Savage117

Cool, thanks man, that's exactly what I was looking for.

I apologize if this question has been asked before, but is there a way to change the default JSI cameras FOV? The camera view is zoomed in way too much and doesn't see what the FOV helper in the VAB/SPH indicates its supposed to see. I am familiar with modding myself but I can't seem to find the config that deals with the cameras FOV in order to change it myself. If there is no practical solution to this, will hullcam VDS be a good substitute or will I have the same FOV issue?

Ok, i'm aware you have no fix for the alert spam yet, but do you, or anyone else, know how to delete all that spam en-mass? I have 5000+ messages and there is no way I can delete all that by clicking on it one at a time. Also, do you know if the bug is related to the powered landing option? Thank you to whomever provides some help on this issue, Savage117

Think of the Heat shield as a windscreen, everything you want to protect from the wind has to be behind the windscreen right? So that means anything you want to protect from re-entry has to be behind the heat shield and the heat shield has to be facing into the "wind" or towards the retrograde marker. So, Your heat shield should be pointed towards the way you are going and the nose of your craft should be pointed backwards, unless its an SSTO(Space Shuttle) then its a whole different ballgame. ^ - Nosecone / \ - Command pod of your choice | | - Science module --- - Heat shield, this should cover everything behind it, or above it in this case, if it sticks out past the edge of the heat shields shadow, or occlusion zone, it will probably explode. ^ -Direction the wind is coming from Hope this helps, Savage

In my opinion, I don't think us Humans would have any say in the matter. Any species with sufficient tech to travel between the stars will be the ones deciding whether they will be seen by the public or only a small number, or none at all. If humans somehow detected the spacecraft before it entered our system or orbit around one of our planets, our leaders could try to hide it from the public then, I don't know why they would, but they could. But even that decision could be taken from our leaders if the spacecraft decided it wanted to be seen by all, and broadcast a wide band message or was just too big to be ignored or hidden. In any case if we detected an obvious alien spacecraft entering the Solar system, and our leaders gave just a hint it existed, and then charged a fee to see the broadcast, I would pay what ever amount they decided just to watch it, even if the spacecraft came in, scanned our planet, and then left without so much as a hello, it would still be worth it. Hell I think it would still be worth it if the spacecraft turned out to be hostile.

The Kraken feels you are not putting enough effort in your designs so it brakes a piece here and there to keep you on your toes and improving your design. I think its only trying to help but it doesn't know its own strength.

Iv already done something like this, and I found it to be a blast. Hyomoto's MFDs are a really big help. I didnt use Lazor though, its a memory hog, im already very close to the cap, and has some kinda cheaty modules. I also use F.A.R. it can be a boon as well as a pain in the butt to use. The others are right, fairings are useless without F.A.R. If you want to improve your docking experience, get either NavyFish's Docking Assistant mod or use the docking assistant on Hyomotos navball MFD, I prefer NavyFish's though, it has a little more detail, but I use it in conjunction with the MFD. I constructed a space station all IVA although I did use EVA to help me decide where the pieces would go and third person to target docking ports. Is there a way to only add the first person EVA thing from Lazor and target docking ports from IVA?

The KSP community is awesome, compared to almost every single forum iv ever been in, City of Heroes pre-PVP was just as good if not better. Id say the worst iv seen on this forum is in the Science Labs section, and the worst is someone saying "Your wrong" with no explanation, that's the worst. Id say that's rather mild compared to the horrible, yet creative, insults, and threats of harm or life I have found in many other forums. Be mindful though, it's not just the "intelligence" of the games players or the inherent creativity and lack of instant gratification in KSP, it's also due to the absolutely excellent work by the forum moderators, they deserve some credit for this forums geniality They are the unsung heroes of the web.

You can use the Steam wallet as well, but you will have to buy it on Steam. You can add money to your Steam wallet with a multitude of payment methods including debit cards and credit cards as well as paypal.

I actually saw that in the code but thought that was just for the menus, I don't know enough about the code so I didn't play with it. Thanx for letting me know it works if you change it.

My folder structure is GameData -> Hyomoto -> MFD not PFD. So what your saying is. If I have two cameras with the same number, none of them will work? I didn't know that, I thought only those cameras that had matching IDs wouldn't work, ill check my setup again. Also, I mostly use the ALCOR cameras, I like the way they look, but when I encountered the problem I changed them out for the RPM cameras and still had the issue. Thanx for the help

Having a little problem here, I can't see any of the cameras I put on the rocket, it only shows the "No signal" image. I have tried both models of the cameras, and neither work. All the other menus work just fine. The cameras work with RPM alone, without your mod, but I like your menu setup and the ability to choose the camera I want to see, and not scroll through a list of them. The mod is installed in the root Gamedata folder along with JSI, all should be working but its not. Its like your mod cant see the JSI cameras. Not sure what other info you need.

