AlamoVampire

I used this launcher: to add a 17 part truss segment <the truss seen with the large radiator> to the station: gotta love raw overkill! Further, I used the claw on an RCS tug, which was 8 RCS blocks <stock ones>, the 2.5m probe core, the 2.5m RCS tank to move that 17 part truss. Never in my life have I been so proud or had such a clear appreciation for docking port alignment indicator. With out that 1 mod, that truss would NOT have arrived as well aligned as you see it in that picture. op 01:17:30 edit time 01:31:30

@razark With all respects, I see no way in KSP as it is now, a game that was by its designers own admission designed to be single player would be able to be retrofitted in a meaningful way to make multiplayer workable this far down the road from where this game came from. Have the points of trolls, mods, part counts been addressed? Yes. BUT, how do you fix those issues in a way that works, and works in a way that does NOT harm the game? More over, as the most common suggestion to say trolls as an example, is to use smaller or private servers. Ok, I will bite, even Battlefield 1 has rented servers that can be done. BUT, they have time scales for the lease, something like 30, 60, 90, 180 days for increasing amounts of money. This is fine on BF1 if the entire squad <read here as the unit of players who represent the same guild for want of a better description at 00:42 am lol> are willing to share the costs. Seeing as, in all bluntness, this isnt Squad's property but Take Two's property now, I seriously, seriously do not see this game following BF1's path of private servers. I see it, if it happens at all for THIS KSP that is, following more along the lines of Grand Theft Auto V's GTA Online, where you get something like 27-32ish players on a sessions, which, being a GTAO player, knowing that player base, makes Trolls a more than certainty. Lets look at time warp. Has THIS been addressed? Yes. But, not one, as far as I can tell, not one suggestion has been a viable one that does not inadvertently screw something up for one or more players. Some suggest it being a sync'd thing, well, what happens when if YOU time warp, but, i choose not to, and then who's session is the game/server is the dominant one when it comes to where each planet, each moon, each asteroid, each vessel in ALL players game are being drawn from? Mine? Yours? Some one elses? How does it cope with that many variables that doesnt make connections alone a night mare? Right now as I type this, I ran a ookla speed test, with the following results for my connection: 19ms ping, 235.20 MBPS UPLOAD, 23.48 MBPS DOWNLOAD, how do these numbers compare to you? To another player? Lets look at part count, I just did this: As this was in flight, it was showing my mission clock as YELLOW. Once those external boosters were dumped, I was still at 170 parts, STILL yellow. Sure my FPS were fine, but, double that part count? Triple it? What about 10 times that part count? When I finished that mission, the station it went to went from 90 to 107 parts, mission timer was green after departure and the cargo vessel in that picture was gone beyond physics range, and this is just on MY machine with 1 player, me. What now happens when I join you? Lets say your mission clock goes yellow at 300 parts, red at oh 700 as a random guess. Ok, so, you say YOUR parts are non physics calculated parts, ok, I can run with that, its a painting to me. What about when I dock to that nice station of yours? That thing suddenly is part of me and I am now apart of IT, and NOW, everything is physics calculated. I suddenly went from able to move easy to a fly stuck on fly paper. How do you handle this? I have not seen a workable suggestion to this. Now, onto point 4. You are 50% correct in that I hate stock fairings. However you missed the point I was making. Possibly because I may not have elucidated it well enough. Let me do so now: This game thanks to FAR had need the need of fairings, which Procedural Fairings and its creator were more than happy to provide us with. He/She gave a handy guide to how they work. The fairings in PF are simple to use, easy to replicate and simple to understand. They are the gold standard. I am not even getting into the inter stage apolo-esque fairings that serve as fuselage here, just basic: protect the payload from wind aspect only. Squad decided much to the joy of lets say most players, decided it was time to update the aerodynamic model to something a little more.... realistic. This was/is basically FAR lite, the fun of aerodynamics that are realistic with out them being SO real that it drives players away. They then said: Well, with the new aerodynamics we need fairings. For what ever reason <I am not privy to why PF was not folded in, they never, as far as I know, explicitly said why it wasnt> they chose to ignore the gold standard blueprint on how to do the following: 1. Make them understandable. 2. Make them easy to use. 3. Make them easy to duplicate. 4. Make them function on mission in a realistic way. 4A. They eventually, kinda, sorta did by adding in a toggle that MUST BE CLICKED EACH TIME you use the things, that make them do what Procedural Fairings do on deploy: Clam Shell. If they <opinion on quality here> could not make a stock fairing that was at LEAST as easy and friendly to use and understand fairing when again, the gold standard was there as the prime example <and truth be told here, nothing in this world is wholly original any more, regardless of what it is, we see something that has been done, and go: I can do that, and emulate it and then add our touch, fairings here, should have been no different> to go by, they gave us something that was instead, beyond unintuitive, absurdly difficult to reproduce should a major edit to the payload be needed, and beyond unrealistic <even given the artistic license this game takes on realism> default <now at least, no matter how often you tell it to stop potato chipping> potato chip deployment. It beggars you to believe that, with only DMP as a multiplayer blueprint, that even by those who use it admissions is not the best method of achieving multiplayer in this game that, again, this far along in this games life be able to achieve a decent multiplayer. This game as we know, and as I have said is now owned by TT, and frankly, given what I see on GTAO that scares me for what KSP multiplayer could be. @Joseph Kerman Question for you: Before using the stock, did you spend significant time using Procedural? I started using them for aesthetic reasons back around KSP 0.22 or so, and by time the stocks came out, the expectation, the understanding of what fairings are for KSP was set. When you spend years using what amounts to near perfection, the slap to the face of stock is jarring to say the least, and to be kind about it. The lack of explanations in the game on how the stock work are just one in a litany of reasons. op 01:12:30

