steve_v

Thank you! This is exactly what I was after. Why it isn't the default is beyond me, real RCS thrusters thrust just fine inside a cargo bay.

Frankly, no. I'm not playing this game without FAR, which I have been using since 0.19. I'm not upgrading to anything post-1.3.1 either, until Squad fixes joystick support. I have zero interest in the "current version of the game", on account of the missing input support and the performance hogging ΔV gauges. Now that you mention it, I appear to have conflated this with the well-known cargo-bay issue. Probably because that one is causing me so much aggravation. The actual cause is that FAR is bridging between the engines, likely due to voxelisation fidelity and the meshes being so close together. The other questions remain however - how do I disable the engine shrouds permanently, and how do I disable the "cannot foo while stowed" permanently? The latter would still solve my problem, and shielding disabling parts still serves no purpose. KSP >1.3.1 has broken input handling. Not going there.

Sure. It sticks until the save is reloaded or the craft is unpacked/goes off rails. I have a bash script to do this for all my saves, but it's not really a solution as the game just pig-headedly puts it back. How is this a gameplay question? I'm not asking how to play the game, I'm asking how to fix the game. It could even be interpreted as a modding question - i.e. how do I mod-out this functionality? Possibly, I do have some local MM stuff that adds nodes. It makes no difference how I attach it though, only that it ends up within or very close to the invisible engine-shroud. I have tried surface attaching it, I have even tried surface-attaching it to remote parts and offsetting it back to the same position. It stops working once it gets into the zone occupied by the invisible fairing, every time. The same thing happens if RCS ports are placed on or close to cargo bays - the port quietly refuses to work, with no clue as to why until one opens the save file. From what I can see digging around in part configs, the shroud functionality is built into ModuleEngines and there's no way to disable it. Others had gone so far as to add impossible nodes to prevent it from appearing, back before the editor button was added. For some unfathomable reason, the editor toggle (or the node trick) seems to remove the visible model and leave the shielding effect. Who wrote this thing anyway? Again, how do I turn this stupidity off? Why the hell would anyone want invisible zones of stuff doesn't work on their craft in the first place, what purpose does it serve?

Of course. Slightly more difficult to provoke, but still there. Yes, because signal delay and planning. Alive and well, I'm using it. Still no LS in stock. That too, because stock aerodynamics is still pretty naff. Seems rather challenging from the hour or so I used it, but I ditched it due to performance problems. TACLS and Kerbal Health have the core functionality covered for me.

Here is a screenshot: See that linear RCS port? See how it is placed between the engines? A neat place to put it, one might think, out of the way and aligned, one might think... Except that it does not work. For no logical reason. It's not obstructed, it's not clipped, the engine shrouds are disabled. Can you guess what fundamentally broken mechanic is causing this? Here is the part data from the save: Note my emphasis ^. Yes, you guessed it, "shielded". What a load of crap, there's no fairing there. How in the seven hells do I kill this "shielding" mechanic? I'm running FAR, I have voxels, I don't want this "cannot foo while stowed" horseexcrements. I wanted it to die on day one. Landing gear have a "deploy shielded" config option, where is the one for the other stuff this moronic system disables? What about if I remove shrouds from engines entirely and use Decoupler Shroud? Which module do I need to remove from the engine parts to disable shrouds/shielding? And cargo bays? Will setting lookupRadius to zero remove the shielding zone around them?

Yes, I know. Memgraph does not "fix" the GC stutters, only defers them. It does SFA in this case. The only way to fix the GC stuttering is to reduce the amount if garbage generated, something Kerbalism apparently fails miserably to do.

Kerbalism seems to introduce considerable (~7MB/sec) memory churn in my game, so I expect it's the garbage collector causing the pauses. I don't know if that garbage is all Kerbalism, but it's stopped me using it so far. Kerbalism looks an awesome, but the performance hit (particularly when combined with other mods) is just unacceptable. For comparison, the TACLS + KerbalHealth setup I'm using now makes no discernable addition to garbage generation at all.

Windows updates, then a windows component causing problems. Coincidence? As you have identified that it is this "anti-malware" thing that is hogging resources, perhaps you should take it up with the company responsible for that particular software?

That's very neat. I've been running a similar patch for a long while now, but yours goes further.

So am I. I happily donate to modders around here, but as cool as this looks it doesn't work at all on OpenGL. 2 out of the 3 PC operating systems supported by the game use OpenGL, so IMO that's a pretty serious flaw.