I very much agree to this, im trying an Iron Man approach to the game and any Kerbal I kill needs to stay dead, but Jeb, Bob, and Bill keep cloning and re-spawning. So I remove them from the craft before launch, but they hop right back in every time I need to go back to the VAB to tweak something, its really annoying. They should only hop into a craft if the previous saved pilot has died or is in another ship, or make the pod/lab/habitat always empty and pop up the pilot selection before each launch, add a button to select "unmanned" and a check box to choose if you want the pop up or not. Edit: Or use the tweakables like Vexx32 said in his ninja post above.

Folder layout needs to be cleaned up a bit. Currently when uncompressed it puts the Parts folder and the .dll directly into the GameData folder. I changed this for myself because its a pet peev of mine.

I have to disagree with the "Space is where it's at and nothing else matters" crowd. If that was the case then we might as well shrink Kerbin down to a Minmus sized body with just enough space for the KSC. Some people want details, they want a living breathing planet, not a big wet rock with a launching platform. I personally would be happy with a purely visual representation of Kerbin civilization, like Flight Sim, it doesn’t need to be complex, add little things to that like mention of certain parts of the globe in contracts and other parts of career mode and it would give a little life to this this big wet rock the Kerbals call home. Perhaps put visual representations of certain Kerbal companies around Kerbin, just buildings with a big company name on the side, show the player where these rocket parts are coming from. I agree that a mini game of sorts would be out of scope, I would love to see it, but it's just a dream. But a visual aspect that helps create a bit of immersion, I feel, is needed.

Honestly I think people are over complicating some of these issues. I will agree criminal activities are going to happen when it comes to the drones, but the question is, is it any worse then the criminal activities performed on the current delivery methods? For example: For package delivery, if I had the know how, I could hack into the current system and change the address of a specific delivery to an address of my choice, same as hacking a drone to come to an address of my choice. If theft of the drone, or its package, is a possible problem, give it some sort of locating system that's tracked in real time, its likely to already have such a system for navigation purposes. You would of course make it hard to disable, to give the authorities some time to get to it before its deactivated. To address the problem of pets or small children approaching or messing with the drone in some way. Add some sort of proximity warning device, say it emits a painfully loud sound if someone comes too close while its landed, and it emits an equally painful sound at another frequency that only animals respond to. The one issue with this is you couldn't have an acknowledgment system attached to the drone, so the customer would have to have another way of accepting the delivery and sending the drone back to base. Or the drone just delivers the package and leaves, no acknowledgment needed. This would also discourage theft of the drone, about as much as a car alarm discourages car thieves. I saw something on this on the Philip DeFranco show, I think, and he had a little blurb about this that I haven't seen elsewhere. The drones will be designed with a fail safe, so that they will land safely should some problem in their systems occur or the drone is damaged in some way. This is of course assuming the damage isn't so severe that it can't land safety. But honestly this is a problem with current delivery methods as well, the driver of the vehicle could be drunk, or the vehicle has some sort of catastrophic failure that causes a crash, in the case of the delivery vehicle damages will be much worse and possibly lethal to driver and pedestrian alike. While a drone falling from the sky would probably be less dangerous and less harmful to property and people, it would certainly be less lethal, its smaller, it masses less, and it can react faster and more accurately to sudden changes in its environment. To address the flight regulations, I don't think that would be too hard, if you are flying a plane low enough to hit one of these while its on a delivery run, you are flying too low, they are not going to have a very high flight ceiling and I would think they would fly no higher than they have to, to avoid buildings and such. In other words they would very likely occupy a place in the air below the current flight lanes, completely negating the need for air traffic avoidance systems. And they would be programed to avoid no fly zones like airports and military bases and such. Helicopters might be a problem though, perhaps a rudimentary flight traffic avoidance system may be needed. I think this is a great idea, although it would be costly at first, but cheaper all around than a delivery truck. Fuel, maintenance costs, and cost of the drone itself would probably still be way cheaper than a truck, plus you don't have to pay it a salary. Plus it would take pressure off the delivery drivers by taking all the small item deliveries, delivery drivers would only be needed to deliver the packages a drone can't. It would create jobs, and as far as I can tell it won't replace anyone’s job, unless we create one that can carry the large packages. I take that back it might replace pizza drivers, that's unfortunate. But a robot won't swipe a slice of your pie on the way to your house, or beg for a tip. I have more but it's late and this post is rather long. Happy holidays everyone.

