Kerbart

It seems incredible hard to think outside the box. Take a look at RemoteTech. If the game runs on a server, it means that things can execute without a player logged on. You can set up maneuvering nodes and have them executed automatically. Perhaps there's a microtransaction involved with it, perhaps not (it's an incredibly good example of a microtransaction you don't have to pay, but it just so much more conventient). A server-driven multi-play KSP would also not focus on the things you do on stand-alone play. Doom and Player Unknown Battlegrounds are both FPS (well, kinda) games, but with an entirely different in-game dynamic. But I can see your objection there. They are two different games, totally not comparable with each other. Fine. Microsoft Flight Simulator. Better example. Usually played alone, but you can also do it multiplayer. Totally different experience. And yes, people fly planes transpacific and transatlantic in real time. It's not played the same as single player in multiplayer. It's played, and this may come as a shock, with an emphasis on playing together with other enthusiasts. A server-driven KSP multiplay environment can be the same thing. It's not about launching whackjob-style spacecraft. It's about cooperating with others, perhaps even competing with others in a team. It also doesn't have to be a single-world server as in World of Warcraft. Maybe you start a new game every month or so, as in Travian. Maybe there's a challenge that launches every week. The winner of the challenge will get some in-game currency (let's call it "space bucks"). A Jool challenge might run in normal time Tuesday to Sunday and will run for 6 hours on 1000× speed (or whatever it takes) on Mondays, automatically executing maneuvering nodes. Don't be boring and think of stock KSP when you think of multiplayer. Think of ways to make it possible. Think of opportunities it offers to monetize the game without antagonizing the players. That's what I would do, if I were Squad.

But suppose such a fabric of imagination would exist, hypothetically speaking obviously, what about mods that were previously published before the EULA update, are updated for 1.4.x and the existence of such update would be published in that mythical place, would that count as "released?" (Asking for a friend)

Find a project you want to code. Maybe it’s orbital calculations. Organizing mods. Scraping the web for ksp information. Learning to code is easier if you have a goal to code towards to. It took me about 6 months to learn 1/5 of what I know about Pandas. And 2 weeks to learn the remaining 80% in a project where I had to process survey data.

Yeah, pretty sure it's Kerbal Alarm Clock. Since pretty much everyone uses KAC all the time, it may look like stock behavior. Playing without KAC (after an update, for instance) will remind you that the stock keystroke to kill timewarp is Ctrl + /, and that Ctrl + X is added by KAC.

I think that’s the one @artwhaley had in mind when he spoke about a mod that attacks AVC. I also think Art didn’t have me in mind when he said people disable AVC and then complain about their mods being incompatible. I only “fix” the version file after I’ve concluded it works (a good indicator: the console doesn’t get spammed with exceptions). I have a fairly limited number of mods, and over the years I’ve developed a method that works for me: Make a two folders in “documents” (yes, I run Windows, and I’m not ashamed of it) for the new version (in this case 1.4) — one “clean” for testing, one for “the modded” install Test that it works. It should, of course. But it’s a good practice to test even basic assumptions; it prevents a tremendous headache later if it doesn’t work. From here on I will omit “test it” after every step copy over the mods one by one from the previous version to the “clean” install, and then move them into the modded install. This way I can see if they work, and if they work with the other mods remove the ones that don’t work. Fix the version file for those that work and where AVC whines as updates come out, replace the working mods, and install the ones that didn’t work remove the “old”clean version — I like to keep the current one around for testing, and to torture myself playing full stock once in a while. Most mods are back within a week, and a good part works regardless (I use very little part mods, the majority is “make KSP work more in the way I like it to work” fashion).

Well, that, or I just posted with every update on every mod thread "when will you have updated it for version x.y.z?"

I just installed 250 mods through CKAN. Do you really think I want to click "ok" 250 times? Besides, it's been a week since 1.4 came out. By now I'm totally entitled to spam those lazy mod devs demanding that they update their mods. I've totally had it with their total disrespect for my time, forcing me to click all those ok buttons. I guess you're right Hi Art! Going well. Any new developments?

Continuous CTD's, Kerbals spontaneous exploding the second they set foot on the surface of the planet... oh yes, there were bugs.

That would be the modern Soyuz in its role as crew ferry/supply vehicle for large space stations. In the olden days it was a two person vehicle that wasn’t packed full of supplies.

Well you read "jr docking port" and stopped reading Did you notice that the lights on the vintage helmets are yellow? I liked that little detail!

It will be a feast for lawyers. We have no exact knowledge of what goes on inside a neural network.Of course Uber can claim innocence with "it's not us, we don't know how its brain works" but that means admitting it sends vehicles on the road of which it doesn't know how they work. Reality is of course a bit more complicated but that's what it comes down to, really, the various parties passing the hot potato around on who messed up. It'll be an interesting court case.

Given that the title of this thread starts with "Inflatable Airlock" it's probably not the Jr. port itself we're talking about. Just the fact that the business end of the airlock is an opening that fits onto a jr. docking port, thus forcing Kerbals who want to leave the airlock to leave their helmet behind. Which is fine when the airlock is connected to said docking port, but given it's historic context (as part of the Making History expansion pack) its use as an actual interface to the vacuum of space where no one can hear you scream (even without a helmet) is not something to be casually discarded at a first glance.

Call me old-fashioned, but I am not sure if an airlock is the kind of passage you want to pass through without a helmet.

