Clockwork_werewolf

I'm not quite sure what it is you are asking. Do you mean can you make a resource that only flows down like in a rocket or do you mean a resource that can only be transferred to the part next to it even when ALT right clicked? Rocket fuel and jet fuel are actually the same. Oxidizer and liquid fuel only flows down in a stack unless fuel pipes are added. In the Resource definition Electricity is written "name = ElectricCharge density = 0 flowMode = ALL_VESSEL transfer = PUMP isTweakable = true" but fuel is "name = LiquidFuel density = 0.005 flowMode = STACK_PRIORITY_SEARCH transfer = PUMP isTweakable = true" so you could make a resource that used "STACK_PRIORITY_SEARCH" and it should only flow in the same stack, I think. never really tried playing with this part of resources.

This is kind of what I was saying .In terms of other people, I imagine the rocket only builders don't want to have rockets penalized by cost until they are unsustainable and the space plane builders that can return 100% of the parts they use but can only take 20% the payload of an equal cost rocket don't want to have their hard work and efficiency mean nothing. Its a hard balancing act but I do think that in the end space-planes should be a bit cheaper in order to make up for the fact it takes them 5 times as long to get the same payload into orbit. Space-planes for money efficiency, rockets for time efficiency and a place for all play styles in the game.

I've had a good think about this and come up with some idea's. This is good idea but really you would also need to check they had a parachute deployed and do a simple calculation of parachutes to mass of the object to determine if it would land safely. Maybe take off 20-60% for the unguided landing (it might take some dents Used decouplers are worth nothing or 10%. Here is where it gets complicated, how do we tell the difference between a landed space-plane and parts left over from a big crash? My idea would be for the game to check how many parts the new ship is now in. A full space-plane that lost no parts would be worth 96% of its original cost. Say it cost 20,000 it is recovered for 19,200. If it loses just one part or splits in two (it doesn't matter) each part is now worth 96 / 2 = 48%, so the recovered cost is 9,600 (assuming no parts are destroyed). if the ship breaks into 4 parts it would be worth 96 / 4 = 4,800. This may seem harsh if you just lose a tail piece on landing but the point it to tell if there is damage not how much damage. Very hard landings of coarse would destroy parts and split the ship into many many parts resulting in very little recovered. Say the ship breaks into 10 parts and 6k's worth of parts are destroyed. 96/10 =9.6% per part and 14,000 point are on the ground so 1344 is recovered. As long as dropped boosters are auto recovered as above or destroyed the landed craft will still be counted as one part to the game as it is the only crafted names that on the ground. This set up is to encourage adding parachutes to used boosters (like the space shuttles boosters). It encourages space planes (as they are the present goal in real world space engineering to reduce costs). It penalizes crash landings and wrecks because otherwise a perfect landing is the same as a horrible crash where no parts are destroyed. And lastly it shouldn't be too hard on the computer as Rickenbacker's idea doesn't add much to the computation "weight" because the parts are removed. This may seem harsh to the rocket enthusiasts but remember this, space-planes usually have a much lower weight to cargo ratio. if 100% was recovered then they would always be better but at a 5% cost its not so simple. With a 1ton cargo the 20,000k planes costs 800 per run but a rocket might get that up for only 4000 assume 80% is recovered at 60% cost and the cost comes to 2080. Tweak the numbers a bit and a good rocket designer could get a payload up for less than a bad space-plane maker costs. If you want to recover parts not money then have a cost for refurbishment instead of money lost per part. So 96% means it costs 4% of a ships price to recover all the parts or 40% of a dropped parachuted part. Storing parts of recovering money doesn't really affect these ideas but I think I would prefer them to be "restocked" into a warehouse.

In tests to make KSP work on a cruddy laptop I turn the textures down to the point most parts had 1 pixel of texture (changing the persistence file manually). The Sky-box got so blurry I could see that it is a giant cube, also the people above are right about sky-boxes they are drawn around the camera, not the object, so you are always in their center.

Interesting, I've played with turbo jets being boosters but they need lots of intakes and engines per fuel tank. How many intakes do you use per engine and how many do you need compared to normal boosters? I might have to try this idea.

“Multiplayer is something we had planned to do after it was all said and done, but it’s time for us to start looking at it now,†http://www.pcgamer.com/uk/2013/12/12/kerbal-space-program-committed-to-multiplayer-career-and-sandbox-modes/ not with citation I realise but http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Planned_features for not adding autopilot. I think it was also discussed in an article but I can't find it at present. I also know the difference in level of work between making multiplayer (hard and a long QA) and adding MJ (quick and only needing one person for QA). Numbers. If only 50% of the people want it and 50% don't then you don't get to tell the Devs to do it. If I was the only person here who didn't want it this would be a valid point. Remember it always seems like those who disagree with you are alone where as you have everyone on your side. The reality is usually different. Space planes are a set of parts not a game mechanic. This is the difference. If they planned to REPLACE the rockets with space planes you would have a point. Maybe, not met anyone who has yet, in person, online or in reviews. Maybe we should conduct a test introducing people to Kerbal with or without MJ. You need to prove it is better with to change the statue quo and even then it is up to the Devs in the end. Cool, go ahead, keep using it. It might be a little strange to do this but it is a position I can get behind. There would be an extra weight to the coding but for the integration and bug fixing I could see it being helpful enough to justify the cost. It is still the Dev's decision though. "FUD is generally a strategic attempt to influence perception by disseminating negative and dubious or false information." Negative yes, dubious (opinion), false no. One I never said don't use MJ, I very clearly said go ahead and use it. To quote myself I have rewritten about ten things I wanted to say but felt were to condescending or insulting. Honestly you posts come across as "I would like this to be stock so everyone plays like me, no matter what others think". I don't think this is what you are really asking for or the impression you wanted to give.

