Search the Community

The guy hasn't logged into his forum account in 3 months and you managed to talk with him... hmmm. Forgive my skepticism, but please tell us all how you accomplished this magical feat. I already did this and wrote about how to do it, read the rest of the thread if your going to post. Maybe they weren't, maybe that numbers off, but the whole test quickly became completely irrelevant once I figured out how to delete the unused maps from memory, there's no need to load them all. Again, you didn't read what I posted. Any extra resolution with MapSat is worthless because of the inherent stuttering you get from pulling data from the game while flying. From my previous post: How ironic, the only person whining here is you. I confess this made me LOL. First off, I already posted how to do it better, with a demonstration and screenshots. What programming suggestions have you posted? Trying to get facts, laff, the only thing you're doing in this thread is cutting down everyone who tries to suggest improvements on the 'super incredible amazing' MapSat. You honestly come off as sounding like you wrote the program and won't accept criticism of it.

I've been playing this game for months now (first tried the demo, later bought it on Steam). Finally, I decided to register on the KSP forums to meet and talk with other people who enjoy playing this game (and space exploration in general). That's it for now, I guess. If you have any questions, please feel free to reply to this thread and I'll do my best to answer them.

Not really.... that's really a shortcut for "has the same weight as a mass of x kilograms at the Earth's surface". Any time we start seriously talking about weight as a force instead of a mass* in SI we do talk in terms of Newtons. -- Steve * colloquially they do get confused, a lot; a '70s kids educational show Eureka! used that confusion to good effect by proposing that while diet and exercise helped reduce your mass, going into orbit was a much better weight reduction plan than giving up donuts.

This is like physicists practicing to lawyer-talk . . . Can one of you guys clarify what is really the difference here? Actually this page on Mass versus weight is a bit better but I'd still like to hear what you guys say. What I'm getting is: mass is what an object has when it is in freefall, i.e., how much inertia it has when gravity is not acting on it?

I see KSP gets only 15 minutes. Squad devs better talk REAL fast. LOL

@E-dog Oops, I forgot to talk about the nodes. The top interstage adapter is upside down and attaches to that docking port via the "top" node (the one that moves with H), and the bottom interstage adapter is attached rightside up via the "second" top node. Here's a .craft file with stock and PF stuff in the configuration that I'm trying to deal with.

As the title says, your avatar is stuck in an elevator with the above person's avatar. Your avatar is at the top of a really tall building. Around 300 floors to be exact. The elevator is painfully slow, but will get the job done if it's just one floor. The buttons have all been pushed, so it will be a long time. Every post counts as a floor. Every floor the above poster's avatar steps out and a new poster's avatar steps in. Once we hit the bottom floor, same thing except we go up a floor instead of down, and vice versa. Would your avatar attempt to make small talk? Maybe pull out a shotgun and rob the above avatar? You gotta do something here to pass the time, you will be here a very, very long time...

I in fact read the entire thread again (saw this a week ago when you didn't think you're be able to continue) and nothing says anything about a license or permission from Deusoverkill, all it says is: "Firstly, I want to thank comrade deusoverkill, for creating the models and textures for this mod!" I asked if you were using the models still because there had been talk of perhaps using the other Soyuz mod. And the reason I ask is because Deus had in the past asked other people NOT to reuse his work, so I wasn't sure he would give it if asked. I actually just looked at his old thread and he has a license posted in his thread: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ If you read the terms, it says: You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work. In other words, unless someone has spoken with deus and got a waiver of this license, you can't edit it and re-release it, he specifically forbade it in his license choice. I also downloaded your file and noticed it lacked a license, nor is their one in the first post. So as you can see, I had good reason to ask you. I didn't want to assume you were still using the files and releasing them without permission, so I asked. The TL;DR version: If someone has spoken with Deus and gotten permission, great! You just need to set up a license document for your download and thread and you're good to go. If you have not, then you may have a bit of an issue because his posted license specifically forbids what you're doing here, I am afraid. not trying to rain on your parade or anything, sorry. :/