My point was that a “fix career” is not as simple as it sounds. Perhaps better not to touch it than to fix it only halfway, and to turn it into something truly exciting and engaging. Right now, it’s main function seems to be (a)provide a challenge where the player can make progress and (b) introduce new players to not all parts at once. Perhaps we shouldn’t worry too much about it, given the sandbox character in the game. Missions are certainly a way to bypass Career, though they’re a bit too buggy right now to form a proper opinion about them. As for what oratory devices I apply in the future I will decide for myself, thank you very much, sir.

Not really @Gargamel, just a contraction of "Kerbal" and my real name (which I'd like to keep under wraps). I'll chalk it up to coincidence as I doubt my infamy has spilled over to Squad to put me in the game. But now I look forward to encountering a Kerbart in the game!

He's not asking for a lot. Just to fix career mode so the game has a story line comparable to Call of Duty or Half Life, and then redo all the parts and planets so it's Earth scaled, for... reasons. Might as well add live scenery to spice things up, maybe a few cities on Kerbin, GTA style. T2 has that laying around anyway. Really, how hard can it be?

I wonder if there's any transport device that makes things the size of rockets and jumbo jets look like the size of gnats. OH MY GOD OCEAN GOING SHIPS! WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT?! With the new locks it probably even fits through the Panama canal.

Basically they have a bottom node that you attach the next stage to. So now you can have a second or third stage with more than one engine without having to jump through hoops to make it work. They're also great for using an engine with a smaller diameter than the fuel tanks that are connected on both ends, e.g. a Reliant for the second stage, attached to a 1.875m tank above it, and with a 1.875m tank below it.

Interestingly this seemed a 1.4.0 bug; in 1.4.1 Chatter seems to work just fine.

In the past I've encountered mods where that doesn't work (I forgot which), but in general, yeah, that works, to get rid of the annoying message. I wish AVC had a "don't show this again" option with that dialog, even if it had a few are your sure" hoops to jump through to prevent accidental shut-off of the warning for a mod.

Hardware Configuration: Given that hardware pretty much dictates what software runs properly and what will lag, it's very reasonable for a software company that is collecting data, to collect this kind of data. Software Products Played: Similarly, as a vendor you'd like to know which of your products are popular and how much time your customers spend on playing it. Should you put many in game x or game y? A decision much easier to make when you have data on it Survey Data: This is shocking. Downright shocking. Survey data is collected instead of left alone? </sarcasm>. What, exactly, do you think the purpose of surveying customers is? Just annoying them? Purchases. Imagine that. How else is Squad, or Steam, supposed to keep track of who has the right to download their software, and the DLC? It's a bit hard to do that without tracking who buys what. First of all, collect does not mean "scraped from your computer." You're on this forum. Squad, and by extension T2, thus has "collected" your email address. Did you upload an avatar somewhere? Now they collected a "photo." Etc, etc. Most of this is data that is actually volunteered, or at least willingly entered by the user in order to have access to the product offered. Not surprisingly that T2 has a "get out of jail card" in their EULA for storing data about customers that allows them to run a business in the first place. Seriously, do you expect: Log on to the webstore and check "I declare honestly that I paid for the product" because Squad has no other way of knowing if you paid for KSP or not? Have me contact Squad, tell them "Hey, can you reset the password of Tutanchamun? That's me. I forgot it. KByeThx" as they cannot send you a reset link by email? Because they're not storing your email? Cheerfully accept your credit card payment without checking for the right address? Because, well, we can't do that. Just the number is fine. Fraud doesn't exist after all. Most of the data collected is needed so blindingly obvious that you might ask why it's included in the EULA? Well, because there's always someone who will question why you need to supply a credit card number if you want to buy something online. "I don't like it that you ask me for that. I will send a check!" Where I draw the line? When Squad/T2 starts collecting data that is not related to me playing KSP (in case of whatever KSP collects): Harvesting emails from my contacts Scanning what other software I have installed on my computer Disabling firewall/security software to bypass any measure I would have taken to not give them access if I don't want to Prevent other software from running on my computer Mining Bitcoins You get the idea (I hope)

Lots of empty space around it?

"Work.' Suuuuure... There was absolutely no "I will let you play KSP a week without KAC to let you feel how much you utterly need it" element? All kidding aside, this is by far one of the most important mods for me (and most of us). Thank you for all your work on KSP and KAC!

There are four huge issues regarding multiplay that I don’t see solved anytime soon: Grievers Time acceleration (don’t say “it’s easy to solve,” it’s not. No one has shown a MP implementation with a generally accepted mitigation of the Time Acceleration challenges) Squad’s tendency to write sloppy code (and parts, sadly) Squads inadequate testing procedures that doesn’t seem to catch bugs that require more than two minutes of gameplay to notice Given how critical bugs are in multiplayer (“Shrug-F9”) is not an option) the last two points suggest that this is not a feature you want to see published anytime soon.

When 1.0 came out (an incredibly bad decision as the .9 beta was the one and only beta release, there were obviously external factors in play) there was a vaguely similar situation. A radically revised aeromodel that wreaked havoc among the community’s ability to play the game. But also: the game was updated on a nearly daily basis. I’m not complaining about what the DLC offers; I think it’s the right price for what’s (on paper) offered. What is disappointing is the bugfest, especially given the amount of time between 1.3 and 1.4. “But Kerbart, we also had to test and release the Console re-release!” Well, that one is on you, Squad. No one said that Flying Tiger was a good idea and that adventure ended exactly as predicted. Meanwhile, there’s no reason this release needed to feel as rushed as it felt. Bugs on edge cases are ok. Bugs on regular play... What the # was done in all those months of bug fixing?