Parkaboy

Hi, I just added the latest version of KSPI to a fresh install and need help with a couple of issues. 1. Some engines appear with their scales messed up (don't match with other parts and the attachment nodes are floating). Mainly the magnetic ones and the aluminum hybrid, that looks like a SRB. I'm using Mechjeb, DRE, RemoteTech2 and TAC Life Support. Is there a compatibility issue with any of those mods? 2. I'm under the impression that deadly reentry doesn't work with the KSPI parts, is that true? I just dropped a ship into Kerbin's atmosphere at 2000 m/s and it survived intact (until crashing). Are these parts indestructible to deadly reentry, or are they just way more resistant to heat than stock parts?

Looking forward to the new Duna series! Would you consider having a modular base on the red planet? I mean, a base where new pieces are adding by docking on the surface, instead of just parking a new habitat nearby? That would be awesome!

Just saying that I can see why the devs would rather not post here very often.

IMO it is a far more pleasant experience to read Max's Twitter feed than most posts in this forum. Everytime a new feature is announced here it takes an average of two or three posts for the discussion to turn into a "this-is-dumb-and-every-Squad-decision-is-dumb-they-should-just-do-things-my-way" rant.

I find terribly funny that people still wonder why the devs prefer to disclose new info anywhere but in this forum.

That's hardly the same thing, since KSP would still have time warp.

Yeah, when I say upgrade existing parts, I don't mean the parts on existing vessels, only the ones built from then on. But I like the idea of changing the part name with each upgrade - although I don't think it would be feasible to have its model change visually with each new version, if that's what you mean.

I like the idea of being able to improve a part's performance, but I'd rather it were a permanent instead of a temporary boost. We could visit the tech tree and research improvements for certain parts - engines could have their ISP and thrust increased, science parts could have their science output increased, solar panels could generate more power, and most parts could have their dry weight reduced. But in order to keep the balance, these improvements would have to be slight and very expensive. Something like 5% or 10% increments, leading up to a limit of 50%. If a part costs 100 science points to unlock, we'd pay 200 science for a 5% boost, then 300 for the next 5%, and so on. That way, we could invest in the parts we like to use most, and would have to play for years (in RL) to get everything maxed out.

Poor analogy. Romeo and Juliet were from rival families, both with roughly the same power. There was no social inequality. They could just hold hands, sing a song, and everything would be fine. Gender, race and many other kind of issues aren't like that - even if all the 'minorities' forgave past grievances, the world would still be full of injustice towards them. And fighting against injustice isn't the same as hate - just don't expect people who have suffered through history, and still suffer, to just enjoy the situation. Even hate against injustice isn't the same thing as hating someone else just because their reasonable demands for justice would mean the loss of a few privileges.

No. This kind od argument is counterproductive. What you say would work wonders, if only we lived in a world where gender differences don't matter, and all the problems exist only in the minds of the people bringing the subject up. But that's not the case, and it never was. Gender inequality is very real, and it's as old as history. Saying that people shouldn't focus on gender is a way of saying that we should just accept the world as it is, while it's blatantly unequal. It's great for you, if you're a white heterosexual male, not so great for everybody else.

KSP is a game of the simulation genre. It's not a simulator. A simulator is a piece of hardware actually used to anticipate real situations, something used in scientific inquiries and training. A game of the simulation genre, such as SimCity, has many of the characteristics of a simulator, but is in fact a video game. There's nothing wrong with KSP being a video game, but if you want to convince your friends and family that you aren't playing, but instead training to be an astronaut, be my guest.

I seriously doubt it. It sounds to me like you think girls don't like KSP because they're not into science, which is a very wrong assumption. So you don't see female players on the forums? Does that say something about the game, the female players, or the forums?