I hope people with better google-fu than me will find videos and post the links. They were at a Unity event and are at PAX. Unity Talk finally posted. Update 9/13/2013 another PAX interview finally posted. Update 8/31/2013 At 3pm PST or 6pm EST on Sunday 9/1 there might be something KSP related on Twitch http://www.twitch.tv/twitch /Update thanks macegee .22 reveal interview from the above http://www.twitch.tv/twitch/b/454897273 Go to 5:21 for the interview. Just the .22 reveal section on Youtube. Images from the Twitch interview on .22 Update 9/1/2013 Game informer article. Nothing really about.22 but interesting. http://www.gameinformer.com/games/kerbal_space_program/b/pc/archive/2013/09/01/the-story-of-kerbal-space-program.aspx /Update Found a podcast from Gaming Dead KSP discussion starts at 16:50 http://gamingdead.com/2013/09/02/gaming-dead-podcast-pax-prime-day-3 Game Front Article. Nothing new for us but good background info on the game. http://www.gamefront.com/the-fascinating-origin-of-kerbal-space-program/ it is a part 1 though so maybe there will be more. Joystiq article just posted http://www.joystiq.com/2013/09/04/the-atypical-story-of-kerbal-space-programs-indie-flight-to-suc/ HD KSP trailer shown at PAX KSP Twitter pictures: Unity event: PAX (think this is just someone in the tournament)

We had a talk about this *cough... Thing ...*cough a couple of months ago. 1) They -almost- directly insulted the KSP community with their game's description. 2) They're selling more than they can make. Seriously, I highly doubt they'll get it running in iOS. I wouldn't say anything if it was some kind of Orbiter revamp for PC, but aiming for iPhones and iPads is too much for a space sim. Check out "Space agency", that's probably as far as a cellphone can go in terms of space simulation. EDIT: Yep, still there. "...or let you fly cartoon-ish spacecrafts in a fictitious tiny universe with unrealistic physics...". Spit at your audience in the face and you will go far.

With a testing area (flat surface with easy twikable atmosphere and gravity) you would need a lot less proper launches as we know right now. Also don't expect a high performance in an alpha please, we can talk about this threat when at least we have a Beta.

Great job, also investigating/trying some thing around [model] now, as said (here.) having trouble with multiple internal/hatch/animated object/(some of thoose kind of modules). "Parsing" the *.craft files to make them*. cfg seem to work in the main lines (atm i m using a very basic open office/excel like sheet with some very basic macro to minimize some of the calcul "pos" & "rot" conversion but still have to adjust a few things manually). In // recently read that the use of some direct call to "generic animation module" + "manual add of action groups" could help with multiple call of a single named unity object in a [model] like *.cfg file but i m stills stuck with that for now. I noticed that in a *craft files this kind of object got an {part=name_increment} + their own modules in the {part} structure but appear that [model] structure don't allow this kind of increment/rename for mutliple {module ...} call of the same [model] object or some kind of direct attach of a {module} to a [model] (wich would be perfect ) so i wondered if there is a way to rename/increment 'multiple/same' [model] in some way for later 'multiple/same' {module} call (Scuse the poor english froggy too here + totally new to ksp i don't even talk about modding ). Et une fois plus bon boulot Ubio !!! j'adore vraiment la simplicité de l'idée comme beaucoup.

haha this wasn't even supposed to be about graphics, I just thought it was an awesome shot, and I added in some "sarcastic comedy"... or so I thought.. But since everyone wants to talk about graphics.. it WOULD be nice to have some more particle effects.. something to look at. and for those who can't run it.. just have a slider option.. or a "on and off"... easy nuff.

Quite self-explanatory. You may only talk to other members using GIFs or Images. Just don't post really large images, they mess up the thread. Let's begin!