You know what sends me even further over the edge when it comes to these kind of warnings. In most cases those warnings didn't exist until someone actually did what the warning is warning about and then complained or sued, or someone complained that it did not have the warning. On that no chemical chemistry set, I wonder if we could sue for false advertising, unless everything is contained in a complete vacuum it still contains air and other chemicals that are just floating around when its boxed up, hell the box itself contains more chemicals than I have under my sink. On subject though, this thing is pretty cool, but it wouldn't work properly in space, as another forum goer already said it uses gravity to anchor itself, so no gravity, no anchor. I would like to see how it would react in a zero G situation though, would it just freak out and start spinning every which way as fast as it could? Would it jerk around as it tried to compensate for the reactions from its actions? Or would it do nothing and just sit there and spout errors to whatever would be listening at the time?

I like the idea of Kerbals being a kind of technologically advanced Dwarf or Gnome race, it would explain their small stature, and obviously industrious nature. Also the decadent society served by complete underground automation idea has been published in an Isaac Asimov novel, I think, cant remember the title though, it was one of his earlier ones.

I think this is a very good question and would like to see some theories on it. It may seem simple to explain at first, it's actually very complex, because we are talking about billions upon billions of bodies acting upon each other while flying out from a central point (The Big Bang). My first gut answer to this is simple, when the stuff from the Big Bang exploded outward it all was given some spin like shrapnel from a grenade and that spin got amplified when other spinning objects started gravitating together, and that was all at a microscopic to near macroscopic scale. Then we get to planetary scale after a super long time, I have no idea how long in years, and this one is kinda easy. For example, Lets say this planet is absolutely unaffected by anything around it during its travel out from the big bang, its not spinning, nor is it rotating around another body, both near impossible but for examples sake we will use it, and don't concern yourself with how it was formed without spinning. This planet will sooner or later get hit by something or hit something itself, this is were its spin will come from, because no matter what, if something hits it, it would be impossible for that object to hit it exactly center on, it might come close but some very minor spin would still be passed to the example planet. After multiple hits more spin would be transferred, not to mention knocking it into orbit around other bodies sooner or later. This same thing is happening billions upon billions of times in other parts of space as well, a general flow will emerge and anything orbiting against the flow will get pulverized, or captured, by the larger number of objects going with the flow. I'm sure there are lots of holes in that explanation, maybe someone can flesh it out a bit more, but I think I got the gist. There will also be many exceptions, for example: rogue planetary bodies that have been knocked out of their orbits by who knows what. Anyway, hopefully that answers your curiosity. Edit: got ninja'd by Themohawkninja appropriately, but this as well as impacts would contribute to the flow and spin of everything around it. And as he said the Universe probably isn't rotating, it has nothing to rotate around, it theoretically is the product of an explosion of some sort, so it would expand outward forever unless something were placed or formed where the explosion happened that had some sort of gravitational pull.

I see from many of your responses you are all very concerned about griefing and war like modes or objects being added. I hope beyond hope Squad will not add anything to do with war just as long as they don't restrict war. Like KSP is right now, its not centered around war devices but there is nothing stopping a player from making an ICBM or a jet with sepatron missiles. Please leave that the way it is, but I would like them to add tools to multiplayer that would regulate it. Like I said in my first post, conflict will be inevitable as long as there are ways to destroy anothers property, but give the players a choice in the matter, that way the wars are voluntary and the griefing is accepted because is between two or more consenting parties, it is war after all, all is fair etcetera etcetera. Just make sure it's voluntary and the war issue is solved. Griefing is a very sensitive matter and honestly I don't think we can discuss it fully at this time because we have no real idea on how multiplayer is going to be implemented. I say we wait for Squads ideas on how multiplayer will be done before discussing griefing any further. Griefing will be a problem in any public multiplayer setting, but we have no idea on what kind of anti-griefing tools Squad will provide us. It is my hope that Squad would incorporate my ideas into the two multiplayer modes, not make them separate game modes, making the multiplayer experience more open, allowing the players to decide how they wanted to play it. If you just want to go it alone while other players team up, pick an empty KSC and don't allow another team mate to join your KSC. You don't want a war with another, just decline any war requests or don't give that person permission to dock or touch your craft. You want to participate in a space race with another player, or team of players, just ask them over chat or send a request if such a tool is provided. I like open ended multiplayers where you give the players more choices and options with the only limits being the game mechanics and system limits.

