Hyomoto

Since hildegain sort of built the foundation for this comment, might I add this doesn't belong in Add-On Releases? If you go off of what hildegain just said you are basically admitting to having nothing more than some doodles and a dream. You've brought a diorama and a description, this should be in the development forum.

Keep in mind, a 'cockpit' doesn't have to inhabit the entire space. I couldn't find a useful picture but hopefully this gives you an idea. In planes that don't specialize in carrying cargo, there are usually large areas beneath the cabin that are used for avionics systems and maintenance items, small but enough to perform maintenance or fight a fire. I may be underestimating the size of your parts, since I haven't played with them just yet, but fuel tanks aren't the only option. Having a place like this to store tanks and batteries would be welcome as well.

Fine Print has this same effect on most people I think, but its pretty easy to see why. Normally you aren't rewarded for putting a satellite into space or flying over a specific part of the planet. Fine Print gives you a reason to try these things and it's there that it is at it's best, but at the same time it also detracts from some of the free-form gameplay because contracts = reward, non contracts can yield science but less than you'd get for also doing a contract.

This was awesome, it answered all my questions and more, you really are a super moderator.

I guess it's weird to say this because obviously I'm not the only one, but I got excited when you said that. I know Squad has given their official stance on time as a resource, so I'm glad that the modding scene is filling in!

I was under the impression that the 'kraken' was caused by numbers becoming too large which made the math unwieldy, sort of like Minecraft when you got beyond 30 million blocks or so the world started to behave strangely due to errors in the floating point calculations. I thought I'd heard somewhere that to 'fix' that issue, they basically made it so the universe revolves around the player rather than vice versa. I must have been mistaken but can you clear up where I got this confused?

This is sort of a strange question that I think someone who has been around a while might be able to answer (or the developers I suppose if they are bored). Through bits and pieces from scattered sources it seems that KSP works not by moving the player around the universe, but moving the universe around the player. Things like the planets are low resolution models that are scaled into their larger forms as you get closer. This is apparently why on the map for instance if you get really close to a planet you just go inside of it, but if you land on a planet obviously you must get far closer before you can 'peak beneath the surface' so to speak. What I'd like to know though is what is actually happening? Is there anyone in the community that can explain the basic premise behind the KSP engine and how it handles the planetary transitions? Speculation is fine I suppose, but I'm hoping to hear from someone who has been around enough that they can answer outright.

It's funny you say this, giving players contracts for the things they want to do means they'll do them for the contracts instead. It's the reason why there are so many suggestions for types of contracts to be added, but the contract system itself needs to be looked at. Or put another way, there should be a reason why you would do a mission without a contract. Something like taking a contract to return science from the Mun, you don't get the science because it was the nature of the contract. I'm not really sure how something like that could be handled but the opposite is that people will play the game according to the contracts that are available instead and I could be wrong but I believe that goes against the intention of the system from being optional.

Thanks Navi.

This might be a memory issue. Once I get near 'critical' for memory usage, EVE starts having issues. However, the question should be asked is this an x86 or x64 problem?

It's definitely this.

Well, the clouds are missing from the start screen for all of us I'd wager, unless I'm forgetting to post a bug. However, this is also how it appears on my laptops as well. I'm guessing it's why the overhaul hasn't been released yet, night looks pretty weird and right now the ocean is messed up

Let me kick it off then, I used three different laptops with settings maxed for their respective configurations. And to be honest, I was a bit surprised with what I found. In some cases it seems your shaders actually perform better than the stock ones, though the averages are literally the exact same. My test was not strenuous, so if someone else wants to try another test, go ahead. Settings were default terrain, scatters set to 100%, anti-aliasing 2x, vsync every frame, limit 60 fps, pixel light 12, cascades 8, render fantastic, texture quality full, aerodynamic normal. I think you'll notice the pattern pretty quickly. Anyways, this was done during take off from the launchpad with a 3 part rocket. Asus G550JK - Core i7 @ 2.5gHz, GeForce GTX 850M, with or without, 60 FPS @ 1080p High Quality Qosmio X775 - Core i7 @ 2.0gHz, GeForce GTX 560M, with or without, 60 FPS @ 1600x900 High Quality Sony Vaio F - Core i7 @ 1.73gHz, GeForce GT 425M, with 45, without 45, @ 1600x900 High Quality Here are some statistics for not using a dedicated graphics card: Asus G550JK - Core i7 @ 2.5gHz, Integrated Graphics, with 7, without 7 FPS @ 1080p High Quality Asus G550JK - Core i7 @ 2.5gHz, Integrated Graphics, with 17, without 17 FPS @ 720p High Quality Asus G550JK - Core i7 @ 2.5gHz, Integrated Graphics, with 24, without 24 FPS @ 720p Reduced Quality (no antialiasing, no vsync, render set to good) EDIT: I derped. I actually performed the 'max settings' test on the integrated card. I'm an idiot. The rest of these are fine though.

