Madrias

Still, it's cool seeing some progress getting made, even if it's minimal. What matters most for Kerbal Foundries is having working wheel code. Anything after that is icing on the cake. Believe me, even I'm sitting here patiently waiting for the return of useful wheels, tracks, and other funny business. Sure, there's ideas I've scattered about in here, but one, they rely on having the wheel code working, and two, they're ideas without implementations, and without expectations on them. I'm comfortable hearing "Sorry, but that can't be done." It's why I throw ideas around, because I can't do them myself. Sure, I often config-bash stuff together and make a mess of things, but that's far from actual modding (though I will admit to feeling pretty-damn-smug when I took a wheel that used KSP 1.0.5's wheel colliders and forced it to use KF instead. Only took me three hours), and I can't do 3D stuff. But, thank you for continuing to work on this. I know many people in other modding communities who would give up if their mod got broken this badly by a game update.

Okay, I know, shame on me for going back to stuff that still needs the mod to actually be working before anything can even be considered, but... I was screwing around with ideas again and came up with something else to toss in the "Is it even practical" pile. You'd mentioned, as quoted above, that some method of steering components may be possible. This got me thinking, and some screwing around with 1.0.5 caused me to come up with this idea, that it'd be nice to also have KF Suspension between connection point A and connection point B. The idea being that if you need steering on something that normally can't support it, you use a KF Steering Unit to make it steer. If you need suspension on something that normally can't support it (or you just want more ride height on demand), you use a KF Suspension Unit to lift it up a bit. And if you're being crazy, you could put a KF Steering Unit on the end of a KF Suspension unit and thereby have a track or hypno-drive with a suspension arm and automotive style steering. I know, I know, "Why on Kerbin would you want that?" I think it's the idea of wanting to do somewhat like some trucks have, where you take the tires off and bolt on a track to the already existing steering and suspension linkage. Except instead of some custom pre-fabricated track to go on a specific vehicle, and thereby only has to contain the track and requisite track suspension, we don't have the vehicle with steering and suspension that works if you put a track on an attachment node. I understand, getting stuff working comes first, getting old stuff working is second, and then any crazy ideas can be considered. I've got a head full of ideas, I just can't do anything with them. That, and I'm thinking on things like the rollcage and thinking it'd be cool if we had a way to take that idea, the rollcage seat, but make a two-kerbal exploration buggy using nothing but Kerbal Foundries parts, one that'd be stable enough to handle aggressive driving on planets while remaining something that could be, at least in theory, set up to be KAS/KIS compatible, so it could be broken down, stored in a crate, and assembled on landing. The idea being that a two-kerbal exploration buggy could be carried in the cargo pod, packed in pieces, of a DSR-4, and thereby be used for instances where the DSR-4 ended up turned into a mobile base. As mentioned previously, and mentioned every time I have an oddball idea, the mod's functionality obviously has to take priority, followed by making sure the stuff we all used through 1.0.5 works, followed by deciding what new stuff is worth adding and is actually practical to do.

My advice: Set smaller goals. I know, you want to do what all of us wanted to do. Small goals help you learn what you need to learn to do Mun landings and landing on planets. A good example is to just do a few suborbital hops to the other side of Kerbin, then to make Orbit, then just to do a Mun Flyby. Then flyby Minmus. Trying to throw a spacecraft to other planets is something I wouldn't recommend until you're comfortable landing on Kerbin's Moons.

