CodatheSpaceFox

Found the contract packs in CKAN again, now is everything in working order for future zero gravity roulette games?

Thanks for the response, once I realized they were all liquidfuel engines I put together the need of oxygen for combustion. The engines are all beautiful and a whole lot of fun for some of my previously small jet flown planes, and resolves a lot of issues with things like small seaplanes that I've taken an interest in for... no true reason to my career right now.

I might have missed it when looking through the thread, but was there anything on these prop engines working on other planets with atmospheres like Eve and Duna? Also, the mod looks awesome, found it through Ckan and it looks a lot more my speed than found in more intense part mods, Kudos to ya. ^^

alright, that's a fair point, and I've had that issue myself just rovering around KSC for early career science, it's quite frustrating, and since a lot of the science equipment really doesn't seem to require some physical sample (Can't exactly preserve goo in zero G on the planet's surface.) it'd make sense for someone to be trained to take an analysis. I'd suggest some cost for the function of resetting, or something like a limited reset, but I think that'd be more of a game mechanic than a kerbal mechanic, so it'd be silly. Definitely adding this mod to my career though, well done again. ^^

Nooope. It's just Ch- @HoloYolo

Certainly seems like one of those "Should have been in the game by default" situations that I highly appreciate someone making. Kudos to you.

This sounds like a wonderful idea, but I feel the idea of resetting experiments is a little high on the list of skills, taking them and storing them maybe for scientists to use wherever they're stored maybe, but resetting experiments are one of the key advantages to hauling a scientist with you, even if you control a ship via probe and your own piloting prowess. I do agree with minor repairs and always having control though, and this idea is certainly well placed.

The real time VS server time issues of vote vs sync warping is an obstacle to consider, but maybe the idea shouldn't be to control the timeline instead of the vehicles themselves. It's only a consideration, but what if docking and other vehicle to vehicle "server canon" interactions were voted on in real time? All of this discussion on multiplayer seems to come from the idea that multiplayer was envisioned to be open hosted servers like in Minecraft or something, so I don't hear a lot of talk about people simply wanting to share isolated experiences with friends, and therefore have a good idea of what each other is doing, but in the case of a more wild kerbal landscape for a multiplayer experience, it could make sense for vehicles to be controlled instead of time itself, by using some sort of player decided permission system. If I were to elaborate on one of @Red Iron Crown's earlier paradoxes, imagine two players racing to an asteroid and the situation comes up that one player arrives faster via warp while the other would arrive faster via plotting. The former of the two clamps his claw onto the asteroid and in that case, the still physically behind player gets a prompt that states "Player X is wanting to dock to Asteroid Y in Z amount of time ahead of you" And you're given an option to literally accept or deny that interaction with consideration of your own plotting, and in the case of denying it, the claw will simply undock (or time will step back a few seconds) and the asteroid will remain sterile of that interaction. With the idea of player permissions, say that in a public setting you didn't want some random player stealing the fuel from your depot in LKO because you need it for a mission you're planning, so you'd simply revoke permissions for other players to dock to it or interact with it outside of passing by it, and any interactions done to it including crashing or damaging it are totally ignored unless both vehicles share permission to interact, which is a decision both players make with each other, keeping the interactions limited to what you expect. While objects like asteroids are considered world owned objects and to interact with them, a vote can be placed on the player grabbing and taking ownership of that particular asteroid for themselves (Which also prevents it from being used as a vessel destroying projectile from that point on.)

Roger that, I'll save terrifying groups of unsuspecting tourists with my terrible rocket designs till then, now all I need to do is finish what non stock contracts were working (Splashed down in highlands must be the rarest biome condition on kerbin or something.) and uninstall them until then. Might take up to the release date before that happens.

Thanks for the quick response. So if the issue is known, is there any way of correcting it? It also seems that there are some other quirks (namely the base and field research contract packs) that have similar issues where certain conditions are considered unmet from a newly made save. I suppose all of this in question is because I wasn't actually supposed to have the contract packs with the 1.2 pre-release in the first place?

So it seems this pack along with the Configurator were released for the 1.2 Prerelease via CKAN, but for some reason it seems that this particular pack has quite a few quirks about it, the first tourism contract hasn't loaded for me, and even on a new save up to being able to reach the moons, it seems that the game is convinced I've done a tourism contract, since the not having done a standard tourism contract condition is considered Unmet.