No plan is written in stone, but Multiplayer was not added because they couldn't think of a way to add it and still be fun. They could have added MJ stuff 10 updates ago, but they haven't because it would change the gameplay in a way they do not want for stock. which is nice for you but that means less time for them to update things I care about. I never gave up because I didn't install MJ. This game is interesting because it doesn't hold your hand every step of the way. Yea I hate the rush and pressure of piloting stuff, it really gets me down. You are, uninstall MJ, bug test and if that does work, then reinstall, talk in the forums, and if no one has fixed it wait for the maker to fix it. I choose not to use it, only difference is at the moment the game is fun form the start, I would hate to have got bored after 10 hours because it was too easy. While we are at it lets make TAC life support, B9, FAR, IR, Deadly re-entry and Kethane stock too. It will have no effect on your game play as you will just be able to turn them off if you like. Use MJ if you like, you are free to like everyone else, but lets keep it an option. You have the option to use it, I just want it to stay Opt in, don't make it Opt out. Opt out is usualy associated with junk mail and is used because they know that if you don't know you can you don't. The strain on work load and delaying updates is a lot to ask just so that those that do use it can say it's now stock. It does, what makes your mod more important than theirs? Are we going with the 10 most used mods being added to stock option? Remember you can always opt out of them (after they have all loaded).

You might need to add "TechRequired = start entryCost = 0" Just above each "Cost" Sorry its been a while since I attacked CFGs Also I have seen that IR likes to add multiple parts in a single CFG, this is not normal but can be done, each part needs to have the lines added just before each parts "Cost"

I just downloaded it and the CFG's are there in GameData/MagicSmokeIndustres/Parts then any of the part folders in there. I suggest re downloading it again in case it got corrupted in download or something.

I agree 95% but... Is what I do not want to happen. Which is why anyone has these arguments. People using MJ see those not using it as wanting to destroy the mod for everyone (which I and everyone I have seen does not want to do). People not using MJ see those who do use it as trying to get it or it's features implemented into the stock game. (which last time I checked was specifically stated to not be the Devs plan). Unlikely and yes if the author allowed someone to take over (which is very likely) and they could get it to work (there are a lot of gifted people here). Then yes no problem. What if a programming change required a whole rewrite of the code? It would happen but if it took 2 weeks? Those who don't know how to play would not be able to for two weeks. There are a few very unlikely (but still possible) scenarios where people would have to learn and be stuck. Do what you like though it's your game.

If you do a fair amount of mental arithmetic (which is usually faster than a calculator for simple things) then you know all the square roots up to 100. These kids had been insulated to the point where they did not know the roots of 6 or 7. Its worth noting that just knowing there 6 and 7 times tables would also have meant they knew 7x7 and 6x6. The anecdote about not knowing the 6 and 7 roots is the proof that they have used calculators too much. Not as long as MJ keeps working no, but what if the maker stopped supporting it and it didn't work with an update? I'm sure 90% of people would be able to learn but 10% might just stop playing. It would have ruined me if I had used it form the start because I would have got bored if I wasn't flying my own ship. This is a separate point though.

If the mod is still not working, the code you need to add should be "TechRequired = start". If there is already a TechRequired in the CFG then this is not the problem and it is either unlocked later or not working for a different reason.

LOL! Anyway I think my point is either A If all parts fade at the same time why have the engine at all, as nothing will ever survive or all the ship will be a bit faded. B If the root part fades first, control and Kerbals will be lost first. C If the faded parts are not in order then parts will seem to be connected despite a visible gap. D Randomly selecting a part might be best in this scenario as it would create the most hilarious results. E It might be best to "find" an end node that does not have crew in it then work back until you hit a branch. Find the next end node until you run out of end nodes. The craft will now just be a rod of command though stuff in a line to the engine. Also hilarious because this best fits the story scenario.

It would look strange and what stops you from only using a few of the parts, say the main hull so that you have engines and pod just floating in space but attached. I haven't tried making any parts "fade" so I have no idea how you would do that. Parts at the end of a branch might be easier to do. Just get the node connected to a part and use iteration to find a part only connected to the one before. In the fade scenario you would still need to pick the parts being faded no matter what you do. That or fade all other parts which could include a second engine of the same type resulting in no ship at all. Also you would need to make sure you didn't "fade" the tank with the fuel being added... I think. I'm not sure why you suggest fading them.