Nope. Not going to happen. Not any time soon, if ever really. Why? Its complicated. BUT, I will share again, my views as to why this is not going to happen, and it has some newly updated reasoning behind it. 1. Mod Compatibility. I run certain mods. You run other mods that I do not run. KSP has a history of obliterating ships in orbit that have missing or outdated parts as a result of missing or outdated mods. Will the fact my space station is constructed mainly of Planetary Base parts conflict with you? If yes, and you get into my session, BAM there goes my station. Hours of work gone. OR if not that, and it doesnt kill my station from me, what if you launch something and it then plows through me because YOUR game didnt load my station, but MINE did? Same result, but you sit there wondering if its a kraken attack. 2. Trolls. Lets say we are running totally stock, no mods. I put a station up. You put a station up. I decide to walk off for lunch but keep my system logged into KSP as Im only going to my fridge to grab a sandwich and a drink. In that time, some punk decides this is the perfect time to trash my station either by going full Space Cowboys <the scene where the over eager astronaut ignores Eastwoods character and connects to the missiles and it nearly kills him> OR go full on Gravity and send debris on a retrograde orbit on MY orbital plane and it obliterates me OR they just go Asteroid Redirect and drive my station into a decaying orbit I cant fix. OR any number of OTHER troll behaviors I am not mentioning because of brevity or I cant think of them. What then? 3. Part Counts. My station is 90 parts atm with more getting ready to come up. I can comfortably run around 200 parts in physics range at any given time. Lets face it, I think Im running on a potato. You however are on a Bugatti Veyron powerful machine and 5000 part ships are NOTHING to you. You get 60 FPS even with 5000 part ships. You come into physics range on me and suddenly I go from my 30FPS to 1 FRAME PER MILLION YEARS. No real decent way to handle that. Some have suggested making your parts physics less on my side and vice versa, well, if thats the case how do we dock to each other? Because the INSTANT my ship docks to that 5000 part station, its now part of MY ship and BAM no frame rates, just a picture. 4. Lets take a moment to explore mods becoming stock, or taking the idea from a mod and making a stock extrapolation. In stock, fairings are needed now with the "new" aerodynamics. SO, Squad made fairings. Neat idea, but, the execution of this idea was atrocious. I remember when they first came out. It took me 45 minutes of scaring my cat to DEATH before I learned: Click, drag, Click to place THAT level, Click again, drag some more, Click to place THAT level and so on. THEN, I spent another 45 to 90 minutes scaring that poor cat AGAIN as I had NO CLUE I needed the tiniest amount of space to grab the fairing in the first place. SO, here we are about 2.5 HOURS into the new fairings, and then I fly my mission only to discover a critical failure in the stock fairings. They confettied. UGLY as sin, but, my mission was still going, and then my mission itself failed because in my frustration with these abominations I forgot RCS, RCS fuel, Batteries and solar panels. SO, revert to VAB. To my horror <at the time, I was a Procedural Fairings Veteran>, I expected the stock fairings even with the confetti/potato chipping ugliness to behave for alterations like PF. They didnt. They still do not to my knowledge. I had to REBUILD the fairing to allow for the redesigned payload. Not ONCE was any of this explained in game about the stock fairings. We have a mod out there, Procedural Fairings that is super simple to use, even easier to understand because the instructions are laid out in an easy to understand format. Need to fix your payload, simply remove the shell, alter the payload and reattach to the node on the base of the fairing and the mod does the rest, pending proper symmetry of course. They had the PERFECT blueprint to follow and made a horrific mess. The mod for multiplayer Dark Multiplayer I think its called, from my understanding is a glitchy mess that does do multiplayer with some massaging. I have absolutely zero faith given the fiasco with the fairings that they will do any better with multi player. <personal opinion and outlook here> 5. Time warp. I have a TINY launch window for Duna, and you have a mission to Eve, that has a launch window just ahead of mine <not sure if a real possibility, but, Im running with it!>. I am in the VAB putting the finishing touches to my mission, and you hit your window. You launch and choose to time warp your way to Eve. Well, that just trashed my window by making it go away. Time warp is an absolute MUST if you wish to go beyond LKO and not do this in real time. I see no real way to get around this one. Look, please, PLEASE do not get me wrong, I LOVE multiplayer, I am nearly a rank 80 in Battlefield 1, I am a level 70 Samurai in Final Fantasy XIV, Stormblood. When a game is designed to BE or HAVE multiplayer at the start, its a beautiful thing, but, to frankenstein it into a game that was designed so so long ago to be single player cannot work out well. It would be wonderful for KSP 2: KSP ONLINE <free name to Squad > where it can be designed from code character 1, code line 1. Not now. Not 5+ years after KSP first came to this world. op 23:32:30