I am definatley addicted. i cant even do a full 8 hour work day without sneeking off to the bathroom and sitting there for 15 minutes to look at the forums. all day i dream of missions and new rocket ideas, new space station ideas. as soon as the bell rings for break, out comes my phone straight to ksp forums. I get 10 minute break and a half an hour break and the whole time i dont even look away from the phone. My friends try to talk to me but i basically just ignore and do the occasional laugh and nod but im not paying attention, i didnt even hear what they just said. im too busy planning my next design. i couldnt imagine going 8 days without KSP in my life. i love this game

Sounds weird, but everything falls under "maybe" if we think of the world or probabilities. Remember the thought experiment where two containers, one empty and one with gas, are connected and then opened, and nothing happens in the first second or... ever? It is possible, but highly unlikely. The probability of such scenario is so low, it would take an incredible number of universes worth of time to ever happen. And by "incredible" I mean really... really incredible. In everyday talk science puts that aside and says "impossible", because it's boils down to it. What enviromentalists say is not relevant to this discussion. They say all kinds of things. Some of it is politically inclined crap, some of it not. Scientific consensus about the whole issue is that it's anthropogenic and that the consequences will likely devastating in the long term period - devastating for our current way of life. The nature will not cease to exist. It will change and adapt, but our asses are the problem. Enviromentalists then use all this to do whatever they do. So, of course you'll hear "yes, but" from a scientist. That just means he's a good scientist, taught to be careful about the stuff he says. Scientific skepticism is absolutely nothing like pathological skepticism (people who deny there is a climate change, holocaust deniers, and all other nutjobs). During the 60's and the 70's we had sliding rules and huge nomograms, and very slow computers. Global cooling was one of the earliest efforts to model the whole atmosphere. Today we have additional 40-50 years of empirical data, more knowledge and vastly more powerful computers. So we're sort of in a better situation. The graphs are indeed showing a slowdown, yet the fluctuations are perfectly normal. It didn't came as a surprise to people who presumed the oceans might play a large role. They're indeed dampers. Thermal and chemical dampers with feedback loops. I do live in EU (yes, ex-communist country, I hate propaganda). I have nothing against the ban of incadescent lights except cultural nostalgia. Those lamps are very inefficient. Enormous amounts of electricity are wasted as heat, so you get less light for the same amount of invested energy. As most of the energy we get is extracted from fossil fuels, lowering the number of incadescent lights will lower the amount of power spent. Sounds like a paradox, but it will also lower the amount of mercury in the environment, because the amount that exits the power plants' chimneys is much greater than the amount than the amounts inside the new lamps. Less radioisotopes and carcinogenic chemicals, too. Coal is a nasty thing. What I agree with is the thing with the solar electrical power. It's a growing industry which has a net negative impact on the planet. The energy it puts out is ridiculously small, the energy density is small, and the manufacturing industry that produces them is incredibly polluting. But as long as it's in China, as it is, politically inclined environmentalists can fool everyone they want. I understand what you're trying to say. We Europeans think of ourselves as environmentally conscious, and at the other side of the planet whole regions are contaminated with wasteproducts of our "clean" devices. China burns lots of coal so they could make shiny things we buy to feel better about ourselves. Even if we take our society out of the equation, elevated CO2 levels don't have a net beneficial effect. Lots of species will perish. Species perish all the time, it's the normal way of nature, but in these conditions, it's sped up. I've mentioned jellyfish before. They will become a huge problem. They like warm water and elevated levels of zooplankton (which is thriving because there's lots of phytoplankton, which thrives because of CO2). More jellyfish, less ecological diversity. They eat baby fish. Less diversity, worse overall feedback. Of course, after some time, things change again, that's how nature works. It won't be gone. You have a crazy boss, I must admit it. What to do with the warming? I honestly think that if we would cease to exist, it would take few millenia until things went back to normal. Clearly, we aren't going anywhere, so the solution is to lower our carbon footprint and other footprints. But it has to be done sensibly. There's a whole spectrum of possibilities between doing nothing (what American oil field republicans want) and enforcing drastic measures. EU can't do much compared to USA, Russia and China, neither of which seem to give a **** and release lots of CO2. America had the chance to develop new nuclear fission technologies, but after Three Mile Island and the whole hippie movement, public support has failed. USA now uses very old powerplants, unlike France which made new generations of power plants and continuously works on improving the technology and sells excess energy to neighbouring stupid governments (Italy, for example). Supposedly China is making a progress in the field, but who knows... Maybe it's just propaganda. If that happened most of the time, the consequences would be drastic. Yes, it happens sometimes, but there's the peer review method. If you publish something, sooner or later someone else is going to repeat it to check it out. If they prove you're a cheater, you'll lose a lot more. You sound like it's a normal, everyday thing. It isn't.

