Kerbart

Kerbal Engineer Redux gives you the readouts you'll need without being an autopilot. It might be the compromise you are looking for.

I can't help but smile at the irony of that.

“There's a mod for that” has never been a strong argument (if practically everyone is running certain “essential” mods, shouldn't it be part of the game then?) but the minute Squad released console versions that argument went out of the window. Unless the console versions are significantly cheaper, console players should have a similar experience as PC/Mac users and not be left hanging with “use a mod” for essential mechanics. If you're selling a product on a global market it's no longer the author but the public who gets the say in wether the product is finished or not. Surely KSP has evolved in something that went beyond what Felipe set out for, but it's also selling at high price point (especially for Indy software). With that, expectations come, and those aren't met yet. For the game to be finished I would expect to see: The game is complete The most glaring and annoying bugs have been fixed For the game to be complete my expectations are: Most “essential” mods to be bundled or included in the game. Module manager, chatterer, mechjeb (I'm more a KER dude but I can live with the MJ readouts), and visual improvements come to mind I don't think we need full blown KAS and IR implementations but something that allows large craft to be sent up in pieces and not being sent up as a grotesque challenge to real world aerodynamics. Dmod's EVA struts are a start (see: include essential mods) The Gallileo planet pack painfully unveils that there's a lot left to be done in the KSP universe. A game that is about space exploration doesn't have a ringed planet? We get a bazillion space plane parts each release and yet all runways are confined to a 10km circle on the planet? Career mode. 'Nuff said. I doubt we will ever see any of that. But from a player perspective, despite how Squad feels about it, the game is far from “finished.”

I surely hope not! Mod authors wanting to grab attention with "their" buttons by giving them bright colors is bad enough, I can only imagine it will get worse when we have something blinking there. The buttons are a necessary evil, but I'd rather have them unobtrusively at the edge than some blinking police-cruiser flash light style attention-grabber. I'm sure you have the best intentions and are looking for a subtle rotating planets icon, but sadly once the flood gates are open other, less civilized restrained authors would jump on the opportunity. So I'm happy with the way it is.

According to the article, "The valuation is based on an independent review of our revenue projections, based on previous results, and results in a value per share of about €0.74, which is well above the current share price at the Frankfurt Stock Exchange." If I'm to interpret that correctly: the auditor was to give a value of the company based on the company's revenue projections. So whatever the revenue projections were, that is what was used to determine the "value" of the company. I'm sure that somewhere in the audit report it is mentioned that the revenue projections might not be realistic but that's not what was audited. Squad can claim to sell 3 billion copies of KSP next year and then get an "official, independent" valuation of their company (likely to be somewhere north of a billion dollars). That valuation is worth as much how correct the expectation of selling 3 billion copies is, but that is something they'll not mention of course, but if you check the report it'll be in there. As far as I can tell, their war chest is still only the $25M raised initially, the current "value" of the company doesn't change that. But if, even if, this somehow means that MO now magically has $380M... How are you going to fund a Mars colony with that? It's hardly enough for a first launch, let alone those non stop supply missions that are needed until the last of their volunteers has died that horrible death (which, according to an MIT review, would be within 60 days if I recall that number correctly. So perhaps resupply missions are not really that urgent) For a long time I chalked it up to stupidity and overoptimistic enthusiasm, but the longer this farce is going on, the more I get the feeling it's a scam. Numbers just don't add up at all and seem to diverge from reality more and more (instead of converging).

The problem regarding "low effort mod packs" lies mainly with mod creators, for reasons. A Venn diagram showing "problems mod creators have with Mod Packs and with CKAN would look more like this: O than like this: OO

One can only hope that Squad doesn't get encouraged by the entitled bunch that is outraged over the fact that Squad programmers have the audacity to want a roof over their head and some food everyday. Sure, eons ago Squad promised to never charge for DLC. That was stupid and shortsighted; I've felt that way about it since the second they made the announcement. Unless you sell the game as a subscription but I doubt anyone would like to pay, say, “only $5/mo” or maybe even “just $.10 for every hour played” because we all know how good the game is. That would simply cost a lot more. But haven't we all made mistakes and backtracked from ill-advised promises made in the past? Software development is expensive. It needs to be paid somehow and even if current sales still support ongoing development, that is going to stop somewhere in the future. I got tremendous value from Squad by buying KSP many, many years ago, and I'll happily pay for DLC to see continued development.