The next person who says, "Random failures are okay if they aren't random." should be banned from the forums. Panels being ripped off during atmospheric flight isn't RANDOM, and the point HarvesteR was making is that RANDOM failures based on the RNG will do nothing but frustrate the player. I can't believe I have to point this out because the rest of you seem to pretend what they said was perfectly rational! He clearly goes on to say damageable parts is something that interests him, his aversion was simply to relying on 'good luck' to determine the outcome of your missions!

While some may disagree with me, control mapping in general leaves much to be desired in KSP. There is a lot that cannot be mapped to the joystick without external software, key binds that can't be changed, and the things you can map to the joystick overlap in odd ways. That being said, it's actually a lot easier than you might have thought. Simply go to the main menu, click settings and select the controls tab. This is all you need to set up your joystick. You'll probably just want to set up your 'staging' controls for now, and it's as easy as picking an axis, then moving that axis on your joystick to map it. You can then adjust sensitivity and invert the axis if need be and that's it. The axis are labeled as pitch, roll, yaw and translation vectors so I doubt you need a list for this. You can set it up however it's comfortable for you.

I like using them, especially if I'm coming back. Take Minmus for example, a burn that would take 57 seconds to reenter Kerbin's atmosphere and still have a 1,500km AP can use a 27 second burn to meet up with the Mun, and use that to slow you down enough to reentry with an AP of 400km. Like anything, sure you can build a rocket to do X by just making it larger, but a lot of times it's just fun to not. I almost ALWAYS use a free return trajectory for my trips to the Mun so I leave no debris in space, just as I almost always use the Mun to exit Kerbin's SOI. Using planets to push yourself out further and further is also just fun, it's like playing galactic pinball (or something). It's a game all in and of itself. I even had one trip where I was using Duna to pull myself into Eve's orbit (for science!), and I caught not only Duna's SOI, but also Ike's. That was a sweet mission.

Hah! Nice. I started doing stuff like this until I found the game has a hiccup every time you come near the area, now they just get set up and then recovered once I've taken photos.

It's sort of fun to watch things like this for reasons unintended. May I ask why you have MechJeb AND Flight Engineer installed?

I can say, definitively, that no I am not. I have never seen that happen. It's possible with DRE that high G-forces killed your Kerbal, but beyond that I cannot think of a specific reason why this would happen.

Here's me replying super late, but only because there is new evidence! If you look at HarvestR's most recent mission to Laythe, you'll notice the landing gear is 'tucked' into the fuselage. I'm pretty sure this is because with the new part widgets, you can actually decide to sink parts! ARE YOU EXCITED?!? I'M EXCITED ALSO!

The update for AJE just says, "Rapier change". Care to elaborate?

TR disables it's texture conversion if ATM is installed, I believe it uses code from an older version of ATM. So no. I run DOE and while it itself has some bugs, none that conflict directly with TR as far as I've noticed. CactEye also has some problems with DOE, but once again, not with TR as far as I know.

I'd like to make a request. Not sure what this would require, but would you look into exposing certain variables for RasterPropMonitor? The major ones would be stage resources, as KSP does not provide this information correctly. FAR, surprisingly, exposes some of it's variables so it might be possible to see what Ferram did if you are willing to look into it. It is possible to do this with MechJeb as well, but since that isn't a mod I use it isn't one I'd personally support. I've been wanting to get to updating my monitor configurations but this is sort of an impasse for me since it really wrecks some of the choices I made with them.

Your mod is good. Squad uses and enjoys mods, and in some cases you know they have had their opinions influenced by them. Lots of people don't get this, but it isn't about integration into stock. You cannot tell me the better aerodynamics will not be in some way influenced by how popular FAR is. While the eventual addition of atmospheric effects and clouds cannot be solely attributed to rbay (after all, who HASN'T wanted them?), you can bet the developers are using them and have plans of their own. In some cases, such as Fine Print or SPP, they might just absorb it wholesale with their own modifications. What I'm getting at is if your mod is fun, and people play it, and we talk about it, Squad may change their minds and look at ways to integrate this style of gameplay. Maybe not to the level you have, but in some way.

I don't have any suggestions for type of contracts, but I do want to offer a little feedback on some that have been discussed. Particularly the various 'resort' and 'passenger' ideas. While part of me thinks it might be neat to set up a chain of flights heading to and from various facilities, and while I don't know that KSP may not embrace this type of game one day, it seems like a lot of busy work. Putting a satellite into orbit, or even saving a Kerbal from orbit, is a one-off mission. It's easy to wrap your head around because all you need to do is complete it and you are finished. Something like 'take X Kerbals to Duna' sort of begs for more missions, bring them fuel, collect their science, bring them home, etc... And when it comes to those types of missions, it seems like it's better left to your own program. That being said, I think most of the contracts being suggested are basically things people want to be rewarded for doing and it highlights a negative aspect of contracts: players want the contract system to tell them what to do because otherwise they don't earn any 'points'. You aren't going to the Mun because you want to, you are going there to complete a contract. Perhaps this should be embraced and contracts expanded to include all sorts of activities, but I would make the case we should instead be looking at ways to shore up non-contract based game play. Right now, contracts are the only way to make funding and provide bonus reputation and science. Of course you want to do them! I think this means we need alternate options to earn funding and reputation so that so contracts remain a part of your space program and not the centerpiece of it.