Tharios

It is a reasonable and obvious application. But in reality, it probably wouldn't actually work that way. The A/W Drive directly affects the curvature and distribution of space in a local area. It's not simply about adjusting the effective mass of the vessel. Neutralizing the mass of the vessel as you suggest would require even more tight localization of the effect, meaning there would likely be catastrophic effects if even a microparticle were to cross that threshold. And it wouldn't really neutralize the mass of the vessel anyway, it would merely counteract the distorting effect any matter has on the curvature of space. A more practical adaptation might be to say that the same exotic matter might be utilized by a different type of device targeting the Higgs Field instead, directly impacting the vessel's effective mass. Regardless, the primary reason for restricting the scope of that effect, rather than just letting the device completely neutralize it, is power. Odds are, such a device might work, but require as much or more power than the A/W Drive itself. Neutralization would require more than just the power to directly offset the vessel's mass. Like turning west instead of east when launching, you'd have to double up to actually fully cancel it out. No, I have no scientific basis for that, because obviously no one can study it yet. Call me a visionary...it makes sense when put in with the rest of the workings of the universe. I could be hopelessly wrong though...c'est la vie. So, 1/2 mass-capable drives of that type would take as much power as an A/W drive for a vessel of similar original mass capable of effectively hitting exactly lightspeed. Perfectly reasonable limitation on their capabilities, and prevents game-breaking. The only other option would be to write the device off entirely and never include it. Then again, I highly doubt by now that Fractal's even really thinking about it, anyway. You're correct...but if the mass of the vessel were somehow effectively neutralized, it would carry zero (or nearly so) inertia. A single RCS thruster would be like having a dozen upgraded DT Vistas, because it's pushing on essentially nothing. And the crew would feel almost no acceleration, even if the ship went from "zero" to near lightspeed within a fraction of a second. The various equations that factor in mass would still have measurable values in the end, but they'd drop radically low when M becomes zero, or at least negligible.

Yeah, yeah it will. The only way around that would be to have all modders establish a "naming and format convention" and adhere to it so that their work doesn't conflict with one another. And I'm not even sure that would work. But mods that don't affect the tech tree at all, will still be fine.

I think that might actually render the Alcubierre Drive (I think since White has refined the calculations so well, he should get some credit too...Alcubierre/White Drive, from now on...A/W Drive, for short) obsolete within the confines of a star system. It also might be somewhat OP since the A/W Drive takes momentum out of context, requiring you to expend lots of Delta V to correct it at the destination, or to jump all over to mitigate it. An effectively inertialess drive would mean you could go anywhere almost instantly and never have to expend much Delta V getting there, or stopping, even with a massive ship and an ion thruster. Even a 3/4 mass ship would be pushing it. 1/2 would cross the line a bit, and 1/4 would be broken. Totally weightless is just...too much. I think it would be best saved anyway until new star systems show up. Then maybe a 3/4 or 1/2 mass generator might be acceptable for in-system transit...using the A/W Drive mostly for going from system to system. How's that sound to everyone?

True...apologies. Not really a big deal to me, but sometimes I have a hard time dropping something.

I'm going to assume you meant an infinite number can do it, and a finite number cannot. Even a truly infinite quantity though is irrelevant. Sure, they'll do it really quickly, but there's a maximum point where it doesn't matter how much more you put into it, it can't get done any faster. Just as even if you did have truly infinite energy available, you couldn't ever exceed the speed of light directly. I'll even leave out the whole fact that it only works at all if human intellects were truly diverse and capable of infinite conception. That said...throwing everything we have at a problem is still even my preferred way of getting things done. It's what effectively eradicated small pox, put men on the moon, brought forth the nuclear age, etc. When we put our collective will as a civilization to a problem, it doesn't stand a chance, because the human brain is currently the ultimate weapon of mass destruction. And it's awesome.