That's a good point. Especially if it comes with a “bug fix: Kerbal falling from great heights will no longer incorrectly bounce, but rather disintegrate on impact” The correct way would be “Kerbals can safely disembark from any height, but expansion pack #1 will actually add a parachute animation”

Paid DLC! I think everyone agrees that we're much better off with Squad just closing up shop and stop working on bug fixes right now, then go down that evil bourgeous path of continuity and earn money for their efforts. Shame! Shame! /S

Why on earth would you link to that if there is a much better alternative? https://kerbal.curseforge.com/projects/asteroid-day It's funny how people keep complaining about all the evils of Curse when there's a perfect ad-less/wait-less/nag-less alternative available.

I just looked at your March 7th recording (I seem to miss your live streams). Amazing progress! You're doing a good job talking, and I like that you've fixed the light. Looking forward to more!

Your voice isn't too bad, no worries there. But yes, you'll need to get comfortable talking in front of just a monitor. It's incredibly hard, and I don't know if I could do it. You go on and off, sometimes you do a good job in chatting up the empty void, but then it falls silent. Looking at your Rescue Mission from Munar South Pole (https://www.twitch.tv/videos/126930349) I'll take a little clip for some pointers (starting at 17:30) Instead of saying "let's turn those all the way up", say "Let's turn the engines all the way up again" and then set them to max values. Same when closing the cargo bay and activating the airbrakes. Why? (don't answer me here. I mean in your stream!) Explain what the fiddling with the autopilot does When you start rolling yell something like "Awwww man! Doesn't that look awesome!" "Well we passed the seam in the runway without problems. That's good" For the remainder of the runway, pray/yell "rotate! rotate!" After a failed take-off, don't just reverse to the SPH. Crash first! Your audience loves crashes (because who doesn't). Then revert back to the SPH When you're back in the SPH you're doing much better. But when you're placing the canards, just express your thoughts out loud. "Over here? Nah, too far backwards. Let's see if I add them directly to the front" My takeaways: Consider having an extra light pointed at your face (oh yes!) Don't point it directly at your face, that's just painful, but instead shoot for the wall behind the monitor and have your face lit up indirectly. Less shadows and friendlier for your eyeballs. Explain more what you are going to do, instead of what you are doing. This has the advantage that you automatically end up explaining why, which can fill in the silence when you're actually doing something. When launching a space plane you can explain that you want to build up speed in the lower atmosphere where the oxygen is available for free, so you're not climbing yet. have the resources panel open so your viewers can see how much fuel, EC and monoprop you have (and glee over upcoming disasters) Good luck!