Before new planets they should consider the now mythological rocket part revamp i think so atleast Op 03:46:30

@bewing good enough for me sir, thank you! As a side note: dig the picture op 23:57:30 edit: Just read the why the delete feature was pulled. Makes sense. dismiss + timewarp looks like a solution enough to me edit time 23:58:30

@bewing they cycle out? This I did not know, might I inquire as to the speed at which a retired kerbal cycles out? This new information will do wonders for saving those little guys my um... ministrations lol op 23:26:30 edit: I just did a manual delete of Dando Kerman I think it was, and wow that went sideways on me in a HURRY! It dumped all hired kerbals on me. why or how Ive no idea. backup persistent back in place, game just loaded as I typed this. going to make sure I fixed what I broke. edit time 23:30:30 edit edit: I did fix what I broke. Everyone is back again. I guess, its hire/fire wait for them to wander off i guess. BUT, because I used Jenvey Kerman for this experiment, she has been hired into my space program for good now. Shes a trooper, and earned her place lol. edit edit time 23:32:30

@bewing Ok, here is my findings as promised: First Picture is the Astronaut Complex, and you see the green check showing the ability to hire: (image code gJ4mU81 i am not completing it with the .png from ingur to avoid image spam) Second Picture is after hiring that Kerbal, and as you see, we see the aforementioned Red X saying Dismiss Kerbal: (image code YxeRgPM) Third Picture is AFTER clicking the Red X to Dismiss Kerbal, and you see that Jenvey Kerman is back in the pool to be rehired and I promise this is not a duplicate image from the first, this is genuinely a second picture of Jenvey Kerman in the astronaut hiring pool: (image code Yu4HcAA) I am trying to keep my missing/kia kerbal list as valid as possible showing only those unfortunate souls who died on mission. I am willing to accept that I am blind and missing something here. Also, simple question to you Bewing: Why remove the ability to delete kerbals from with in the game? May I request that it be added back in if at all possible? Thanks again, Alamovampire op 23:12:30 edit in response to 5thHorseman: I have barely enough skill in altering the code to bring them back from the dead, I do not trust myself to alter something this significant. edit time 23:15:30