No, actually one can't. With effectively unlimited resources and manpower, we could've gone farther than the moon in the same time it took us to get to the moon, sure. Probably to Mars, maybe even Jupiter, though I doubt it...and the process probably wouldn't have occurred any more quickly. Since money and manpower only speed the process of development, not the actual creative invention. Money doesn't make ideas, and since only a tiny smidgeon of people are really visionary, adding more people only makes the process of refinement go faster. It doesn't actually make the ideas come any quicker. Diminishing returns, remember? Too many cooks spoil the pot. Certainly, more is better, to a point...but only to a point. And yes, it is somewhat that way in the game, but it's much too extreme, even for KSP. It's not just amusingly silly, it's ridiculously nuts. And while it won't ever be fixed, it should be. That's all. I'm not implying it should be a perfect simulation, but that strikes me as a rather glaring flaw. An economic Kraken, if you will. On another note...we should've colonized the entire system by now...but the Dark Ages cost us about a thousand years of development. Closer to two thousand, when you consider that it didn't just forestall the growth of knowledge for several centuries, but actually sent it backward several centuries, first.

I'm not implying anyone should be penalized, but frankly, even I managed to get to the Mun in my first go, and I'm not really all that good at the game (I think). A number of corporate management types are quite apt at gaming the system to become ludicrously rich. Does that mean we pat them on the back and say "good on you"? No, it means we fix it so they can't do that anymore. Yes yes..."it's just a game." That's no excuse to leave something silly, just because "it's not that important". Doing things the right way is always important. But, maybe that's just me. It's not because they're good players (though many probably are), it's because the modeling of physics in the game only loosely mimics reality. So it's possible to do things that really don't make sense...like spinning wing-planes that can make orbit with a little RCS thrown in. Being able to exploit a flaw in a game to irrationally extreme benefit isn't to be lauded as anything but an opportunity to fix said flaw. It's not about fairness, it's about quality. Yeah...some of that's just the quirky flavor of KSP and it should probably remain in a limited way. But there's got to be a line where enough's enough. Either make it even harder to hit Duna with starting stock parts, or make it impossible because it's absurd. I'd say offer more realistic modeling of physics, but the game is too far for that, and I don't think their chosen engine would support it anyway. We'll see if and when they implement a funding system, and what effect it has. Though, all that said, odds are the only reason anyone made it is because of things like MechJeb, which I suppose doesn't really count, anyway.

I imagine the amount of science it produces is relative to its placement up the tech tree. Without knowing which node it's found in, there's no way to make a determination about how much science it should give for its use. I don't think the treeloader yet allows for the addition of new nodes, but it should soon. That will definitely be a bonus. That was always a problem with modding tech trees in Galactic Civilizations II. You could turn any tech into any other tech, functionally, but you couldn't change their IDs, nor could you make new ones because the game wouldn't recognize them. It sucked...game had so much potential... Edit: Also, I think 2k to 6k for the most advanced parts isn't unreasonable, considering the Science value of some missions, but that said, having seen what some people can do with the most basic parts from the beginning, something needs to be done to balance out that abuse. The initial half-a-dozen parts in the stock game absolutely should not even get a stable orbit, let alone to Minmus...or apparently even Duna in some cases. That's just not kosher. But since their effectiveness is hard to limit without ruining the parts, it's the science that will have to be adjusted somehow, I think.

Reasonable in the cases of some of the parts...and reasonable enough overall to justify not bothering to upgrade anything at that point. But then the problem becomes that there aren't enough nodes currently to cover all the stock and all the KSP:I tech proper relative placement in the tree. The only solution I can see to that would be to rebuild the tree from the top down, setting all the parts in order from most advanced to least, and then working from the end to the beginning, packing all the most basic stock techs into the first 3 or 4 nodes and letting the advanced stock parts get a few tiers farther as stock and Interstellar blend together.

