Inter

I can not stand playing in 1.11 for one reason: Repair Kits. I play 95% of my time in Sandbox mode. I expect Sandbox to be truly sandbox in play, not needing to bother with *any* resources if I choose to avoid such hassles and slowdowns. Yet, in KSP 1.11, Repair Kits are required to do something as classic and commonplace as repairing a wheel -- and, so far as I can see, there is no setting yet either in game options or in the F12 cheats menu to disable this Repair Kit requirement. I can not play the game with this impediment in place. I will be going back to 1.10 and staying there until this issue is resolved. For resolution, I propose the dev's add either an option or a cheat menu setting to *disable* the requirement for part repairs to consume Repair Kits. I will go so far as even suggesting that the RK requirement be waived *by default* for Sandbox mode as the contrary goes against the spirit of true sandbox play. Resolution #2: ...If the previous proposition does not gain dev traction, then my alternative proposition is for an option or cheat menu setting that simply bypasses actual consumption of RKs. This way, Engineer kerbals still need to carry RKs in their personal inventory when doing repairs, but the act of repairing a part does not actually consume any of the RKs in their inventory. In other words, RKs effectively become infinite in quantity/use/duration. I would be happy with either of the above resolutions. Please and thank you, developers.

The acronym "NRE" was thrown around everywhere in this changelog but never defined first. What does it stand for, please?

Hello, Inigma. I just finished a 2 hour stream of playing GAP missions. We set some world records, barnstormed some hangars, commuted a few kerbals, and rescued a couple of climbers. If you'd like to check out my gameplay and hear my feedback to specific elements of the experience, you can find the stream here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUe9-qPHLVs Cheers!

I apologize if I'm quoting you unnecessarily. I don't know how to reply directly to a person in this forum. Thank you for the answer, that was what I needed!

Hi, folks. I was watching a video recently where I saw the host using an option in Action Groups to set a setting called "Toggle Servo" for the Rotation Servo M-06. (In case you're wondering, that part is the smallest servo and the one first acquired in the science tech tree, but I suspect this setting option would be available for all of the other servos as well.) His screen looked like this: https://imgur.com/jrOChjN However, when I click on the same part in my own KSP, I only see the following two options. There is no "Toggle Servo" setting available to me under Action Groups > Custom#. https://imgur.com/fHdofhD Does anyone know how the "Toggle Servo" option is acquired? Yes, I have already reached out to the video owner but the mystery persists at the moment and I'm hoping to have this solved by EOB today. Thank you. Also, since I'm new to posting pictures in this forum, I'd be tickled if anyone could apprise me of how to make images appear as embedded thumbnails instead of mere links. Cheers.

Sorry I'm late to the discussion. I am not a forum Regular; I'm just here today to support & further some of the points raised by greydragon70 (Jolly Roger Aerospace). Before I get into that though, I want to give a thank you to @Papa_Joe for his wall of text on page 113. As a fan of walls of text and the information they provide, I thank you on that principle alone. I also want to say that it has been bittersweet to get back into BDA a few weeks ago and discover the heat mechanic is no longer there, making it impossible for me to do testing with the stock "ignore max temperature" cheat active. For realism sake, however, I do approve of the switch over to kinetic energy causing primary damage instead of thermal energy. I wish to add my 2 cents to two issues raised on page 113 by greydragon70. Not expecting a reply, just putting out my 2 cents. issue #1 Is Unity prone to having ongoing/unending hissy fits? I ask because, once sound effects break in my battles, they tend to remain broken/unreliable throughout the remainder of the engagement, even after the initial, wild, spontaneous first volleys have been spent and firing later becomes more sporadic or farther apart in time. Once it's broken, it stays broken. And it almost always breaks very early in the fight. issue #2 While I do not dispute DoctorDavinci's point, the presence of this phenomenon in general is equally indisputable. If the vessel my camera is focused on is one of the competitors in a dogfight, it way too frequently influences the outcome of the battle, usually in the form of one or the other team's flight behavior. Many people have observed this and similar phenomena related to vessel focus. It has been noticed even by onlookers (YouTube spectators), people who do not have first hand experience with the mod or even the battle they were watching. I *have* had first-hand experience with this phenomenon yet, even if I had not, for something to be called into question that many times would suffice to convince me it is real and meritorious of investigation. The problem may not be in BDA but in conflicts between BDA and stock KSP over prioritization with aircraft control, physics, accuracy of vector calculations -- I'm not a programmer so I don't know what else to call into question, but something is clearly going on even if its evidence is difficult to quantifiably/experientially pin down. While this is not strictly within the confines of issue #2, it does relate, and I second that I have also observed this on many an occasion. This seems to me more of an explicit bug rather than the nebulous phenomenon aforementioned. Thank you for reading, --Inter

@_Rade I strongly second this, Rade. I know at least two of my guiding principal aspects of technology in the stock prop engines I build are things I learned from reverse engineering your designs from a year or so ago.