@bewing appreciate the response, I must be doing it wrong or something, when I go to click the red x it dumps them back into the pool to be rehired. Will look again tomorrow when I get back on my pc. Very possible I am not seeing the correct red x. op 03:46:30 Edit: may need the fire\Forget edit trick. Will update with findings on the evening edit time 03:51:30

he is absolutely correct in this. I run advanced tweakables so I can see the fuel flow, and with advanced tweakables on I see "remove from staging" a LOT. Hope he helped. hope my confirmation helps too! op 00:24:30

Howdy. I am looking to remove kerbals from my space program. I do not mean retire them, I mean make them not exist at all, period. I could make a craft, load the offending kerbals into it and then slam it into the ground or something, but, that seems.... excessive. Things to keep in mind here: I know just enough about the games code to usurp the death of a kerbal and return him or her to life or back to the astronaut complex from a mission w/out landing them, but, to flat out delete them w/out hiring them or even killing them? op 00:17:30 EDIT: I consider this resolved as all the replies were useful one way or another edit time 8-25-2017 00:00:30

Granted, but, you can only make downloads via a 56k dial up system. Good thing now for you as you cant limit it any more. I wish I was a more capable SSTO designer. op 23:42:30

@Thomas P. The argument of it would help those couldn't or wouldn't run the mod is NOT null or void. Why or more to how? 1: pureists who want a 100% stock game may want a visual enhancement so making it stock helps the get that. 2: console players CANNOT mod the game thus they by default fall to cant use the mod. Thus my arguments are neither wrong nor conflicting at all. Thus you are repudiated on your claim there. This right here. Op: 11:33:30

Dude @sarbian Really? The entire narrative is, has been, forever will be: @pizzaoverhead saw the text in the code, made a mod to turn what is code in the base game on, squelch stated it is an extension of the smoke plume, i made THIS thread asking the above poll. I then said it would be nice for ALL of us players to see it turned on to reduce ALL of our mod needs by 1. I then point out this would give a visual enhancement to all who want it and to all who want it but couldn't or wouldn't run the mod. I have also stated it would be divine to have @SQUAD or a developer chime in in an official capacity. I have also stated that the lack of official word is disheartening. op 03:00:30

I can see where your pointing, but, to me, and this is just me tossin the ol spitball around here, even though I am decelerating thanks to that engine, logic to me says, the raw heat from the engine would speed the over heating, but, again, thats just how I am seeing it. I concede the fact the heat model may be less than accurate here op 01:27:30 Edit: Forgot to show off the picture of the aforementioned mission after a successful docking: edited post time: 01:32:30

well, i noticed something truly curious while screwing up a launch to my new station. I kinda lacked the speed to exit the atmosphere and fell back in because I messed a calculation up. No biggie, all crew survives to relaunch. BUT, it was as the crew module was on its way in I noticed that the engine was over heating while entering. Again, nothing new there, atmospheric entry = HOT, BUT, what floored me is, the moment I fired the engine it began to COOL DOWN. I do not have the image of the cool down happening, but, I do have the one with it over heating. any thoughts on why Atmospheric entry + ENGINE RUNNING = Cooler than Atmospheric Entry - a running engine = getting HOTTER? thoughts? While yall consider this, I am off to lob these guys at the station again with moar boosters! op 00:25:30

@TheRagingIrishman <takes a deep long and slow breath> I honestly did not think I would need to diagram whats going thru my head on my word choices, but, I guess I must. 1. A lot of what I am saying is drawn from what I saw <no clue if he still works for squad or not, I cant seem to make the forum show me his page> Squelch say. Those posts seem to be lost from when we changed forums. 2. Last I checked this game is made up of countless lines of code, as are all computer programs. As an extension of this, those who have the expertise to manipulate the code are permitted to do so to make modifications to this game in the form of downloadable mods. These are also made up of lines of code. In order for @pizzaoverhead to have known about this particle effect, he had to have seen the line or lines of code that directly reference it. Squelch himself stated that this effect is an extension of the launch rocket exhaust plumes we see during ascent, a fact we all agree on. SO TRI, the aforementioned: "This mod activates an unused stock particle effect for reentry, featuring a plasma trail and sparks." is in fact a round about way of saying with out being techno-babbled (to borrow a turn of phrase from the writers of ST:TNG) to death, that he took what was already CODED INTO the game and turned it on. SO, I formally repudiate you sir by stating that, my assertion of: this is hard coded into the game already, is in fact a statement of truth. EDIT, forgot this point: Also, how exactly is a feature THEY placed into the game that THEY have not turned on a BUG report worthy thing? Way I see it, it isnt. op 23:36:30