I could be wrong...but I think that's the way it's going to work...with upgrades of earlier techs occurring in the same nodes as the base techs of more advanced parts? So a base nuke reactor of all sizes will be available maybe a 1/4 or 1/3 the way up the tree, along with generators and radiators, and all the other techs would come after, with the upgrades of those prior techs also. Probably Radiators, Reactors, Generators, in that order, i'd think. That would leave the most advanced techs with no upgrade option in the tree itself, but you would never start with something advanced like the warp drive. You'd still have to research the warp drive at the end, and then also spend science to upgrade it, and probably all the AM tech too. At least, that's what I got out of it. Edit: Fractal...I do have to say that I think I've gotta jump on board with those who say Labs should be additional drop-off points for full-gain science. It still creates "choke points" in research, but spreads them out a bit and maintains the mod's need for keeping up stations and bases system-wide, apart from AM and power generation.

Ah...there...nail, head. Career mode isn't about getting everything all at once. It's about that arduous, perilous climb to the stars. Sandbox mode is for getting everything all at once. So how about this, Fractal. Since Career mode is separate now, how about an aspect of the mod that turns off all research and makes all parts fully upgraded from the beginning, for Sandbox mode? Since the two are separate, those who want the challenge go Career, and those who just want to build and fly spiffy ships right off the bat have Sandbox. I don't know how well that will work from a technical standpoint, but it seems like a good option for a future update at some point.

I honestly don't know. It probably is beyond any mod right now, but if I had the knowledge and skill, I think one of the things I might try first is attaching a resource to individual Kerbals that can't be replenished. I don't think it'd be possible to vary the amount or rate of decline, but I do think it'd be possible to give them a "shelf-life".

Let them do it. It's a stupid thing to do, and their "boredom" as a result is their own fault. Once again...everyone time-warps anyway to get from planet to planet. No one at all just goes at the normal speed to get to Jool, or Moho, or even Eve or Duna. The research issue will be resolved since it won't be a continuous thing from now on, but the antimatter collection, kethane mining, etc...that will still be subject to it, and nothing can be done about it. Because in your "kerbal salary" scenario, they're still encouraged to time-warp to build up funds, or leave their computer running for the same reason, unless one has to actively pay the kerbals by hitting buttons, which is truly tedious and pointless. It's just the clock-reset from "Lost". Now...all that said... If you really want to keep people in the game that way...give Kerbals "lifespans". You don't ever get to keep them forever. You always have to replace them every so often as they "retire". Then you have to actively replenish them on distant bases as they otherwise mysteriously teleport to their version of Tahiti for a long and happy retirement with a big, fat pension. Space is hard on the body in the best of circumstances, and since Kerbals spend so much more time up there than our own astronauts do, it stands to reason their careers will be shorter. So...maybe just a year or two...with a little random variation for those who "entered the program" younger or older than the norm. Obviously, the long life of nuclear reactors isn't conducive to keeping people active with enough frequency...so shorter Kerbonaut careers. Should do the trick. Edit: I'm going the heck to bed...

If opinions were always merely opinions, I would agree. But that hasn't been relevant from the start. It's an entirely different topic to be had, that few really have the stomach for, anyway. But it's my fault for dragging it out in the first place, in this case. Well, for one, don't say you're sorry unless you're actually apologizing for something. Secondly, it is tasteless, as intended. I don't do kid gloves or social niceties. I adhere just enough for the sake of the forum rules, and that's all. Excessive politeness is just mild dishonesty. Actually, I didn't say your opinion doesn't count because you're, "gimmiegimmie instant gratification types." I didn't say at all that your opinion doesn't count. What I said was that not all opinions carry equal merit, because opinions without evidential (or even logical) support mean nothing. I also didn't call either of you, "gimmiegimmie instant gratification types." I said desiring faster gameplay for its own sake was an indicator of it, and I didn't assign the trait to either you or Chase. If you want to do something other than hit fast-forward for your gratification...then go do it. Nothing in KSP:I ever obligated you to abuse the time-warp in the first place. It is not a prerequisite to spend extra play-time, time-warping to get research done. There are myriad other things to do in the meantime, and your resource build-up will go right along while you time-warp to other planets and whatnot just as you were going to in the first place. You're making a problem that doesn't exist. And that's what set me off in the first place. I'm sure you'll come up with an awesome response, and that's all well and good. But for both our sakes, we'd best just drop it here, since there's no headway to be made if we continue, and a banhammer waiting for us both at the end if we do. And no, you're not "safe" in that regard. They don't discriminate. All participants are generally judged equally guilty. No "self-defense" clause, so-to-speak. I have a personal interest in not getting banned from one of the few forums I actually slightly like. So...moving on then from the non-issue.