Nothing is more fun than being a Monday morning coach! Without having seen your stream, I've seen a lot of other ones and here's some general advice I can give about it: Twitch is a brutal environment. If you're not good, you will not have viewers. If you're good, you will still not have viewers... at first. So don't give up; it takes time to build an audience. At the same time, be honest with yourself... and critical. Because if there's anything bad about your stream you might think it's acceptable, your viewers likely won't and will simply switch channels. Add value to your stream. Maybe it's humor. Maybe it's educational. Maybe it's something thematic. But there should be a reason (other than "it's 5 AM and no one else is on") that people will return to your stream Talk, talk, talk. “Well, of course streamer X talks all the time, he 1200 viewers and his chat panel is busy all the time.” Maybe, but the reason she has 1200 viewers in the first place was because there was an engaging stream. Talk about what you're doing. Talk about why you're doing it. Talk about what happens next. Talk about why it fails. But talk. No one will watch a stream where you just watch in silence as someone is playing KSP. I can do that watching myself play KSP! Maybe buddy up with someone, so you stream together (in one room). The second person can ask questions, have a conversation with you. “Cross feed boosters, Leafbarron? I prefer SRB's myself. What makes you choose that?” “Well, Kerbart, one of the advantages of liquid fuel boosters is...” etc, etc. There's a reason most early morning radio shows have two hosts! You have to have a pleasant voice. This one sucks, because if you don't, there's very little that can be done about it. People will just not listen if they don't like your voice. People with deep, booming Barry White voices tend to do better in this segment than youngsters whose voice hasn't settled yet, so to say. Not that pitch is the primary qualifier, but just to give you an idea of what I mean with "pleasant voice." However, if you do have a pleasant voice... use it well. Speak s-l-o-w-l-y, it makes it easier to understand what you're saying. Don't mumble; project your voice. Don't use filler words like ehm and ah, pause instead if you can't think of the word you're looking for (this is incredibly hard but it gets easy over time. Join Toastmasters International to improve your speaking skills). A decent microphone (you don't have to spend hundreds of dollars) or at least an environment where your voice sounds "dry" and not muffled, popping, hissing, echoing and weak. As I tell my colleagues: the key to professional looking video... is audio.

For a final rule, absolutely. For the discussion now, “I know one when I see one” would be sufficient, no? For me, the litmus test would be: If all of the mods included would actually have to be downloaded separately, would the modpack still offer extra value over a post saying "just download and install mods X, Y and Z?” Extra value be defined as {blah blah blah}. I'm not sure about how to define extra value, but that would be a good test for a “valid” mod pack. Of course a test doesn’t make a definition, but it’s a start.

Licensing still has the problem that you can't enforce it (excluding calling in the black helicopters* at night). Unless of course, and then you're getting the same with forum rules, it's used as a stick to hit people with. “Your post has been removed because it breaks a license agreement” or “Your post has been removed because it breaks a forum rule” might semantically different, they both result in the same (desired) action. My personal preference here would be a forum role and a sticky page that a moderator can link to. “Please read this page as to why mod packs are not as good as an idea as you think they are.” I sincerely believe that education is key here. Most of the mod pack** “authors” probably think that their "work" is harmless and adds to the popularity of the mods involved. If anything, they're doing the mod authors a favor! How can anyone, anyone, oppose to that? That their actions, unless rigorous testing is involved, can possibly result in frustrated users, frustrated, and yes quitting mod authors is not something they'd even imagine. So the MODPAGE FAQ outline should probably look a bit like this: Why mod authors usually do not favor mod packs Mod packs should add value What to do before releasing a mod pack (testing) How your mod pack should look like (only MM configs and/or custom DLL's included; instructions on what additional mods to download (and perhaps where to find them). "But if I don't include the other mods there's no reason to use this mod pack" is a good indicator that your mod pack does not pass the guideline of "adding value" But the shorter the better; a wall of text is not going to educate; it's going to be skipped. * I always wonder why they have to be black if they're coming in at night. It's not that anyone can see them in the first place because of, well, the lack of light! ** I assume we all know what kind of mod pack it is that we're talking about here; not the ones that add value and where the author adds a significant amount of work.

It supports sinusoidal ("often shown interrupted") projections, so that would cover that.