Nope, and it appears I'm stuck waiting for the recovery mission. @Galileo, got any sunglasses? Sun's in my eyes.

Ran out of fuel setting up my aerobrake, and it seems it took a few too many revolutions. This is why we test things. Got a spare one of those @The Raging Sandwich?

I seemed to have crashed here unannounced, I hope I didn't cut in line. @WinkAllKerb'' seemed like a good caveman to go to for safe crashing advice.

Last I checked anything considered "future expansions" was suppose to be free from the get go. Am I remembering incorrectly or are we just comfortable with the idea of paying more for extra content? Considering the scope of additional content in the game has been grasped pretty firmly by the modding community. Outside of extra levels in the space center or some deeper level of space center relevancy for the rest of the planet, *cough wheeze* but including multiplayer *cough*. It'd be redundant and kind of... snide... to release paid DLC for a game like KSP.

I'm really disheartened with the loss of so many great developers that I've had the pleasure of knowing from their interactions with the community, something I couldn't say the same for of any other game outside of Minecraft and they're in and out listening spells for it's own development. This is a good point though, not to say they owe us Multiplayer, but I recall Squad putting Multiplayer on the "You'll have it" list. Now I may not be the best person to say it, but it really does seem like Squad itself is doing a great job of reminding us that there's a business behind all this. Can you imagine what Multiplayer would do for new sales? I've got friends who've been waiting on it to be released to get my opinion on it before buying the game themselves. If anything it really would have been an awesome final feature before Squad died of a business practice induced blood clot. Think someone else said it the best, Let Elon have it, and maybe offer our cast of great developers a proper incentive for their work along with a new face or two.

Well I hope you're using the latest version, because downloading the full version fortunately fixed my issue with the 1540 version, now the 1548 version's patcher is giving me the incorrect link error, but again, the full version worked and I'd consider my matter resolved. (Of course, this is no thanks to the community, or possibly my mistake of placing my complain in a general thread instead of a specific thread.) I'd suggest completely erasing the contents of your KSP folder (aside from the settings.config, saves, ships, and screenshots at your discretion) and then copying the Zip's contents entirely in it's place, with overwrites where necessary. If that persists, might have better luck starting a thread in the 1.2 subforum.

So I've hunted through the thread to see if anyone else is having my issue, and couldn't find it. I'm playing with a non-steam version, so I'm familiar with the store page. I've downloaded every patch either via the hit or miss patcher under the windows portion of the store page, but 1540 is giving me some complications, as the patcher is deciding to tell me my KSP file isn't correct, and when attempting to download the x32 windows zip via the full download, I get a File not Found error. Is anyone else having this issue? or know how to amend this conundrum? I've cleared my cookies and page history incase there was some out of date file complicating things, but that doesn't seem to be the case either.

Sounds like they didn't avoid reentry affects on the way up.

I am sincerely hoping this project is either taken over so Darklight can take a break from it all, and of course for my own greedy reasons, like to see career mode have shared funds/science/etc so a friend and I may truly be able to damn each other to bankruptcy in heated attempts to see who can rescue more kerbals from orbit. Unless this has already been introduced and I'm just looking back a little too far into the thread. All in all though, I love this mod, I need to play it more often.

That actually makes a lot of sense now that I think about it, thanks for the input. I intend to build my way through sandbox at first to get a feel for this type of gameplay, but maybe I shouldn't do that for fear of not having everything in career to play with.

Kerbal Engineer also has a height from surface meter, but there's one thing I forgot to mention that the laser idea also helps with... slopes. If one laser is farther from the middle than the rest, and it's opposite is closer, you can immediately tell that the area is sloped. When you're playing at low detail (Which also makes the altimeter impossible to read, a really unfortunate issue as you've pointed out) you can't see shadows, or you'd have no need for this laser idea in the first place. It's not only implemented to show distance, but it gives you a very binary idea on what you're closing into. if you're landing on the mun, and there's a small crater you hadn't accounted for, the closest laser will change from it's predicted visual path, making it skip to the side in your current perspective, this should be more than enough to alert you to the slope, and give you time to make a small lateral adjustment, and save from an unfortunate dipping leg. Also, that just gave me an idea, make it so landing gear can project this "dot" based on it's orientation. That should make it even more accurate.