Totally in agreement. Better handling, better adjustability, more weight capacity without exploding the tires, handles impacts better, can be adjusted on the field to make lining up bases easier, and they just look better. It's why I think a lot of us are excited to see progress, because it's not just the tracks, screws, repulsors, skids, and potential walkers that have people wanting the mod, it's also the improved wheels. It's also why I'm not a big fan of the 'improvements' made to the wheels in 1.1. We traded good wheel mods and cool custom wheels for wheels full of built in make-work designed to force you to drag an engineer along on anything with wheels because you will get a flat tire, either because you drive like you're handling a Tron light-cycle, or because you decided to jump that mun crater like the General Lee in space, or because your mobile mining platform is 1 ton below the limit when loaded with ore and fuel, so any driving overloads the wheels and makes using wheeled vehicles not fun. I understand what they were going for, to improve the usefulness of engineers in Career mode, but it breaks the fun in Sandbox when every flight I have to drag engineers along to fix flat tires. That, and the handling of the new stock wheels is... awful. They lose grip whenever they feel like it, gain grip whenever they feel like it, accelerate violently in random directions when you drive like a jerk, and while most of that can be wrestled down to similar levels to the original stock wheels by locking friction and overriding traction control, you're left with "I've got a flat because I hit an anthill" wheels. I mean, I get it, they needed to go to Unity 5, and everyone kept pushing and begging for U5 and 64 bit, even when they heard 'It'll break the wheel mods' because mod developers usually were able to bounce back from version-by-version 'mod breaking'. The masses thought "it'll just be a week or two to get our wheels and tracks back" not realizing that no, it'd need just about a total rewrite and rebuild. I have to stop myself from hitting these people with a "You got what you wished for. This is KSP in Unity 5 64-bit. They told you it'd break all wheel-related mods. You said 'That's okay, the mod authors will fix it.' Well, you got exactly what you wished for. KSP with stock wheels." I've never spent this much time being back one version, because even when we jumped from .25 to .90, I got used to .90's quirks. Even when we went from .90 to 1.0.x, I got used to 1.0's quirks. But 1.1 is inherently broken. All of the wheels are broken. As a space/airplane pilot in KSP, that's not acceptable. As a rover commander in KSP, even less acceptable. I don't fly rockets under most circumstances. But, back on track, I'm glad to see a bit of progress. I agree, simple is good at this point. I know everyone wants tracks, wheels, screws, and walkers, but we need simple to start with. That, and take your time.

There's about 4-6 really good-sized wolf spiders in my bedroom. I let them live because they catch, kill, and eat things like wasps. Same for most spiders, really. Yes, I know, wolf spiders typically are more aggressive, but I've never really had a problem with them. Granted, spider bites itch like crazy, but they're less annoying than mosquito bites or wasp stings. So, yeah, I like spiders. Heck, there's a dead compact fluorescent lightbulb in the closet that I've not bothered to replace because there's a spider that's made it their home. Not that I needed a light in the closet, but I did switch out from the incandescent bulbs just because I kinda hate those. Too much heat, too wasteful on energy. Been enjoying LED bulbs lately, but still got a few CFL bulbs floating around. That said, I understand some people just don't like spiders, or they're afraid of them.

I can't really help on design other than to try to describe ideas, but... *smacks head* Of course I can design... I've got KSP and a butt-load of mods. I'll just load up 1.0.5 and bash something together using a mess of parts. Won't be functional, but the idea will be there. Okay, a couple minutes of poking about and I've got a rough idea of what could work. I was going more for industrial than anything else, so it would fit better with the DSR units as well as the general majority of heavy vehicles. I only made the one unit because I wanted to keep things simple, and the rough design is overly simplistic, as I'm not sure what kind of casing it should go in. What I do know is I believe it'd work better if these didn't retract like the ones on the Critter Crawler, leaving this to have legs deployed at all times. As stated, a very industrial design scheme is what I was going for. Functional without much effort placed into being stylish. And as for the reason of "Why four legs instead of three?", well, I feel four meshes better than three does, especially if you could animate them in a bit of ripple. Mostly because then multiple units would lift and lower legs in an expected fashion, much like a centipede. That, and for a single-set vehicle (something resting on just one set of crawler legs), four looks more stable than three does. And I'll admit, I like spiders more than I like most bugs.