I'd like to see something between fixed sizes and procedural. Here's how I envision it: - Rather than the several parts needed to build a shroud that we have in KW, we should need only the fairings bases (in 1m, 2,5m and 5,75m sizes). - The fairings themselves would be added via a tweakables menu, such as the open/close action in the cargo bays; - This tweakables menu would have a few options to increase width and lenght of the fairings, with a few fixed sizes, such as: width +25% or +50%, and lenght +25%, +50%, +75% and +100%. This way we could get the best of both worlds: less clutter on the parts list, like with Procedural fairings, and a few fixed sizes (not so few, considering the combinations) that challenge builders to make payloads that fit. And having fixed sizes makes it easy for them to create textures that fit - that way we wouldn't end up with the plain white fairings from PF. We could even have flags in the fairings.

Resources, fairings and female kerbals are also the three most wanted features in my list, so I'm really looking forward 0.91 now!

Weren't you the one that wanted to discuss it in a civilized manner? I did my best, now I'm going to do something else. [Moderator rephrasing: It seems like your opinion will remain unchanged].

Except that it would be a horrid move in terms of political significance. Girls can do the same jobs guys can do. That's the message they should pass.

That's fantastically naive. It's like saying that feminists created the problem, and everything would be fine as long as women were contented to be just housewives and mothers. You're wrong. Not having girls in the game was a very big gender issue, one that was being contested for some time now. You may have missed the threads on the subject, but they were usually heated and ended up closed by the moderators.

In my point of view, it's a feature that was very needed, and adds a lot to the game. Not in a gameplay sense, but in a political sense. I don't want to repeat myself, so I'll just refer you back to my first post in the thread. I get the feeling you didn't really read it.

I thought the game was fun. And for the matter, the mystery hardly lasted more than a day. Is it enough to get so upset?

Let me try to be didatic instead of heated here. When you say "Who cares about sexism" [i'm paraphrasing], I hear something like: "Who cares about how half of the human race was belittled, treated as personal property and generally violented, in many ways, during most of the entire history of the world? Who cares if we're still far from reaching equality, despite the fact that the laws of the civilized world make it mandatory? Who cares if girls have issues with their self image because media treats their bodies as products?" Matters of representation are really important. REALLY. I can't stress this enough. LEGO had a real setback when it started making a line of toys "for girls" that was mostly pink and had little anorexic figurines. They kind of recovered by making a line of female scientists. It's weird that something that simple should matter, but it does. Boys have toys that teach them that they can be soldiers, super-heroes, scientists and astronauts. Girls have toys that teach them to be moms or supermodels. Changing this perception isn't something easy, so any small step in the right direction should be appreciated. Even if it's just the addition of a new bunch of polygons to a video game. It's important. It will make news. People areound the world will care. Sure, if you want to be jaded, you can say it's a marketing coup, that Squad only wants the media attention, that they don't care about adding real value to the gameplay. I'd argue against that at least partially, since they're also giving the community the aerodynamics they so hard cried about, but I digress. The point here is that, while it might not add value to the game as you perceive it, the value that it adds to the game from a girl's perspective might be immesurable. For me, this means a lot. Because despite the fact that I'm a 32 year old man from Brazil, I do like women and I'm rooting for them. There are many women that I love, and I like to see the world become a better place for them, and I truly believe this might help a little.

I'm not asking for them to censor anyone. I'm saying they censored me because I used the word misogyny, which I still consider is the most apt to describe a lot of the opinions being thrown around here.

It makes me really sad that one side of the argument is being censored here, while another is allowed to run free. If it's going to be that way, and we can't answer the "this is stupid" crowd, the moderators might as well lock the thread, please.

MaxMaps confirms that sexual dimorphism won't be huge, and that there won't be lipstick. I'm optimist so far.

Great news! Girl kerbals are a wonderful new addition! I'm really glad Squad is adding them to the game now, instead of leaving it as an afterthought. Some people here may disagree, but I personally think that women are far more important than a new aerodynamics model. I do hope they consider the velociraptors too, though.

It took me many tries (and kerbal lives) to learn how to properly do it with stock parts, but these days I don't even have to spam reaction wheels and RCS thrusters to keep them stable during launch. It's the hardest and most frustrating thing I ever did in KSP, though. I wish there were properly gimballed engines.