Hi, Selfish_Meme. I've recorded my final attempt in a stock prop. I know mine is not the fastest plane out there but it's the fastest stock prop I've been able to make and it allowed me to meet my personal goal in this challenge of being under half an hour. The upload to my channel has finished, so here is the link: After reading some posts above, I see the Beggar's Canyon challenge target has been changed. I did not know this when practicing my trajectories last night. I hope you'll excuse my attempt in ignorance that is demonstrated in this video. That is to say, pardon my incorrect attempt but justly do not count it on the score board. --Inter

Hi, Selfish_Meme. I made an attempt with a stock prop plane of mine (built in 1.3, I think). I did it on a stream just now. I will come back and update this post with a link to my stream after the stream has finished processing on YouTube. Total run time from roll start to full stop was 36m20s. Fastest velocity was 175mps but average was around 145. Cheers! PS. Squiddy sent me. Here is the link to my attempt:

In the Mission Builder, in the Mission Briefing pop-up window, there is a dropdown called "Mission Pack". The default selection is "None". I do not see a way to make my mission belong to any mission pack. How do I do this? My over-arching intent is to be able to make a sequence of missions with results from previously completed missions persisting into subsequent missions. That way I can tell a story or break down a long interplanetary voyage into smaller, more manageable intermediate missions. In my head, this chain of missions is what would be described as a mission pack. Am I wrong? Is that not what mission packs are in the Mission Builder? What, actually, is a so-called "Mission Pack"? Thank you.

I do not know how to do replies in this medium. It's one of the many things I dislike about this forum. I'm attempting to reply to Samwise but I fear this may appear as nothing more than a new miscellaneous post. Samwise, I like the format of your attempt post! Looking forward to seeing the edited video(s). Edit: ...Aaaaand, a reply I wrote on my own thread still needs to be approved by a moderator. Does everyone have to suffer this when they come to this website?

Inter's Bombing Challenge This challenge is now live! There is no definitive end date and there is no scoring/ranking system, so feel free to give it a whack whenever you feel up to this type of challenge. The general idea of the challenge is to use the BDArmory mod weaponry to attack ground targets at designated locations in an assortment of nine scenarios. Most targets are weapon systems that will shoot back at you, hence the challenge. --Rules-- The rules are very extensive and far too verbose for me to put into this post. Please follow these links to the videos I have made which cover all of the rules. You will need to abide by all of them or else risk being disqualified. Furthermore, the files you will need in order to play this challenge are listed as links in these videos' Descriptions. Rule set #1 "How to Play" https://youtu.be/yUua-qlN4yE Rule set #2 "Rules of Engagement" https://youtu.be/iwgPj3oAzTE Rule set #3 "Intelligence Brief" <https://youtu.be/6IqNV0inBrQ --Winners-- Since there will be no "first place" or "best contestant", what we are instead competing for is Bragging Rights! The following is a list of some of the bragging rights I conceived off the top of my head. I hope this thread's discussion will see additional bragging rights proposed and competed for! fastest aircraft slowest aircraft lightest aircraft heaviest aircraft longest fuel range least amount of fuel spent biggest payload space most munitions carried cheapest armament all guns, baby! strafing attacks only! most received damage without dying ghost assassin (no retaliation) precision strikes carpet bombing longest kill closest kill fastest mission time fewest munitions spent most unlikely-to-succeed craft torpedo Deep Sixer award wingman mastermind brutality / overkill missile dodging exemplary jamming & countermeasures night mode (do the attempts at night) --Conduct-- I hope I don't need to state the obvious but please be polite, be open-minded, be encouraging, be enthusiastic, and do not cheat. Unpleasant people will not be welcome to have a voice in this thread. Thank you.

Hi, dev folks. BDAc version 0.2.1.1_05282017 is not allowing multiple-craft takeoffs extending beyond 350 meters. Page 2 of the BDA FAQ in the KSPedia says this is normally not a problem (and I know from past experience that it has not been in recent BDA versions) due to the BDA extension normally overruling the landed pack/unpack distance restriction. Since the BDA extension is currently failing in this regard, I am running into problems where I have two (or more) craft situated near to each other and try to make the craft I am *not* currently focused on take off, either by using the Wing Commander instruction or by activating Guard Mode and putting the two craft on opposing teams so they automatically attempt takeoff. If the combined ground roll of the two craft exceeds a separation distance of 350 meters, the craft my camera is not currently focused on will come to an instantaneous halt on the terrain surface, just as if the BDA mod never existed. Naturally, this halting extends to multiple craft if I am operating with more than two craft in the scene. It is also a problem when I am trying to conduct a fleet takeoff and there are craft in the fleet which have substantially different accelerations from each other. Looking forward to a recompile that will fix this issue. Thank you! --Inter