AlamoVampire

not really, because people STILL insist that it is cheating, or that they would rather babysit their rockets during long tedious burns or perform the same launch, same rendezvous and same docking a thousand plus times. I will never understand it. I use mechjeb because automation shall set me free!

so, if i am reading this right, you WANT the game to hold your hand and tell you that you cannot fire a rocket motor whilst stowed? So, if my reading is correct, that means, you: have never, do not now, or ever WILL do missions that replicate Apollo <engine fairing on a certain stage was cut loose AFTER the stage was ignited> or that replicate Soyuz rockets? OR that you are fine with the game making it so that should some emergency come up either via a glitch in game or a miss placed staging sequence that keeps you from being able to engage a rocket motor to salvage the situation? as to number 2, I will now, as I have always done and always shall provide examples or continue to uphold those examples which came before me. Somethings DO require repeating constantly.

this pointless mechanic makes things like ACCURATE soyuz replicas 100% impossible. Why? Well, its a thing called hot staging. The 3rd stage engine is lit shortly after the boosters are dropped away, but while stage 2 is STILL burning. Now, this is impossible in this game because the game wants to hold your hand and say that it is too dangerous to do. Its worked for russia for oh, i dunno, the majority if not ALL of its career launching stuff. Good enough for them and for the american souls who hitch rides on it? good enough for us. Look, we do not want or need this mechanic, someone please take it away.

ive once heard someone say about rendezvous and docking in space: it is like trying to hit a bullet with a bullet. its not easy at all. it takes practice and patience. also everything above my post is very true.

Cantab provides yet another reason to not have this "feature" as all it does is impose a crushing restriction that we do not need.

Tourist, I really did ask why one mid becomes stock and another doesnt. What happened is it got derailed by a single example of something that works wonderfully well vs something that does not. Please do not assume you have any idea of my intent on my OP as you do not. Mechjeb should be stock. Soo useful

@Pthigrivi it may not just be an aesthetic issue. im not a programmer but, i have this sneaking suspicion that each individual bit that will eventually come off when staged may count as a part. beyond that, the squad version of procedural fairings is: 1. not intuitive 2. not reproducible each and every time you need to remove the fairing to adjust payload 3. ugly as sin. 4. not remotely realistic. 4a. yes, i know this is a game about shooting little green dudes and green dudets into space, but, given the fact we have parts based on real current tech, or up coming tech, there is something to be said for real looking fairings. 4b. i know, its my own opinion on 4, 4a and 4b, so theres that. but, why the need to turn to confetti?

Career mode isn't doing it for me either. Just not engaging enough.

Letting Dres be mentioned?!?!? CHEATER!!

@5thHorseman ya, hard to hear the words being spoken when they are text lol. but, i know what you mean. i hate the "stock" fairings as to me, they are clunky. @stibbons that is mods becoming stock. the stuff made by porkjet that are now stock, were once mods. im sure the same with roverdude.

@5thHorseman the worst implementation of a squad version of a wonderful mod has got to be the fairings. the mod is beautiful, works well, is very intuitive, yet, what was made by squad isnt. but, thats my 2cents

Ok, first, let me say, I have 0 clue if this has even been brought up, so, if it HAS, any wandering moderator who spots this, feel free to merge this. With that said, I have been wondering, and finally decided to ask. Why does one mod become stock and another not? Take for example, the work of Porkjet. Some of his stuff is now stock, which is nice, fewer mods for me to worry about, but some other mods, say, Procedural Fairings by edog <or so it says on kerbalstuff.com> is not, and we have a "procedural fairing" that, lets be fair here, isnt all that intuitive and creates some nasty confetti when used. Now, this is just my 2 cents here, I think Proc Fairings by edog should have been made stock instead of what happened, but, again, thats me. But, still, it begs the asking, why are some mods being made stock, yet others seem to get ignored? I know, it is what it is, but, its still a valid question I think. Just my random wonderings at nearly 1am lol.

you are not the only one who fails to see how this would work. I fail to see how they would cope with mods, timewarp, part counts, high end vs low end rigs, loading, quick loading, various settings of like crew death being permanent or any other number of issues. I think its a mistake to push into multiplayer, i think its going to do nothing but harm, but, thats me. @razark

I get that with the M50 as well. so for me, I just dont use it. Besides the ksp version of the SSME engine is more than potent enough to handle the load. @smjjames @Tiberion get well soon.

I am not sure what Maxis was thinking. But, the one that scares me is whats happening with PGI and Mechwarrior online. But as far as KSP goes, I still do not see how they can make multiplayer work w/out hurting this fun game. IF they can do so, and do so right, more power to them, but, you can still count me out. I think this is a title better suited to single player, but thats me. @jm764

Like I said earlier, to each his or her own. To be honest, if this "multiplayer" nonsense comes to fruition, and yes, for KSP I think its nonsense, as I really do not see how it makes the game any better. I still see too many hurdles for this to be worth while, but, in any case, so long as, I am not FORCED to touch it, I really could not care less, but, force me onto it, and well, its a BIG problem. I refuse to use it, touch it or find it valid. Thats my opinion. I disavow multiplayer for this game. Am I bullheaded? probably, but, KSP + Multiplayer = good? Not in this kerbonauts book. Its a 1 player game for me, always has, always will be. So, as the old folks say: you kids and your rock pops and your hip raps can get off my yard! <old man cough> seriously tho, as long as its 100% optional and I am not forced to be with in a light year of it, have fun.