Out of curiosity, Lo-Fi, once you have Kerbal Foundries working again, would it be possible to get something similar to the Bahamuto Dynamics Critter Crawler? Again, primary focus is obviously getting things working, but I think it could be interesting to have some form of automated crawler leg unit working on KF code and thereby being kinda like the HypnoDrive was, where it looked like it was doing one thing, but was really just a set of invisible wheels holding the machine up. Except instead of spinning, it'd animate some sort of insect/arachnid-like walking motion. And no, I'm not asking when the mod will be done. I know it takes time, and I know there's quirks and bugs to work out.

That's okay. With that list of cars, we'll have a wide variety of things to try running around Kerbin with.

I'm keeping as patient as I can. I know this goes dual-mode with me, because as much as I'm excited to have repulsors and tracks back, I also know that it starts the long process of bug hunting, which means I'll actually be having to try to break the game instead of just casually breaking the game.

Well, at least I know that bug's been squished. That was one of the things that bothered me about 1.1, that if you put enough wheels on a craft, it'd jitterbug and become unusable.

It's just one of those things I'd normally run into, but I tend to stay away from pre-releases because as good as I am at creating localized bug reports, the way I load things up, I can't tell if the bugs come from a mod or come from the base game in beta testing. Hence, I'm trying to avoid having to flush the mod load I have in order to test something that not having the mods makes irrelevant for me. In other words, it's something I can't logically test myself without having the mods I typically use in 1.1, because I build strange vehicles designed to carry out a specific mission and carry everything they'd need for said specific mission. And, let's face it, the stock parts just... Well, they work, but they don't have a single design scheme that works well for a rover platform. Parts you need to carry are often way too big to justify carrying, like the ISRU and Mining equipment, and yet if you're using a lot of electricity, can't use big solar panels because you're on the move all the time, it'd be too many parts to justify RTG's, you end up using LF+O and fuel cells. Which is great until the fuel runs dry, at which point, you end up having to either spend just as much, if not more time sending fuel trucks to your rover, or you scrap the mission there. I suppose it's kinda why I want the DSR-4 to be modular enough to carry everything. A single cohesive design with an ability to mine ore, process resources, generate plenty of power, and yet have tons of room for science stuff, because there are just times you want to drive around Kerbin to get your science instead of going to one or more planets. But back on course, I don't do pre-release testing because my attempts to break things typically end up in the "Well, just don't do that and you won't have that problem" pile. I like having rovers that do everything, I bring extra wheels along as double or triple redundancy (because if you break a wheel, it shouldn't strand your rover immediately, it should be able to continue until stopping is convenient or further damage is sustained), and as a result, I often end up trying to drive around 300+ part land-ships that worked okay in 1.0.5, but jitterbug in 1.1. Hence, asking someone who is testing in 1.2 if they could see how many wheels it takes to break the physics engine, because it's a test I'd normally do if I didn't actually enjoy my 1.1 folder right now.

Could you do a test for me, just out of curiosity? How many wheels does it take before the KSP wheel and suspension physics gives up and 'jitterbugs' the craft? Basically, just starts bouncing around on the suspension, while being virtually undrivable due to lack of control.

I've got no problem waiting. I can be patient when I need to be.

Slightly morbid thought, but I think we need a hearse. I've realized it's the one thing missing from a flag-planting ceremony for lost Kerbals. Again, no major rush, just something that came to mind after having to plant a flag for the brave Valentina Kerman, who was the first Kerbal in my Career save to fly to the moon and back in an aircraft. Sadly, re-entry tore the wings off and I didn't have emergency parachutes to bring it down safely.

Yep, that just confirmed my driving style 100%. Keyboard driver here. And I like going fast. Just I like having control over how fast, which direction, and not rolling over all the time.

So that's what's been winding up like a big rubber band and flinging my rovers up to stupid speeds. Was wondering what caused that, thought it was just the new wheels and my typical insane building style being totally incompatible.

A request, and feel free to take as long as you need on this, would be for a limousine. Either that, or a city bus. I'd honestly be happy with either. Still enjoying these cars. They make KSP surprisingly more fun.