Nobody got the wrong ideas except YOU, and I'm not sure you realize how hard it would be to adapt it in KSP anyway. Next : What the hell did to tried to say with that comparison of the age of sail you attribute to me ? The engineering level needed to build the beam-sail system you pretend to be "practical" require 99.9999% efficient EVERYTHING using fabrication process post-singularity(if you now what it mean). It's like saying "ok we have carbon-nanotube, so why can't we build a space-elevator with maglev-train in the next 40 years and an orbital ring 10 years later ?" To do the same comparison than you, you are from the Apollo Era, talking about a self-sufficient colony on Mars within 50 years. That's was about REALITY, now we have to talk about VIDEO GAME. We told you several times that even if KSP generously overpowered the laser, made the vessel immune to heat and reduced by 1-2 orders of magnitude the distance between different stars, you would still require several year of SLOW and CONTINUOUS acceleration that CANNOT be calculated real-time (and is quite a waste of time). Supposing KSP could deal with it in a very simplified way (one center of thrust for example), the only way to keep this miracle-technology from replacing any other sort of technology is to make travel longer than 10 years What I'm trying to make you understand is that your goals are mutually exclusive. Let's try another approach and show you the MATH of a Beam-Sail for KSP : Imagine another star 94607304725 km away from Kerbol (that's 1 Light-year divided by 10e-2) We will take Kerbol-Jool as a comparison : 68 773 560 km Maximum speed : 0.5 C Sail-size and Laser-power are considered adequate and there's no power-loss from the laser with distance. (Flyby trip) Getting there at 0.5 C take 1,8 years, let's take 10 years of acceleration to reach 0.5 C 150 000 000 m/s -> divided by 10*365 days, then 24h, down to second. It give us a reasonable acceleration of 0.04 m/s² for a ~11 years travel. For comparison the stock-Ion-probe (0.68 Tons) : accelerate at 0.08 m/s². (a full Xenon tank is 1/6 of its mass) Now if you want to propel something BIGGER than this probes, the energy requirement will obey the cube law. The Unforeseen consequence is that to propel 10 tons at 0.04m/s² you gain the ability to propel 1 tons at 10e3 * 0.04 m/s = 40m/s² ...no need to say it allow to send probes anywhere in the Kerbol system. (Transfer trip) Getting there at 0.5 C take 1,8 years, let's take 5 years to accelerate to 0.5 C then 5 years to brake 150 000 000 m/s -> divided by 5*365 days, then 24h, down to second. It give us a strong acceleration of 0.9 m/s² for a ~11 years travel. Following the cube-law, if you want to transfer a 10 tons ship will give you the ability to propel 1 tons at 900m/s². I'll let you crunch the numbers for the power requirement and the sail size. You'll tell us how much satellite you need to propel 1 ton and 10 tons. If you reduce the mass of the spaceship, you allow conventional drive to reach relativistic speed. If you reduce the acceleration, you'll increase travel time to 50 or 150 years. If you augment or reduce the distance of the target, you won't make much difference. If you give more mass to the sail and its support-structure, you'll increase the energy requirement. If you augment the number of satellites needed you reach obscene numbers of launch for later mission. If you require research to increase the sail/lasers efficiency, you'll need magic (sufficiently evolved technology). I see no gameplay mechanism which would allow us to balance a STL beam-sail infrastructure. Except pretending it doesn't work for interplanetary travel. On the other hand I can give you a dozen of FTL gameplay that are moderately challenging and don't break the common game mechanic. The Big problem with procedurally generated content, is that it does NOT increase linearly the interest of the game and you can randomly end up with 10 boring solar system. Procedural Generation is good to fill some void or generate unimportant relief, but you still need some human-creativity to make those void/relief interesting.

