Wallygator

Update 20Oct2018: the original post below was a basic complaint that the developers blogs were so rare that the comms channel was basically useless. Just a few weeks ago our friends at squad announced they were killing the weekly updates and that "other" channels will be used - including the very nearly dead defunct devblog. Why? Let us peacefully discuss... --------------------- Back in mid-February @SQUAD indicated... /Snip "We’re planning to continue which the Developer Articles to let developers talk about their work and experiences in greater detail and to give you more insight about some of the challenges we face when developing KSP. These won’t be scheduled as regular forum posts, as we’ll be having multiple authors sharing info whenever they are willing and able. Nevertheless we will let you know when these come out, so you don’t miss any and keep your eyes peeled on the DevBlogs section of the forum for when they do." /End Snip And we have had only two devblog entries ( @RoverDude before and @TriggerAu after the above statement) and that's it. Is the Devblog dead? Or is it just not a priority for anyone? They have a fair sized team. I find it hard to believe not a single person on the team has the time to highlight and share their workflow or experiences through a devblog entry. I gather from the above snipped quote that: 1) They are not scheduled (Fair enough) 2) Info will be shared when devs are willing and able (Aha!) 3) @Squad will notify us of an any entries in the Blog (Again, fair enough) SO --> As it stands, our Dev team is not willing and/or is not able to share anything for what is approaching the past 4 months??? Thoughts? Discussion? (Perhaps the office intern can write something... ) EDIT: It seems that in recent weeks/months there has been a resurgence in @SQUAD's ability to produce viable Dev-Blog posts. Well Done! Enjoy this thread to experience the journey from death to life.

Well, just found this thread. As always, I'm late to the party... First thought: Yup... Whatever... Second thought: Next step on IP lifecycle COMPLETE. Third thought...Complete doom is likely not on the horizon. But since the same cast of characters remains engaged, I would expect similar output (Eg. No published plans, sketchy communications, transient resources, etc.) Final Thought: IMHO sustaining growth to a mature DRM-free title likely requires frequent and high quality content. To date, content has been slim to none - rather critical patches to the core game/engine. If T2 can influence or accelerate anything NOW, more content would be a good choice. Competent mods/modders would be in my sights if I were T2. Edit: Microtransactions??? No way. Never going to happen. Edit 2: Microtransactions regarding mods? Absolutely. There are a number of modders out there that deserve our financial support. As long as the entirety of the transition goes to the modder.

This looks pretty cool! Does it have a config for realism overhaul? That would be FAB!

If someone can write a mod to enable such "multi-threading" I will pay them £100 to use it just once.

And... Lego has just taken my money Backordered in the UK till July. Last time a built anything with Lego was when they were actually flying to the moon lol.

So... Are there any plans to have a "signed" KSP app for OSX?

Nice gravity assists. Also, a lovely use of the canyon as an ascent guide path. Very well done sir!

Dres probably gets quite a bit of quiet curiosity from individual players, but they likely tend to not execute or post missions about it. (Just a Hypothesis) I personally believe a 'lack of focus' can be attributed to a number of things: 1) Grey artwork is uninspiring especially when its not so close and easy to encounter 2) Dres is too far away to be easy, and too close to be difficult in most players minds - therefore it could be characterised as "the mediocre middle part" of the game 3) Dres is a strong candidate to be the "canary in the coal mine" regarding squads attention to detail - The 'idea of Dres' is inspiring, but the art and execution seems demotivating - and this gently applies to all the bodies in the system once a player has matured their play and experienced the bulk of destinations (yes even through peeking via the tracking centre) 4) "I'm Dres, Respect my Author-a-tay!" threads don't actually translate into viable challenges that inspire new players to actually go to Dres, rather they seem to generally degrade into comic attitudes and sarcasm (Not like there's anything wrong with that) 5) Jool... Duna... TL;DR comprehensive art/science/biome/"Stuff to do" redux anyone? anyone? Bueller? Squad? (there are an increasing amount of really good planet packs out there, they are likely being created because of... reasons) 6) RSS (Hey, why not? I said it was personal didn't I?)

A very good mission! Well done indeed. As a tip, you can adjust the size and position of your NAVball now in the full version of the game - that can help you when making screenshots as the NAVball will not be dead centre of the pic. Regardless, nice pics, nice mission and nice concise commentary. I enjoyed going through your Imgur album.

Fair enough. But one can dream... Would be nice to have Eros though, as that was one of the initial astroid missions envisioned in the early 1960's. (Even though Eros is not in RSS extended in the first place). Sadly, it's likely that it is just too small. Regardless, plenty to do without it...

My implementation has the moon on an equatorial 0 degree inclination. Going todo a reinstall and see if it goes away. Unless that's just the way it is at the moment. EDIT: It was my own issue - rebuilding my install corrected the inclination back to normal. EDIT2: I would really like to get RSS extended working with this mod.

This is the most perfect mod for KSP. Seriously... No need for any other mods if you wish. Well Done. Very well done!!!

again... planetary science is not the same as aerospace engineering. Incremental engineering advancements were made without the express need for planetary/extra-planetary science. KSP science is expressly "Planetary science" in every context. Also, don't confuse sequencing with dependency. Obviously our individual world views are different and that's OK.