Sure you can. I've been running FAR since 2013, and I do all my late-game lifts with spaceplanes. I actually find it more difficult to design sensible spaceplanes in stock, due to TWR requirements to break the mach "wall" wave-drag abstraction. Yes, but it will take you longer to design and require more testing. You get more design tools though. Very little has changed. As for the derivatives page, green is good and red is bad. 90% of the time that's all you need to know. Yes and no. It's certainly less useful, and I haven't used it recently enough to speak to it's accuracy. The SPH analysis window, and the flight-data window mainly. The tint lift/drag/stall options in flight can be handy too. Carefully. You'll need bigger wings than stock. RCS build aid for detailed CoM and thrust-offset information, useful with or without FAR.

Windoze only. Would not buy.

I (and others) have been complaining about "cannot foo while stowed" since the day it landed, and it still causes me untold problems. Unfortunately FAR doesn't (and can't, IIRC) override this particular aggravation. I really have no idea how anyone could fail to foresee the issues that would arise from abstracting cargo bay shielding as a spheroid zone projected from the centre of the part. And the rest, 100% agreed.

I installed FAR about an hour after starting up v0.19, because stock errordynamics. I still refuse to play KSP without it. Then it was DRE & TACLS to plug the other glaring deficiencies. The rest naturally followed, I'm running mostly QoL, realism and late-game parts mods now.

LOD, mipmapping etc. have been things since the '90s. Pre-generated thumbnails are a thing everywhere. There's no reason whatsoever that the full-resolution textures must be loaded to show the part thumbnail in the part list... But since KSP loads every texture into RAM at startup anyway, I guess you might as well use them. This^. That said, KSPs memory use (especially modded KSP) is getting out of hand. A <1GB game using nearly 4GB of RAM for the sake of textures on parts and planets that may well never be rendered is just silly. 'Cause there's no way to predict a vessel coming into render range ahead of time, right? And of course the only way to load files from disk is by stalling the main thread in I/O at the last possible second...

A stock SSTO spaceplane? Not really. The first time's a kick, but after that it's another day another LKO mission. On console updates, I find the situation pretty bogus TBH, and it's been bogus since day one. I guess that bug where the game gets all screwed up when you transmit science on eva is still unfixed? Like all the other unfixed bugs in the console port?

What you ran KSP on originally is not relevant, KSPs minimum system requirements are. As for "every flagship mobile device", Samsung's flagship S9 and their fanciest tablet both have 4GB of RAM, shared with the GPU. This does not cut it. Considering that said device is 8 years old, I expect so. No kidding. Gratuitous use of ellipsis does not detract from the meaning in the same way. At this point it's pretty clear that you're not listening, so I'm done here.

True, though in my case I really didn't like either. A more primitive launch facility would be great, but less rusting car bodies and less redneck / "kerbals are dumb lol 'splosions" feel please.

Thanks muchly. I'll let you know if I have any further problems with docking.

Again, good riddance to the trashtastic aesthetic and amateur-hour art. This was indeed an unfortunate, and I expect unintended, side effect. Perhaps if Squad had presented that barn in a halfway presentable state it might have been better received.

Not anywhere near that image, that's for sure.

That's less than 56k modem speed (and hilariously misspelled). v.90 went out in the '90s dude.

What it is is largely irrelevant, the point is that it has one. There are texture options for many of them if you want to stylize or personalize. KSP parts were mismatched low-fidelity eyesores, they looked terrible in screenshots, and all they were bursting with is gigantic rivets. Let's just disagree then. *Cringe*

I like my rockets to look like rockets, regardless of the occupants skin colour. Rocket engines look like rocket engines because that's how the physics works, if little green aliens were to design some with the same materials humans use, I am sure they would look very similar. Rocket nozzles are a particularly good example of this - the geometry isn't "artistic style", it's physics. Likewise tanks, one doesn't use an old oil drum for a rocket fuel tank (jumbo 32 anyone?), because it would be unsuitable on a practical engineering level. One doesn't make stage decouplers a random mismatched size either, because aerodynamics and structural engineering both say that would be a dumb idea. The original KSP parts look like a collection of unrelated amateur art projects from a number of different artists, created with no unifying design guidelines at all. Several parts might as well have been from a different game entirely, as they don't remotely match up with anything else.

I recon Nertea has you pretty well covered @1Smug_stand-up guy. Fancy nuclear rocket engines in Kerbal Atomics, and nuclear jet engines in Near Future Aeronautics.