I didn't read all your responses, it's too late in the morning, but just from the poll view I see resources has a lot more votes than I expected, I expected it to be a little more neck and neck. I decided on multiplayer for my choice and many of you will find my reasons unpopular, but I'm trying to think of the future of the game not the now and what I want now. I chose multiplayer because it is more likely to make Squad money, resources are great and I want them too, but the driving force behind any company is money, if Squad runs out of money the game development stops and we are left with an unfinished game, still a good unfinished game though. Resources will likely only make the long time players and current owners of the game happy, but they have already bought the game, Squad already has that money, and unless those owners buy another copy only a small amount of new money will be coming in. But add multiplayer and you open your game to a larger audience, and the chance current owners will buy another copy or two for friends, and therefor more income, from a business standpoint its a good move, from a popularity standpoint not so good. But more money does mean more features or more polished game play, if it goes well we could possibly get both, no one knows yet. I personally didn't buy this game for what it's going to become or what was promised, I bought it for what it is now and have the added bonus of having features added almost every patch, it's like im getting free DLC packs. I only paid $14 USD and have gotten at least $50 worth of entertainment out of it so far and it's still in alpha, that is an awesome deal if you ask me. That's my ten cents on this whole Multiplayer vs Resources thing.

The time warp mechanic comes to mind as one thing that will have trouble being balanced between both iterations. As well as the physics calculation method for multiple craft in the same 2.5Km sphere radius. You thought one craft of 200+ parts caused your computer to slow down, try two in the same area as well as the network trying to sync said craft between the two computers. It will be a challenge for the devs. Unfortunately it is unlikely you will be able to have both, Squad is a small game development company, although growing rapidly, even large multimillion dollar game companies struggle with this issue. Take Ubisoft's Assassins Creed series for example, as soon as multiplayer got added, started to get attention, started to get better and more entertaining, single player suffered and got worse reviews then the previous single player title. Then it went the other way, the new Black Flag game has got some awesome reviews for its single player aspects but the multiplayer only got some relatively minor editions and bug fixes from the previous title. If a game company were to keep the staff they have working on SP and add new staff to work on MP then this problem could probably be averted, but possibly too expensive, hence the reason it's not been done. It's this trend I fear when multiplayer is announced, so I hope Squad can take the new pressure they have brought on themselves and I hope the game as it is doesn't suffer, as in missing features that would have been added had the devs not been concentrating on MP. I'm just saying it makes me nervous, if the devs can pull it off with the minimum amount of missing features then I will be one of the first to congratulate them.

Conflict is still conflict even if it is agreed upon by both parties and played in a friendly manner. I meant it literally, not as a personal conflict between people, and I can guarantee PvP is inevitable in a multiplayer game if it is allowed by game mechanics. I was using K as a naming convention to separate the game from real life, I know it wasn't necessary but I thought it was funny and I like the names. This is what I meant, I don't want the devs adding things like prebuilt missiles and guns, I’d want the players to create their own with the pieces currently provided, should they decide to make war with each other. Which someone will do at some point, I know I’d like to try it. I meant switchable at certain times like when the players aren't on a mission, that way the player wouldn't feel stuck in their current role if they didn't like it. For example: The pilot and "Kontrol" would remain in his/her role until the pilot had returned to the KSC or planet and the craft recovered, then the players could choose if they wanted to be "Kontrol" or the pilot for the next mission. I felt the idea of some sort of sensor for the current command pods to navigate was a given and would have to be added. Docking is difficult for some without trying it in IVA, iv tried it in IVA only without mods and its extremely hard and requires a lot of guesswork. Add something like the Docking assistant mod, or the Navball docking assistant mod, and possibly some other required tools as well, before trying this game mode. I think these things should be stock anyway and I hope they will be made so in future updates. I like the idea of needing certain equipment for the pilot or "Kontrol" to control the probes, for instance a remote control part would have to be added to the pilot craft for the pilot to be able to control any rovers that have gone with the mission or were sent later. And if it were to be controlled by "Kontrol" or pilot then it would need some sort of sensors to tell "Kontrol" or pilot about the environment around it, aka cameras, laser mapping, or inertial/satellite gps system, or all of the above, it would be up to the player. From my experience, and I admit I may be a bit jaded here, griefers go to some great lengths just to annoy/enrage other players and they somehow get enjoyment out of it. Take "Eve" for example, griefing is not against the rules in Eve and is sometimes encouraged. Some people will wait at a Warpgate for real world days just to gank that one trader that doesn't really know what hes doing, and they get crap out of it, and yet they stay to do it again to another unfortunate soul. They call it "Piracy" but a real pirate would select their prey dependent on the worth of what they are carrying, these people attack all that come through the gate, even if its a fresh player with starting gear, that's griefing. Do not underestimate griefers, it only ends in grief. I agree though that KSP may not see much griefing, especially if the devs take steps to prevent it, but any game that allows non-private servers will have griefers, I just hope tools are provided to deal with them. I didn't want this to become a discussion on griefing though, what do you guys think of the other ideas? And thank you to those that have already provided their input. I'm actually encouraged by the idealism i'v seen.