Aside from the ethical people if encouraging others to reap the pride & fame from another mod author's work, the main issue is that it's the mod mod author who ends up with complaints of "why is this not working," "fix your software plz," "fix it, plz," and "fix it" This happens with ckan, this happens with mod packs, it's not that the author can't handle the "fame," it's thT it's the kind of fame any mod author cN do without. Factor in: the more automated a system is, the less tech savvy users tend to be (a high installation difficulty weeds out those with zero experience) less tech savvy users tend to be a bit more rude and unknowledgeable in their interaction with the mod author ("I've asked about it since last Friday night and it's still not fixed. Why don't you get off your lazy ### and do something about it?!") the same users are not aware that problems occur from "their" choice (often the mod-pack "author") to bundle two mods, sometimes against explicit warnings not to do so, and harras the mod author over something he/she has no control over or explicitly mentioned not to do in the documentation. This will eventually come to a point where the mod author yells "enough!" and throws down his keyboard in disgust, and stops working on the mod or mods altogether. Which hurts everyone. none of this is made up, it has happened before, and will happen again. And that's why modpacks, or mandatory ckan entries are not the best idea. Because it hurts the modding landscape to favor a few users who cannot be bothered do do even a fraction of the work the modders did for them.

Hello @Nils277, no rush needed to fix the fiters right now, I'm happy to know it will get done eventually. The “real bugs” need priority and there's no reason to let everyone wait on those just to cater to my OCD. I only now noticed that there's no need to fold the wheels as they already fit aw Mk-3! Thanks again for the great mod, it's already put to use.

Suppose I want to see the parts ONLY in the "rovers" category and not in the other (nodes, utilities, etc) ones. What config sessions are required? The names of the configuration options are a bit confusing for me.

You're right about that. There isn't one; there are many. But I'll refrain from derailing this thread.

Amazing work, Nils. Amazing! I love it that there's actually beds in the crew compartment. Finally some rest during those two week sorties! Some quick feedback on little bugs I found: The readme mentions "kbps_settings.cfg" but the mod seems to use a "FelineUtilityRover.cfg" file. Perhaps a carry-over from your planetary base mod? In crew overlay mode the windows of the crew compartment, when looking "inside out" don't show the outside world but rather parts of the rover. Little stuff that's no big deal though! Are you considering foldable wheels like Roverdude's Malemute rover has?

Except that there's not a year 0. Technically each century therefore goes from year 1 to "year 100", and the 20th century ran from 1901 to the end of 2000. That most people think it ran from 1900 to the end of 1999 doesn't make that reality.

I clip inside the most gargantuan rockets without any problem. Last week I built a communciations satellite with a RTG clipped inside a girder segment (the horror!) and the whole thing glitched itself into this wildly bouncing ball of parts sticking in random directions. It was pretty freaky. It didn't come apart, but I now had a good reason for a mission to replace the glitched one (which I terminated, retrieving it with the claw seemed asking for trouble)

LARGE EXPLOSION AT ZALTONICS LABS; ENGINEER BLOWN INTO ORBIT Early in the morning of March 13th, the secretive complexes of Zaltonics Labs were rocked by a large explosion. Government officials and Zaltonic security personell immediately sealed off the area. A Zaltonics employee, who because of our promise of anonimity will only be referred to by his first name, gave us some insight in what happened: DONFRIT K.: “We were working on a quantum flux capacitor for our new anti-matter power source. Our chief engineer, Scotty Kerman, warned the site manager, James T. Kerman, that we were going to overload the core. I recall him yelling “She's gonna blow, cap’n!” but before we knew it there was a large explosion. When the smoke disappeared we noticed a Mk-II Lander Can sized hole in the roof. THEN we noticed the Mk-II Lander Can test capsule was missing. And poor Flirbarth, our junior engineer, was inside it, soldering some loose wires.” Kerbal Observatories observed that indeed a new object was spotted in low Kerbin orbit. “We are not confirming that, just because the size, mass and shape of the object match that of a Mk-II Lander Can, that it IS a Mk-II Lander Can. In fact, at this point we’re not confirming ANYTHING. We also deny that there is a flying saucer wreck found on the North Pole. No sir!” was all we got from them before the hung up. Zaltonics Labs refused to answer any inquiries. “There has been no explosion or incident. Whatever happened this morning has nothing to do with the rescue mission which is being scrambled together right now on the Kerbal Space Center. There is no such thing. In fact, we don’t know why they are doing that.”

With a lot of hard work