@Snark Fair points but the works laid out is it not? The hard works done if what squelch said so long ago is true that its an extension of the smoke trail, so riddle me then in the grand scope: is it not far more trivial to activate this effect as stock than say put a new part or dlc or even fold say asteroid day into stock? But bottom line no matter anyones pov on this issue is: until official word on this appears we are only going in circles on a what if x y z race track. My ultimate bottom line point stands thusly: I wish this was finally turned on stock and wish for anyone from squad to make some statement on this, even if it means a "no son go use the mod" know what I mean? I have laid out pictographically and word wise why I feel its a good idea for unused stock code to get turned on and globally reduce our mod usage by 1. op 19:56:30

@sarbian 1. The effect is hard coded into stock, @pizzaoverhead the fine fellow who brings us the mod clearly states on the mod page that his mod activates "Unused stock code" 2. Although I cannot find the post where it happens squelch himself states that the effect is defaulted off and is a stock extension of the launch smoke trail. So the majority of the work has been done by @SQUAD years ago and should be trivial to activate. op 19:33:30

@The_Rocketeer How long would it take @SQUAD or any dev to turn the ALREADY existing code from off to on? A few minutes? Faster than a coffee break. It absolutely ABSOLUTELY would reduce drag on a players resources to have it enabled and no longer a mod. Especially it would give players on baked potatos a chance to get a visual enhancement that the "its a mod, good enough" mentalities prohibits them from getting. This why I wish someone from the devs would say something. The silence is not helping us. Op 13:41:30

@The_Rocketeer Dude I hope you are not being serious and are yanking my chain. You are failing to grasp what I am saying so allow me to be blunt. Re-entry effects are hard coded by squad. We seem to agree on this. Where you are falling away from seeing my point is this: a mod that turns on something that squad really should turn on already. The mentality of "well a mod does it so whats the deal" is frankly a lazy argument. The fact players NEED a mod to turn on a bit of code that seemingly is being ignored by squad is gallingly sad. Further my rigs slightly better than a potato and even 1 fewer mod would help but my desire aside lets look at others with even more potato rigs who could/would love this effect but cant run a visual mod, would you condemn them to not having these effects because they cant run what should be turned on by squad? Op 12:58:30

I did a simple fast mission. Placed a new space station up in orbit in my new save. On launch, and yes, thats a 7.5m wide launcher: ----------------------------------------------------------------- On orbit, only to discover that with out crew I cant even turn its lights on lol, but at least I deployed the antenna while still hooked to the launcher: op 01:54:30

Dude really? 1. Squad hard coded this into the game ages ago. Defaulted off. 2. Because its default off it requires a mod to fix this issue. 3. I would like @SQUAD to turn this from default off to default on(menu toggle or not i do NOT care) so all of us who want this as stock (me included) can reduce the number of mods we need to fix or pretty up the game. 4. "On is on" means regardless if i need to flip a check box and forget said box is a thing or if its a non option hard coded default on, its officially turned on by squad and no longer a mod. Op 15:24:30

@The_Rocketeer While ive yet to see any of my 200+ part launchers spontaneously fly apart with BOTH smoke and plasma going, i HAVE had 200+ part vessels go buckshotting their way BACK down and suddenly give me between 10-30 plasma trails with no more lag than at any other point during mission between T-0 and RUD on entry.... Then again I run 1 visual mod and all it does is turn the plasma as coded by squad on. The rest of my mods are part or sound (chatterer on sound) related. (MJ, proc fairing, sy, sye, plan base, kis/kas, cacteye) and DPAI and KAC so thats fwiw. I just honestly hope @SQUAD will turn it on toggled or no, on is on to me. op 05:46:30