@jm764 You are welcome to your opinion, but, I feel that multiplayer will be a huge disaster. Why? Let me list why: 1. Computer setups. I've said this before, but require myself to say it again. Not everyone has a PC that can handle huge part counts, huge means north of 300. Add in 2, 3, 4 or more players and part counts skyrocket. 2. Mods. Some people run a few mods while others run tons. You make something using BD and I don't. We go to a station to fuel up. Do I see you? Do you see me and my Novapunch ship because you don't use novapunch? How does that work? Do we crash? 3. Time warp. I want to go to Eeloo and need to warp to its window but at the same moment you wish to go to Moho. Do I mess you up warping to an Eeloo window? Do you mess me up warping to a Moho window? 4. Launch pad. Expanding on point 3, can you use the SAME launch pad when I am using it and waing to an Eeloo launch window? 5. Saves. How will that work? Will I be forced to save your stuff on my rig and mine on yours? 5a. Editing saves? How will that not break other players? 6. Quick loading/Reverting. How does this affect you when I do either? What about it on me? What about a SINGLE person with it turned off? Does it disable mine? 7. Crew death? Need I say more? KSP is not suited to be a multiplayer type game, it just isn't. KSP is a perfect platform for 1 player in any given save file. Do not get me wrong, I like multiplayer games where. It makes sense to have that feature. It makes as much sense to have a multiplayer in a game like this as it does making green lights make you stop and red let you go. No, much like the ORIGINAL resources KSP was supposed to have multiplayer needs to be scrapped until every single problem and contingency has a 100% workable solution, and sadly that's never gonna happen.

Like i said here, not only is the above a real problem, but as DrMarlboro stated what value does multiplayer have? How can it be done where part counts wont melt all computers involved or cause glacier halting lag? What about mods and conflicts? You have say a russian style parts pact, i have novapunch, how will that not break one another? Seems the only people who will get any benefit is the small group who do combat....

I have said this before, will say it again. Multiplayer is a bad bad idea. Timewarp is one issue, part counts are another. Not everyone is on high end rigs to make darpa jealous, and some rigs have issues with high parts. Mods are another issue.

This inane and frankly appalling mechanic is preventing many designs from being done. Most notably Soyuz and Apollo styles are forbidden by this mechanic if you want accurate and not "worked around" stuff.

@sal_vager Unless I am gravely mistaken, fairing or mesh, that engine on the 3rd stage is STOWED. Which is, again, what the OP is railing against. "can't activate engine while STOWED" which makes what ever contains said engine 100% irrelevant as the condition of the engine is STOWED. Its a stupid restriction that we do not need in my very blunt opinion.

@NathanKell Wouldnt KSP still call that stowed mesh or not? If so, id say its still a valid point. edit: also the op's complaint is about a stowed engine being unable to fire, which to me IMHO that further validates the Soyuz comparison, as the engine to be fired is stowed. Mesh or fairing matters not I think, as stowed is stowed. side thought, look at any Boeing 737 aircraft and its main gear (not the nose gear) in its flight config, you see the wheels, yet they are stowed. Just a though there.

@sal_vager I am sorry Sal. I agree you are not the one to convince but dismissing a valid point as a rant is wrong twice over. It is valid. We use NASA approved parts from the ARM mission and NASA style drop then ignite staging, but that does not mean Soyuz/Russian hot staging is instantly invalid. Many mods model Soyuz parts. Novapunch for example. Dismissing a real world example out of hand is wrong. If anything Sal its proof positive that the mechanic in question needs to be fixed. If thats not enough then the mods that use Russian designs certainly does.

Want a valid reason to not have this mechanic? Soyuz. It hot stages, as in stage 1 is nearly spent, then the next stage ignites WHILE STILL STOWED IN THE FIRST STAGE. If firing a rocket motor off while its inside a non detached segment is good enough for ROSCOSMOS and American astronauts being lifted by it, then it SHOULD be good enough here.

<dusts the dust off the account> Alright folks, I have said this a few times over the years, and I will say it again: If you want to hand do every single bit of minute fussing around while redoing the SAME THING time and time again, more power to you. If autopilot is good enough for NASA for just about every single aspect of every single mission flown since we started flinging monkeys into space, then, believe me when I say, that, there is absolutely nothing wrong with letting mechjeb handle the long burns, the repeated launches of the same rocket launching payload after payload at a station. What it boils down to is this: WHO BLOODY CARES?!? Who bloody cares if one person relies on mechjeb to grab greater enjoyment out of the game? Do you drive a car that has cruise control and do you make regular use of it? if so, YOU ARE CHEATING! You should always use your foot to control the speed of your car every single inch down the road...oh wait, its put there into the vehicle so you dont have to. that bloody simple.