Since it is possible using code to destroy a part this should technically be possible. The parts mass could be converted into fuel before being destroyed. The only problem would be designating which part gets "eaten" and making sure it is only the end of a branch not a part used to hold other parts to the ship. That would be the tricky part, I imagine bugs galore.

With the new tweekables you can send up a larger craft, empty of fuel into Kerbal orbit. Refuel it up there with one or tow other craft and you can have a craft with three times the fuel and engines than you could send up in one launch. Drag is calculated on mass not surface area (unless you have FAR installed) so don't worry about a large empty final stage. Its worth noting you can fill the tech tree with just Mun and Minmus science but I understand you wanting to go to Duna

I have no problem with people using MJ. Is it a good training for new players? I have no idea, I have never used it and although I found things like docking hard I got there in the end. I think I watched a video or two on it to get my head around the faster is slower idea. Is it needed in stock? No. Do I want it in stock? No, even if it could be turned off I feel it would take too much fun out of new players flying craft. I'm not sure if I would have kept playing if the game had been easier. Although I would like to see my crafts total weight (which is already in the stock game but only after you take it to the launch pad) I don't want to see Delta-V in the design window. I like the thrill of not knowing where a craft can get to and risking not having enough fuel. Without this risk there is less thrill for me. All should be free to use? Yes. Must use? No. I play the game my way as everyone can and should.I would say for new players they should try and play without MJ but then download it if they like. Which is weird as that's how it is now.

This is exactly why this data is important. I actually tried this first, but the air resistance on the object turning greatly affected the end turning speed of the object. After most of the turn it was moving at a snails pace. Also I was not interested in whether it translated the object only the the wheels placement on turning speed.

One is rotating the navball around a single "true north" point, the other is rotating the whole navball on its head. Trust me no reference point apart for kerbal is needed. In hindsight yes, but at the time I just wanted to get the test done. Considering the responses to this I'm not doing it again. Thanks Claw, I did this stuff in school but that's now a decade in the past. Also I wasn't sure whether the reaction wheels would in game logic create a force sideways (which could "move" the COM) or whether they created torque. As its the latter your post is very helpful.

So I was curious about where you should place reaction wheels as I always placed them at the center. So I sent this into space. Then I sent another almost exactly the same but with the wheels at the ends of two of the tanks instead of at the center. The results: Very near the center of mass 30-40 seconds for a 180 spin and 180 somersault. Far from the center of mass 30-40 seconds for a 180 spin and 180 somersault. Notes: The 10 seconds error was in my timing of the "thrust". I switched off ASAS and held down Q or W for 2 seconds then timed until it had turned 180. The Timing varied a bit but on both far and center spins without much noticeable difference. If someone want to go and test this over and over for more data be my guest but I got board. As far as I am concerned, reaction wheel placement makes little to no difference.

I think without knowing the power or duration of the laser burst you can never fully counter it. It ends up being like asking us to stop the sun heating up a ship parked a meter from it's surface, all we can do is make it take longer. That being said I think multiple layers of mirrors each set to reflect a different wave length, combined with a very fast spinning hull with a second internal hull that does not spin. The laser shouldn't be able to dump much heat into any one area and it shouldn't be able to get past the mirror set to its frequency. I realise enough laser bursts on enough frequency's would still be able to get past the layer with each hitting the areas opened up by other bursts but that's why I said point one. Another way might be just to use a very good heat dissipation system where you use a material with a high heat conductivity with a layer of fast liquid coolant below it. You might even be able to combine systems one and two together so you have a spinning mirror, conductor, dissipation shell.

1. Yep 2. Yep... maybe, with 3 it's not so important but yea I know what you mean. 3. Yep 4. Probably not but anything is better than now. All round yes, I feel guilt but never enough to use the ugly thing.

Well of course, thats why I said Its an inefficient (weight to power) method of producing energy but its what the Apollo and space shuttle used. You would never want to use it for a Mars/Duna mission but it might be all you have for a Mun mission.

Very nice work. Thanks for all the effort. I realise it is sort of implied but 2 H2 + O2 --> 2 H2O + Energy is also important for early carrier mode before solar or RTG's. We would need the water as a stock resource and a stock hydrogen fuel cell.

Interesting considering I was one of those people. I never got promises from notch personally but I do feel bad about some of the stated additions that never came about. I would have much rather not know what was going to be added before it was added. A new item is a nice surprise, a feature not added is depressing. This supports the no road map idea. I actually got annoyed when notch stopped working on the game, the people who took over may have been technically adept but they had no imagination. They added creature like the witch, which did nothing new unlike notches Enderman (yea slender-man copy but fun game-play). I do understand your point about "living on" not being a good indicator though. I think a better judge is to see how many people are still buying it and how often they like it enough to join things like this forum. I think most of Minecrafts new players are 3 year olds who are now allowed to play it. I get the impression this is not what is happening with KSP