That works.

It's perfectly acceptable to share valid opinions, which are supported by at least some degree of evidence. Anything else is just standing on a soapbox, which is neither productive, nor tolerable. The very concept of "grindyness" is teetering on the border, but I'll touch on that later. And there is often a barricade of fanboy-ism against potentially good ideas, though the only self-proclaimed "fanboys" of this mod haven't really gotten into this topic, so that's obviously not the case here, and I don't know why you mentioned it either. I could partly agree with that sentiment. But then, KSP by default does exactly what you just said about time-warping for success. Everyone time-warps to reach the other planets. Pretty much everyone time-warps just to reach the Mun and Minmus. The game is too large in scope not to. KSP Interstellar doesn't necessarily reward people for time-warping, though it appears that way because, like any mechanic, it can be abused. KSP:I instead lets you do more things while you're doing your normal time-warping anyway, which is neither abusive, nor "grindy" in anyway. .22 is somewhat superior in that regard, yes, but it won't be for long. Fractal has already begun work on integration (too early, if you ask me...play the game Fractal! Take a vacation! lol), and once finished, .22 will have no advantages in its favor in that regard. In any case, "Timewarping for success is lame" is a bit of a red herring, since any mechanic in any game can always be abused, and everyone time-warps in KSP to get things done much faster than they should. Indeed. Agreed, and hopefully that mostly stays true, though if everything auto-upgrades with each tech in the next version of the mod, that may not be so. It'll be alright either way in the grand scheme. See...and here's where I get the notion that improvement in gameplay isn't the real issue. If it were, that wouldn't have been suggested, because it doesn't accomplish the goal at all. There are two "easy" fixes to change the nature of science gathering in the mod. First...take it out of the time-warp effect. It gains science at the same rate, or not at all, during time-warp. But retain the unfocused gains so that one doesn't have to babysit every lab individually just to get them to work. Second...adjust the upgrade costs accordingly so that it takes roughly the same amount of overall play-time, including time spent sped up for travel purposes. No more supposed "I win" time-warp button. Everyone gets what they want that way...supposedly. We get to keep our complex resource infrastructure management, and others get to have the goodies without as much apparent repetition or "time-warp, I win". Now we come to "grindyness". It does exist...it really does. Online gaming is utterly saturated with it. But here's what a grind really is...it's actively repeating the same task in an attempt to make progress. It's Sisyphus rolling his boulder up the hill. If people could time-warp through the half a million "Kill 10 rats" quests they have to do just to gain a level, that would kill the grind instantly, but it would also make the game pointless. A grind is not what happens when one simply has to take some extra time to get a wide variety of things done. Grind is not specifically time-sensitive, grind is about repetition. The key here isn't to bypass the time it takes, it's to diversify the activities enough that it feels like actual progress, and not repetitive tedium. It should take years to cap one's level in an online game. But every single level of the journey should feel as exciting and unique as the endgame content. That's the problem. That's the grind. Obviously, different types of games express the grind in different ways. KSP's sandbox didn't really have a grind because it wasn't really a game, it was a toy. Now with the first chunk of its career mode, it's become something of a game, and it still doesn't grind because there are different things to do. But, it's cutting it close. Unfortunately, the trade-off of this has been that most players have already reacquired all of the tech in that mode, and so it's just a sandbox again. And the update has only been out for less than a day. That's...pathetic. To want the progress of a game to take less time, rather than more, is just childish "gimmie-gimmie" thinking. It's a sense of entitlement to instant gratification that borders on the obscene. But not everyone's that way, and there's a simple test. If one would prefer a game that offers all of its benefits in large chunks of achievement, versus one or two bits at a time...then they just want to be handed victory on a silver platter, rather than actually investing skill and effort. And that's how the grind is born. People want the gigantic gains, but since the industry MUST make money off of it, they have to get people to keep playing. So they spread out the chunks. Spread it too far, and people complain about grind because there's not enough to fill the space between. Don't spread it far enough, and people complain that they got to the endgame content in a week, demanding more new content. So...do you want it in little bits, frequently over a long time...or all in big chunks, forcing the curve to steepen and create huge dead spots of nothing to do?