So I'm one of those unlucky few who have to run their program off of a laptop, and thus, low settings. I have seen countless times how higher settings really does give you the edge in this game, from actually seeing your base thanks to having lights that don't lag your flight, and being able to see your shadow while dropping down onto a foreign surface. I'm not looking for miracles, just things to hopefully make gameplay a bit more on level for the rest of us. First example, perhaps a landing laser: To anyone who's seen Wall-E, and has witnessed the hilarity a laser pointer can do even to an AI, I'm sure everyone noticed that the laser was serving a purpose in helping find a suitable place to land, or at least outlining the landing zone for the on flight navigation. In the case of KSP, I'd suggest something similar to project 3-4 easily visible dots onto the surface at very slight outward angles, and maybe one in the middle, that way as you get closer to the surface, the points slowly grow closer, giving you a visual representation on your landing sight, speed relative to the surface, and how far you are. I am not a modder, but I have dipped my toes in code before, so I have no idea if this has been done already, or if it'd really make a difference to have on a lower end computer. I know someone is going to suggest just using lights, but for me lights love to eat up my frames, so I try to avoid them myself. Obviously, since this is suppose to help low end players, bells and whistles are not necessary. Perhaps just give it a penalty of slight extra electric charge use. Sounds simple to me, and I'd love to hear any other thoughts. Second: a "Glowing" ring for docking ports. Now this is a fun idea I've bounced around, as I personally love using Scott Manley's idea of using the small radial battery's bright green light ends to sort of mark out docking nodes. This could simply be a slightly bigger part to attach behind a docking port, so as to make docking areas visible, or maybe a modification to the ports visual to make the connecting ring always visible... Hell... Maybe make the light toggleable but without the glow so it doesn't kill frames. That's about it, a lightless glowing part. simple. That's what I have for now, I don't think these parts truly give unfair advantages to those like me who love the vanilla game so far, but any suggestions to add to this or input about this would be wonderful. Mind everyone these ideas are based on their singularity and simplicity, and just because you can make your own landing laser in something like the laser mod does not count, as the entire mod is pretty large as far as I've seen.

1) I only fly by nav-ball now, for a while I tried to fly from the camera perspective, the result was typical. I also have the improved nav-ball mod, which saves a LOT of time finding where to aim for the burn. (I swear, too many ships have been left out of power and rotating endlessly due to power failures for me.) 2) I'm trying to learn the true trick to low part count "vanilla" lifters. lately the only mod I've employed in my construction is tweakscale, but that's only because the large orange tank is not my favorite glow stick to stare at during assent. 3) 250km huh? Noted. I understand the 70km for interplanetary in regards to the Oberth Effect, but I haven't understood the refueling station being so much higher. 4) Huh. Smart. I can take advantage of the UbioZur welding mod for this, keep my part count low while making a reliable power source. 5) I have gotten used to docking in the dark when necessary, but I usually zero out my relative velocity to my target and then time warp to the soonest point of light, it really does make the task easier. As long as I'm touching bases here (no pun intended) I guess I can touch up on the last of my problems. 1) I'm still grasping precision landings, as in landing where I intended too in the first place without chewing through delta-v from overcompensation. This is the case on Kerbin and it's moons. As I haven't really made many attempts to go interplanetary. 2) Should I invest in utilities like RCS tugs and the like? I devised a two tug system for my soon to attempt 3 arm circular station to assemble it, but would it make more sense for me to try and dock tanks with the upper stage instead of ditching the upper stage to the surface and picking up the tank from the base itself? I suppose it could shorten the trip, but I see a lot of ridiculous part counts occur from too much multipurposing of single use vessels like lifters. At least when I build them. 3) why do I feel building something like this is necessary in the first place? I can understand orbital construction when it comes to interplanetary trips, but all this just so I can launch a vessel up empty and fuel it up in LKO? Of course I love the thought of self sufficiency and the tedious efforts that are somehow entertaining, but I am finding my patience with all this (and my limited hardware issue) is leaving me to grind my teeth and build more things into single launches. Makes me wonder if I should just rely on lifting equipment and fuel and just toss my establishment ideas. 4) Any tips on making simple yet aesthetically satisfying vessels?

Thanks for the input! and that's a wonderful piece of work for getting started, psyper. I need to reacquaint myself with outward branching motors for landing designs. So here's another question, when building things like orbital tugs and the like, how would I design it right so as to not chew up extra dV trying to move full tanks? Perhaps attach a few test tanks while still in VAB and check it's twr? Or is there a better method to this madness?