure if this is a bug or a feature, and thought I'd report it even though I've applied my own fix.

Hey guys (past and present).... just wanted to do my periodic pop-in to once again thank you all for MechJeb. It's the one thing I couldn't KSP-live without. You're all gods among men (and women). GODS I SAY!!!!

Nvidia? Which driver? Also, did it fix it without having to run -popupwindow? Inquiring minds want to know...

MJ2 is working fine for me (dev v270) on 32bit Windows -- just an FYI. A couple of long-term questions: -- Has anyone ever given any thought to combining the maneuver rendezvous planner and maneuver rendezvous AP windows (default windows) into a single maneuver window? Because I am super lazy and OH MY GOODNESS the effort required to click that extra check box (or to set up a custom window).... -- As long as ascent paths have come up... It would be cool if someday there was an ability (even limited) to have finer control over the ascent curve (coughBECAUSEFARcough). E.g. allowing the user to add inflection points by time/stage/altitude to refine the precise ascent path. (vs. the smooth single-curve path that MJ calculates now, which is very mathematically pleasing but which sometimes leads to very bad You Will Not Go Into Space Today results with certain unnamed aerodynamic mods) I'm just going to go ahead and assume that's insanely complex to actually implement.... Thanks for all your work! MJ is the best!

But what if biomes is just the precursor to procedurally-generated terrain detail, like plants and such? I wouldn't assume that "different science effect" is ALL that biomes will ever amount to.

Instructions in this thread.

Continued kudos on this package, guys. Just fantastic. Corned beef sandwiches for everyone! A couple of dumb questions: (1) Is there any fairing that will completely cover a "naked" Agena (one without the control package stuck on the back)? The autoshroud (obviously) leaves a gap for the control package. I tried one of the interstages, and.... well, it didn't work well. At all. Enough said about that. (2) What's the general opinion on the "optimal" point to drop the Atlas boosters? I've been using them until about 15k altitude, figuring that they're there to push through the atmosphere while the sustainer does most of the hard work. But I'm curious as to what others are doing.

I'm a big fan of ATM (um... this one, not the... other... ATM....), and fully support it and hope it continues development and have used it often and well over my KSP efforts.... .... but to whomever posted the thing about forcing OpenGL, OH MY SPACE KRAKEN have you made a difference for me. I've been pushing the 32bit memory frontier pretty much forever. ATM made the game playable for me again. So I come not to bury Caesar, but to praise him. But OpenGL... holy schnikeys. My KSP.exe memory footprint was running at about 3.4GB with my preferred mods loaded up, and was, shall we say, a bit unstable, as small things could and would push the memory load over the limits into Crashville. With the OpenGL force? The memory footprint is down to...... (make sure you're holding on to something....) About 750MB. THAT is a significant difference. Game changing! (Literally.)

Yeah, since I posted that I've had instability in general to the point where I think it's an x64 thing and not a mod thing. I'll test with x32 and get back to you, but at this point I don't think it's an IR issue I'm having anymore. Carry on!

I also had a CTD when transitioning from the menu to the main screen using x64 and IR. Removing IR solved the issue. Crash logs

I'll second that emotion. As Joni Mitchell said, you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone....

https://github.com/rbray89/EnvironmentalVisualEnhancements/releases/tag/OVERHAUL-9-2

It did not blow up when loading on x64. I haven't actually flown any of the sensors yet, though.... but at least it's not grossly borked up!

Also happening for me. And I did manage to muddle through and find a couple of missions that generated good positive science. (The best way to explore Kerbin's south pole is, of course, to parachute a spacecraft on top of it....) Once the battery unlocked, a couple of probe missions to the Mun and Minmus generated enough science to unlock the first solar panels, and from then on it's all gravy.

Capt. -- I'm 100% in favor of this mod and what you're trying to do here, as science is the one thing that makes me bang my head against the wall repeatedly. Buuuut.... I'm caught in a bit of a catch-22 right now. Partially my own fault (for bad tech tree purchase choices), but also due to the quirky part distribution in the tech tree. Here's the problem: I'm sitting on about 13 science right now, with 45 needed to open the current tier branch. But -- and this is the underlying issue -- batteries aren't unlocked yet. Because, for some reason, the basic battery pack is in the third tier of science options,* and I went for the control route instead of the power route. So now I functionally can't do anything but orbit a 1-kerbal capsule and do biome science to the extent I can, and the woeful little EVA reports. But that generates virtually no science now, because it's all been done. I could land a probe on the Mun and get tons of science... but I've got nothing to power the probe with. ARRRGH. Fully admit that this is basically a rant against the throw-it-against-the-wall-and-see-where-it-landed nature of the tech tree.... but just wanted to pass along the thought that if you're going to stick to the one-EVA-report design paradigm (which I think is perfectly valid), you might want to give some thought to not just the science instrumentation, but to the vehicle infrastructure needed to obtain a variety of science reporting in the early career game. Maybe stick a rudimentary battery and/or solar panel in an early tech node? Thanks; keep up the good work! *I can't emphasize how stupid I think this is. Kerbals are apparently smart enough to craft energy storage modules in their capsules, but cannot stumble upon the concept of "hey, maybe we could use these bat-ter-ees on their own as power supplies!" without heavy technological investment....

Laughing out loud at some of those names.... Awesome job!

What do we want? Centaur!!! When do we want it? When it's fairly probable that it won't explode catastrophically on the launchpad! edit: BTW, crazee madd propz to you, Frizzank, for giving the Saturn IB some love. Looking forward to the final product whenever it comes around!