HeadHunter67

Never had a crash in .20, have had three since .21. Load times are slower and there's some framerate chug and odd pauses in the VAB. Same mods and same machine that was running the previous version, so I'm unconvinced by claims that .21 is meant to run faster, smoother, and more efficiently. I'll forego the animated drift racing and hangar crew if it means the game doesn't pause for seconds when trying to move a root part or an assembly.

I loved Mission Controller in .20. But I couldn't get it to work in .21, even with the fix. But it's a good point - sometimes all you need to do to make the game fresh, is to change the kind of game it is. I've never played with FAR or Deadly Reentry or IonCross (to be fair, I've only been playing for a few weeks anyhow). But if the game was getting stale to me, trying those three together would certainly make it different and more challenging.

For my own part, I've been watching. A video tutorial is nice, but you can't interact with the screen. You can't switch to a different view or go from camera view to the map window and back. Despite what some of the detractors might think, it is possible to use this as a teaching tool You don't need a narrator to tell you what's going on - because you're right there in the game. Maybe some people can't figure it out, but let's not assume everyone is that dense. When I started playing the game a few weeks back, I knew nothing about rendezvous or docking or Hohmann transfers. I watched a lot of videos and read walls of text, and it made sense to me to a point, but some people learn differently. Some people learn by reading, others by watching, others by doing... and some learn by a process that involves all these things. No video narrator is ever going to be there in game with me when I want to see how something is done. I can watch how he does what he wants in his game, but I can only see what he chooses to show me, when he chooses. This is different. I've actually learned manual docking from MJ, and I learned more about setting up a rendezvous from MJ than from all the videos I've watched and tutorials I've read. The more I use it, the less I need it. But it can help, and the only people who feel threatened by that are people who feel the need to impress others with their "achievements" in a video game. Yes, I've seen some very impressive things in the game, and that's great. But I don't define myself by what I've done with my toys - and let's be honest, that's all this is, a toy. No one's ever saved a life with KSP, with or without MJ installed. So, if you want "respect" for what you've done here, fine. Well done! Personally, I play for fun. I'm having fun. I don't care what someone else thinks of how I play and I have to laugh at those who tell me I'm "not having fun right". Want to know who's cheating themselves? Those who think any of this really matters.

I think he's already articulated his stand on the issue in his sig, so he's got a point.

Fair enough - and I am equally entitled to my opinion of you. The fact of the matter is, it doesn't change how either of us plays the game. To me, you're just words on a page - why on Earth would I feel a need to validate myself based on the "opinion" of a stranger? That's not a healthy way to go through life. But this shouldn't be about our opinions of each other - as they say, "address the issue, not the individual". No one has yet to refute my original point - in a single-player game, the player is the sole arbiter of his or her enjoyment, and thus cannot possibly cheat against himself or herself. Are you having fun? If yes, then what does it matter what others think? Spare me from self-important people who think they should get to decide how others live their lives.

"Sportsmanship" implies an opponent, against whom one must play fairly. That isn't the case in a single-player game. We're not talking about landing from orbit, we're talking about things like navigating to the Moon or beyond. You're entitled to your opinion about whether or not you use the mod. You're not entitled to your opinion of others based on how they use it - or more accurately, your opinion of how others play their own game is irrelevant. You know what they say about opinions, after all...

...And anyone who cares about other people's opinions of something like this is wasting their time over nothing. Why should I care what you think of how I play? It's quite presumptuous of you to tell people what they "should do", don't you think? And the NASA point is valid - there's only been one mission I can think of in the history of the American space program where the crew had to freehand it without computer support - and that was Apollo 13. Even then, they still got course corrections and flight data by radio from CAPCOM - who calculated this on a computer. So yes, MechJeb is actually the closest thing to the sort of computerized flight assistance that NASA crews have had available to them for decades. And that course data is typically not calculated by astronauts in-flight - it's done and set by ground control prior to launch. So I guess I'm just failing to see your point - and sadly, this thread is going to go down the same road as every other MJ thread, with the same arguments on either side and nothing new. Time to close this, I'd say.

Fine, then the question is: "Cheating whom?" In a single-player game, there can be only one possible answer - oneself. The follow up question, then, is: "Cheating oneself out of what?" Since most people play a game for fun, I submit that if MechJeb does not hinder one's enjoyment, it cannot be "cheating". Since each player is the sole and final arbiter of his or her own enjoyment and definition of fun, no one else can claim that using MJ is "cheating". How's that for your "strawman"?