An important thing to remember with the stock implementation of fuel cells is that EC seems to not be affected by crossfeed - while LOX is. This means that if you want to create a unitary fuel cell that runs off its own LOX supply (not drawing from your vessels fuel, then you need to isolate your fuel cell part along with an attached LOX tank (sized appropriately to provide the duty cycle you need). The Clamp-o-tron jr. works well for this, just be sure to set its tweakable to disable cross feed. Also you can set an action group to turn on/off the fuel cells manually when you desire.

In my perception - (example) In the real world, an engineering team does not have to go to Jupiter first so to get science understanding and data so they can then design an efficient high impulse engine. They create that engine FIRST so that they CAN go to Jupiter. For instance, NASA didn't go to the moon first so they could design the F1. New parts should cost money and time - and should benefit from previous parts. Science should relate to reputation at a minimum but should likely be used to reveal new aspects of the universe and to unlock new missions. Reputation should influence money but not be the core funds driver. Planetary science is not the same as aerospace engineering in every respect. Etc Etc Etc... Sadly, history has proven that no one with influence shares this perception. Science in KSP is completely backwards, hence sandbox for me.

pretty good! Excellent pics and a good mission!

Considering at least one NASA brain penned a study to consider a manned flyby of Eros, it would be kinda cool to have it available as a target. As resurfaced in Mr. David Portree's recap at Wired...

Digital apollo The story of the apollo guidance computer. An amazing read!

Thanks I'll check it out. EDIT: OK, seems the MJ dV and thrust calculations are correct along with matching flight view tests - so I would therefore suppose that the configs are loading correctly. So the only thing that remains suspect is the RO/RF Engine GUI information displayed in the engine properties in the VAB. <--- and as a stretch assumption, whether KER is feeding of this incorrect data. Shifting my play to using MJ solves the playability issue for me, but still... the incorrect Engine GUI info remains a minor peeve. THANK YOU @leudaimon ! (Note: I don't have the inclination to assess all the engines, but will do what I can as I proceed.)

It is likely that I am not comprehending things correctly here so please bear with me... On Wikipedia (Here) the LM descent engine is shown as having a MAX thrust of 45 kN, yet on the engine GUI in RO the H version shows 16.374 kN I know the engine is throttled. But still this info display makes no sense to me. Also the Ascent engine (here) indicates 16kN, whilst the RO GUI shows 5kN To me it looks like there is some discrepancy. Happy to be set straight here - never too proud to rightly accept being wrong. EDIT: On looking at the engine configs in RO it seems like they are closer to reality AE 15.57 DE 43.9 so why the display issue? and what value is Kerbal Engineer using?

I'm surprised at the small number of comments here. I can only surmise this is somewhat due to a seismic shift toward less affinity to key Squad personalities. Are we moving into a phase where people just don't care? (this is something that Squad's comms team should have centred in their sights! <--- @Badie) Granted, there has been a 'great leaving' over the past months, but still... there are other (newer) people following on (and taking up the task) from @sal_vager that also deserve our appreciation. Who today are the new team members that need to be elevated in the communities view??? Is there a strategic communications and persona plan? Moving forward, I would hope that @SQUAD would take steps to elevate various personas and recapture the communities linkage into new folks that are making the next generation of KSP happen. Otherwise there is diminishing community sustainability long term. ALSO: I suppose the dev blog will continue to be a lower priority. Since there is still no reasonable update happening on a regular basis. @SQUAD you can do better - just try. No... don't try, DO! @sal_vager once again ---> thank you!

I will repost here my comment from the daily kerbal... snip... @sal_vager I sincerely hope your example of attitude and style regarding forum moderation persists in the wake of your departure. Best of luck in whatever and wherever you go. Snip/snip Oh, and one more thing: @sal_vager, it's probably appropriate for you to NOT turn out the lights when you leave. ...snip good luck @sal_vager !!!!!!!!!

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/116275-105-rss-planets-moons-expanded-v0120-sedna-is-finally-here/ And yes it scales properly as far as my eye can tell. Be sure to scan through the entire thread as there were running changes made. Exactly - which causes orbital and tracking station views of these bodies to be quite a ways away from the surface. Definitely challanging.

Nice to have this back again - successfully loaded and working fine. I plugged in RSS Expanded also, looks beautiful! Well done!

Exactly! This is now an issue with ''my ability to retrace my steps and see what I installed when" that allowed this minor issue to crop up again. EDIT: It appress to me that the incorrect Mk2 Pod RCS display ONLY reappears when VSR is loaded. I stripped out ALL my mods, started a clean install and started loading mods incrementally and restarting KSP each time. The issue reappeared with VSR. I then started unloading mods incrementally, to no effect, UNTIL VSR was removed. I will now take VSR off my desirable mod list for the time being. (not a huge issue - just visual candy and a few minor parts) So as it stands now I have a working 1.2.2 RO/RSS/RSSx implementation and I am very happy with the set up so far - except for VSR, but no worries, there are ways to cope Many thanks to @Phineas Freak!!! EDIT @: WAIT... is there an issue with the lunar module ascent engine thrust rating? Seems way too low now. I thought the original was 3500 pounds of thrust which is like approx 15kn I think... my conversion math might be wonky. Or is Kerbal engineer calculating things incorrectly these days? <<<This. Just witnessed it calculating incorrectly and then when removing a part it recalculated to what appears correct. Weird - need to keep an eye on this.