It was suggested in another thread I put these ideas in the suggestion section so the devs could see it, and I'm going to do just that, because I would like to see these ideas implemented. The following is a edited quote from that other thread. A quick idea I had of my ideal multiplayer for this game would be a coopetition kind of mode, place 4-5 KSC's around Kerbin, each would be part of their own "country". At the beginning of the game the players either choose they’re location or are given one randomly from the 4-5 preexisting KSC's. Give each player the ability to trade with the other players if they chose to, or compete in a kind of "Space race" scenario, but make it so other player can only see other players creations but not touch them unless some sort of permission is given. I really like the idea of a "Kommand & Kontrol" mode too, one person teams up with another. One is the "Pilot" and the other is "Kommand". The pilot is stuck in IVA, make it so hes stuck in a first person space suit as well, and all he has is his instruments and those tiny windows to guide his craft. And then you have "Kontrol" who’s stuck with maps and telemetry from the craft in question and the two players have to kommunicate to get things done. You could add this to the coopetition mode and allow a total of 8-10 players as 4-5 teams of 2. A little thing I just thought of that would keep things interesting, make it so the "Pilot" and "Kontrol" could switch places if they wished. Let "Kontrol" have some support rolls, like they control the rovers and probes, unless the pilot is given equipment to do so. "Kontrol" can control things that take two different craft like a X-15 test craft type scenario, "Kontrol" flies the drop craft while the pilot flies the X-15 analog, that way the drop craft doesn’t just crash ruining all the K-bucks you spent on it. Multiplayer could be an awesome experience, as long as they cater to both the PvP and cooperation crowds, hopefully providing tools to keep them separate. I can see the appeal of a space war with another player, as long as iv agreed to it or am aware it could happen and can prepare myself for the eventual conflict. Maybe give players some political tools, trade agreements, declarations of war, etc.. and these things would be needed to be agreed on by both players for there to be any effect. P.S. I am aware the devs have said they will not put weapons of war into KSP, but now with MP announced it will be inevitable there will be player conflicts. Please don't put weapons of war into the game but allow players to "invent" there own weapons with the provided pieces and allow some sort of war like scenario, for those players that wish to have it. But please make it separate from the rest of MP so as to keep the griefers at bay. Edit: The "Kommand & Kontrol" idea is not wholly mine, there have been several threads around the forums that have stated this idea in one way or another, I just added a K instead of a C and squished it all into one paragraph, and added my own enthusiasm for such an idea.

Some have already said it but id like to clarify why I think multi player should come after single player or be put to a separate development team. I have been playing multi player games since Doom, and have seen a trend since that game introduced the multi player experience to me, that trend being loss of single player quality because of multi player. The devs concentrate on multi player and the single player development suffers, or gets nerfed/buffed due to issues in the multi player area. This is unacceptable to me for a game like this, in games like Battlefield it's fine because the game is made for multi player, but KSP was single player first and should remain that way, making multi player secondary and susceptible to single player changes, not the other way around. I do agree that this game should have MP though, it will attract a wider range of people and the game will probably increase in quality due to the extra revenue. I’m not concerned about griefers, if the devs do MP correctly and give the right server tools or player tools, then griefers can be kicked or banned before they become a major problem, or they could make it where each player needs to give permission to another to touch their craft, if permission isn't given then it just clips right through without damage to the ships of both parties. That makes it your own fault if you give permission to a griefer. Unfortunately griefing is a part of MP these days, if there is a public MP mode there will be griefing of some type or another no matter what you do, you make it so someone can't effect or destroy other peoples ships, they will just spam chat or voice to annoy others, its in their nature.