Not really getting rude yet. In any case, no, the game isn't supposed to be "simple". And it is true that you didn't say it should be. But you are suggesting simplifying a mod intended to make the game significantly more complex. That's a major point of this mod...the perspective that the game is not complex enough, and has to be mucked around with to make it more so. Most of us who enjoy this mod as it is, don't find it a boring grind. It's unfortunate that you seem to, but to each their own, so they say. It's not the obligation of modders, though. to tailor their work to suit any of us, or you. That's only the purview of those doing it for money. Modders make what they personally like, and make it available to others who might also enjoy it. For anyone who doesn't, too bad, but it's not for them. Not being hostile, just honest. But, I'll be more mindful because of forum rules. Correct. Though my point is that using solar power to charge a warp drive should require a special new tech and module, something also near the end of the tree, near warp drive itself, perhaps just before antimatter. Though in that case, it shouldn't take any longer than an upgraded nuke in charge time...whatever that would end up being. And such a special collector will probably still produce something other than electric charge, so that it continues to prevent "hogging" and promote design diversity.

No lynching, but keep in mind, an opinion without some foundation of evidence or fact, isn't much of an opinion and probably won't be taken seriously. Not saying that's the case here, but we'll see. It's just a caveat I apply to all statements of opinion. It has been touched on briefly a number of times throughout the thread, but typically only for very selfish and unproductive reasons. Rarely are they articulated particularly well, either. But constructive discussion on any topic is always a good thing. I don't think this is a particular concern. Most of what he's considered doing to merge the two is quite encouraging. Removing the research system he put in place might be necessary, but unfortunate. I actually prefer his version to .22. His system is more challenging, better suited to skilled players. But I'm confident he'll figure out the best of both worlds. I can somewhat agree to that. Though there's a world of difference between upgrading a permanent station or base, an interplanetary ship, and a simple deep space probe. So while you're not wrong, the position isn't really relevant. At no point in this mod is it implied that you should always upgrade everything that's upgradable. The numbers are fine for the most part, although they should be adjusted to make things more difficult. It's been clearly demonstrated how easily abused the warp drive can be. Fortunately that should soon cease to be an issue. There are two types of "electrical power" for the sake of resource control. It's intended to force players to more carefully use what they have, planning for each need, rather than simply "hogging" a certain part to acquire excessive power or whatnot. Contrary to (unfortunately) popular belief, that is NOT the purpose of KSP. If you thought the game would be like that by the time it was finished, you were always in for a rude shock then. It's meant to be a major challenge, with almost as much of the headaches and triumphs of running a real space program. Fractal wants to make it more interesting and more challenging. So it's just a fact you'll have to accept. And no, a warp drive should not be powered by solar panels, unless it's a large array of very special panels designed for maximum efficiency, clear of planetary zones. Much like the solar collectors from the Battletech universe. That might not be such a bad idea then. This has been a pretty good conversation. Now we can sit back and see what happens.