In 1969, humans landed on the Moon. Someday, they may land on Mars. Not "the Mars". Get it now?

Probably. They likely just record whatever they intend to say in Spanish, then reverse the recording. So yes, the last word in the sentence would be the first thing the Kerbal says.

EUREKA! I got it to the right size. I figured, if I want it to be a 2.5m diameter part, I could try setting the rescalefactor to 1.25 and that worked perfectly. Essentially, there's no difference between copying the Hitchhiker config to the CrewTank models, or the CrewTank models to the Hitchhiker config, of course. It's just a matter of getting the models working in the new system with the necessary values. It's not functionally any different than the Hitchhiker, it's just got a nicer appearance. The only thing that's not perfect is that the square exterior windows on the outside don't correspond in shape to the round windows of the IVA - but passengers can still see out the windows fine. I want to reiterate, as I said in a previous post, that I don't intend to distribute this. It's not my work and not my property. All I did was tweak the config to make it usable for myself in 0.21 - partly because this is so much nicer looking than the Hitchhiker, and partly to teach myself modding. I don't want to step on any toes or take any liberties here.

If you play the official KSP videos backwards, you'll see that it is backwards Spanish they are speaking. As for Chatterer, I brought it up to illustrate that spoken language played backwards sounds different from backwards spelling. Try not to read anything else into the analogy (BTW, there's Russian in Chatterer too - but the Spanish don't exactly have their own space program, you know?) As for the written text in the game, it's for the player's benefit - there's no way of knowing what those symbols mean to a Kerbal.

I'm really looking forward to that - my space stations need proper orbital science capabilities! There are a lot of options for planetary science, but as far as an orbital lab goes, not much beyond the gravimeter and accelerometer. Stuff like chromatography and spectrography would be cool.

That's what they get for occupying another nation and forcing the indigenous people to adopt their language.

I was thinking the same thing. Anyone who's ever listened to the Chatterer plugin knows that it's not as simple as backwards spelling. A better way would be to record oneself saying these words in Spanish, then reverse the recording. I think Windows comes with a utility that can easily do that.

If you stepped in a hairball the cat coughed up, would you say "oo" or "ew"? It's the difference between pleasant surprise, and disgust. Hopefully that can help elaborate the difference between the sounds.

So... maybe copying most of the crewCabin .cfg into the CrewTank part rather than the other way around? Not sure how/if/what that changes anything... but it's worth a try. I'm also tinkering with the rescalefactor value. Wait... I know why the scale is off... it's because the original was designated as a fuel tank part. I'll bet that's all I need to change to get this to work - we'll know as soon as I can figure out how that's done in the new system.

Indeed. Hitchhikers don't even have torque. All they do is hold passengers.

Basically, I discovered I was mining just to accumulate more resources, but doing very little with them. I'd already built all the grand stuff I had in mind in previous versions - and lost it over the successive upgrades. Didn't want to do it all again. Oooh, that sounds like fun, actually! I'm not sure how RemoteTech ties in with it but I can see how the others would make even early space travel really risky. I may have to try a build like that!

Wouldn't just replacing the .mu and .mbms for the Hitchhiker also work? However, I'm not seeing how it inherits the texture. [EDIT: Surprisingly, I got it to work - but the scale is off somehow...] This is just for my own education and enjoyment - I'm not looking to distribute others' work. That said, if DYJ wanted to make an "official" .21 update of this component I would be overjoyed!

Precisely. It definitely doesn't rhyme with "bun" or "fun". It's not even strictly like "Moon". It's more of an "eww" sound.

That's a problem with sandbox games - sometimes, you get to the point where you don't feel like making your own goals any more. When that happens, it helps to have some externally-provided goals to achieve. I recommend trying some of the campaigns from the wiki: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Campaigns or the historical missions: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Tutorials Start from scratch and do it historically - make a little Mercury-like rocket from stock and launch it straight up. Start emulating the mission goals of the Mercury program, then Gemini and Apollo... that's one possibility.

Is it possible, perhaps, to replace the model and graphics for the Hitchhiker module with those of the Crew Tank? It's a beautiful addition to the game and it would be sad if I had to use that ugly old Pringles can instead of that.

Anyone who can download and install a mod can do the same with 7zip. It's not a complicated process and it's very useful for all the other common file formats a user might encounter day-to-day.

Actually, the moving is from Crew Manifest, as well - without it, you still need to EVA to relocate a Kerbal to another part of a station. So it's a very useful plugin for 0.21, indeed!