Action Group 6 and aim for the ocean. (In moments of "it's all going wrong," backspace is too far away. 6 sits at the split in my ergonomic keyboard. As for aiming for the ocean, well, that's the fact that modern KSP water isn't instant explodium to land in anymore.)

I'd just be happy with wheels that don't slide sideways when on nearly-level ground.

I've used both and they each have specific uses. Rockets are great for lifting large amounts of cargo, they're easier to build, they're generally pretty difficult to screw up, and they work. Spaceplanes, I find them great for lifting crew into my stations, any time I need a precision de-orbit and land (glide slope/propulsion really helps with nailing that lovely landing back at KSC without feeling like I've got to get it really close), and they're excellent for light cargo loads, like that bloody satellite you suddenly find yourself needing. However, they both have their downsides. Spaceplanes take more effort to build. In a rocket, the golden rule is, parachute at the top, fins near the bottom, and an engine on the bottom. Fill the middle with lots of stuff that goes boom, and stuff to bring to space. A spaceplane has to be built such that the CoM is ahead of the CoL at all times, but not too far forward or you don't have a glider, you have a sinker. Spaceplanes also struggle with larger payloads, both in weight and in physical size. Rockets, unless they're very highly engineered to where they may as well be spaceplanes, are disposable launch vehicles. They drop parts all over the place on purpose to shed more and more of their weight until they're in space. You'll also be doing your landing with a parachute, which means you don't get to pick your exact landing site, just 'close enough' to count.

I've been guilty of this on more occasions than I care to mention. Also: When you design a rocket not for efficiency or reusability, but instead design in such a way that you can eject the SRB's with about 1/4 fuel remaining and watch the fireworks as they crash into one another.

When you still occasionally see re-entry flares on takeoff.

If you could make that work, I'd be very grateful. Sadly, IR doesn't have auto-return-to-center which makes it very difficult to justify using IR as steering equipment. After all, you've still got those attach nodes that I find eternally useful for tacking tracks on where I feel it's needed without being able to nicely surface attach them.

Fair enough, from now on I'll refer to this new design-in-planning as DSR-4. And yes, it is incredibly annoying to roll the vehicle and watch the only thing that explodes being your transmitter. It's frustrating. It's a case of "I've got 20 batteries, 12 fixed solar panels, 6 retractable panels, a self-righting mechanism, and plenty of science gear. Why? Why does the lone antenna I've buried between the frame rails have to be the thing that explodes?" Hey, I'm always ready for giving input. If I remember correctly, that's part of the reason I was on your testing team back in the good ol' days of KSP. I'm still willing to do that, as you know my testing methodology involves combining things in unexpected ways, testing cross-compatibility, and a willingness to do whatever is asked when you need bug confirmation. And I'm chock full of ideas. There's always something brewing in the back of my mind. After all, while I managed to get a set of steerable tracks, as satisfying as they are, well, I'm gonna have to request another set. Either that, or a steerable set of hypno-drives. Obviously, when that's actually possible. Would I be pushing my luck if I asked for both a steerable set of hypno-drives (and by steerable, I'm referring to automotive style steering, rather than tank drive), and another steerable set of tracks? I kinda like the ones we had, but one, they're only a two-roller track, which, I suppose is good, but I'd like a bit more track, like the KF Small Track, and two, they're top mount instead of side mount. Good for some applications, not so good for other applications. As said, consider it when we actually have working wheels and tracks. Out of curiosity, on a lot of the smaller tracks, would it be practical to put in a second steering selection button? There's a lot of tracks that would lend themselves to being great at steering like a car, while giving the ground-crawling performance of a track.

Yeah, the driver or navigator almost certainly needs their cup of Koffee to go with the new DSR... Shall we just call it DSR-4? Oh, and I think one thing that'd be nice is to put the antenna inside the science module. I'm a little tired of forgetting my antenna only to find out after I've landed my rover on, well, Duna or Eve.