It should be noted that our current technological capabilities far outstrip what's commonly available, or even what's used most frequently in higher-order applications. A lot of that is cost, some of it is politics (hence, no nuclear engines, even though we essentially completed their development decades ago), and some of it is what I consider a kind of scientific "fear" for lack of a better word. Scientists today are terrified of not living up to their predecessors, those idols who inspired them to become scientists in the first place. It's hard to push the envelope when your primary concern is whether or not your contribution will measure up to the ground-breaking work of those who are the reason for your entering the field in the first place. Granted, none of that matters in the game...but in those terms, it could be a meta-explanation.

Well, one would think a warp drive would be at the end of the tech tree, anyway. lol Ah...faster charge from upgraded drives, coupled with better reactor/generator output ( further speeding charge rates)...that should make a minor degree of "surfing" possible, but only once all relevant components are upgraded to support that kind of charge rate. Yeah, I think that might be better than adding yet another tank of "fuel" to the mix. Coupled with the drive being the last thing you get your hands on in the tech tree, no one will be jumping all over the place for a good long while.

Why, thank you. Neat idea, would certainly make multiple reactors more useful, but at the cost of carting a lot of extra dead weight into orbit at first. Now...this may be beating a dead horse, but from what I've found around the forums, this may be a new angle. The whole Lagrange point issue, seems to be centered around the idea that the game can't accurately model those gravitationally "balanced" spots. And all I could ever wonder at looking over all those posts was...why would you try? Of course, the game can't do that, because that's not at all how it works. But...you can still have them, and relatively simply. The devs have already implied that they'd certainly like to add more planets and moons, and as such, this next bit is just as feasible. Don't model the gravity balance. Lagrange points even at their best aren't entirely stable, so no ship is just going to sit there in empty space, not moving. As I recall, all the probes and satellites we've place at those points are kind of orbiting the center of the zone? So the solution is simple...create essentially planetless SoIs and place them on the same rails as each planet/moon, at the correct distances and moving at equal velocity. Fly to one, get into its SoI, orbit the empty spot in the middle. Lagrange point. They don't have to be modeled like Lagrange points...after all, a lot of KSP isn't modeled "correctly"...they just have to behave like them for the most part. I won't claim to know how much more or less difficult it would be than adding extra planets, but aside from the lack of an actual planetary body, I have a hard time imagining it being all that much more difficult, if not necessarily easier. Sorry for the off-topic...but your mentioning of a zone of boosted science collection at the edge of the system just fired up my brain on that whole spiel.

Slightly off-topic, but something I think is of interest to us all. Who says video games aren't constructive? http://www.zmescience.com/research/studies/gamers-solve-decade-old-hiv-puzzle-in-ten-days/ Makes one wonder...if we could make something like KSP just as realistically functional as the game in the article, could we design and build an interstellar ship with current technology in a fraction of the time predicted?

Maybe production of exotic matter should be altered so that nuclear reactors of any size or tech are not sufficient to power the drive? Honestly...considering the energies involved, even if it were possible to charge up a drive with a nuke, it would take years. Maybe tweak the output of both reactors to get a larger spread, so that a nuke might do the job, but only after lots of time-warping, while an antimatter reactor is essentially ideal (though maybe still not enough to go hopping around the system over-and-over) for the drive. I think perhaps make it so that you can make a jump with little consumption, but upon deactivation, it dumps the whole supply (maybe this exotic matter is an all-or-nothing deal, and you use it or lose it). That would prevent people from being excessively clever about short-hopping into orbit. Maybe it could inspire an "exotic matter storage" so that each tank is good for one hop. Takes longer to charge all of them up, but segregates the supply so that it's not all gone in one go. Perhaps both options, that should really discourage those who seek the quick and easy path, as Vader did. I could be wrong...but I think he was referring to ships with parts that have been upgraded, while ignoring the idea of waste heat. Basically, he built a bunch of ships without radiators when they didn't matter, and made really spiffy ships, and now he'll lose them because heat will matter. I think that's what he was meaning, anyway. Again, I could be wrong. Edit: Grammar...

Mission: Successful...

Get well, and thanks for all the tanks.