It looks like it has almost the same cube-size - many of minecraft mechanics and a bad version of its style. Even the developers talk about minecraft: "combines elements of protal and minecraft"

DicheBach kind of is, K^2 not at all. So you think science is about "yes" and "no"? Then you obviously don't understand how science works. It works with levels of certainty, and the certainty for the anthropogenic factor as the greatest factor is the highest. The whole idea is not based on turbulence and theory of chaos. It's based on the fact we've measured an astounding correlation between the global average temperature and the speed of releasing anthropogenic CO2. That's a fact. Yes, there might be another explanation, but this is the best one we have. Who calls CO2 a pollutant? Enviromentalists? You do realize there's a difference between them and scientists that measure and develop models? In the world of science, CO2 is not a pollutant. In the world of politics it sometimes is, but that doesn't matter because we're trying to talk about science here. Your argument about the plants is ridiculous. Of course they eat it. Of course they thrive in elevated concentrations of it. But what does that have to do with the fact that more heat energy in the atmosphere/hydrosphere means more turbulence and more crappy time for us? You accuse others for fixating on details, yet you fixate on how the plants like to at CO2 and ignore a mountain of problems above. And of course, the conspiracy theories. Because the only nation on the Earth is America, the only scientists are Americans, so naturally, the whole issue is made up by the American government. Nobody else on this planet measured any problems and nobody else is studying and developing models. I'm not an enviromentalist, I'm not a doomsdayer and I really don't like things like Greenpeace and other nutters, but I think it's a shame what politics does to laymen. Unfortunatelly, this is one of the problems of democracy. It lets the uneducated masses vote for ignorant people. It's the best system we have (on a long term scale), but it's so damn slow. Do you have evidence to support the cooling? I bet you don't. It's a lie manufactured by tabloids, and its foundation is in the statements made by the Met Office, which said that the rate of warming is slightly lower than the earlier models predicted. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2013/jan/09/global-warming-met-office-paused It's still getting warmer. It's not getting cooler, it is not pausing. The rate of warming is simply a bit lower than expected, but the global average temperature is still going up. The explanation for the lower rate of warming up is the change in the response from the oceans, which act like thermal accumulation units. Higher average temeprature leads to more heat, different salinity and density of the global currents. The crackpots immediately started using this lie and it soon started to circulate around the web.

we can talk about it so long as the tag disscussion is there, not suggestion, and were are talking, not arguring.

I hope you all enjoy the new pack as much as EPD and I do. Although I agree that there's some balancing issues, there's something you're missing: With upcoming R&D, you will need to do plenty of research before you can use the parts in this pack. So the engines might be overpowered right now, but give it time. Same goes for the generators. Right now they run on nothing. That will change once there's a stock way to harvest new resources. To make it short: These parts are designed to be the future of kerbalkind, thus they will be available at the very end of the stock tech-tree. All balancing is moot until R&D is properly implemented. Having said that: The door is now open to discuss all parts, we'd love to hear how you'd configure the parts. I for one am crap at balancing and left it to EPD, so he's the guy to talk to.

Ok. let's go back to the point of this discussion thread. I think the main problem here is lack of knowledge about how much has to offer serius concept of interstellar propulsion. And the fact that light speed limit can be an advantage instead a barrier. How much would we take to travel to the center of the galaxy "27000 ly"? -With relativity at 99,999% light speed aprox 70 years. -With imaginary FTL at 100c it will take 270 years. And if you close more and more to the light speed you will reach a point that you will do it in just weaks. Of course the earth time lapsed it will be still 27000 years. First, the ion drives thrust is higher than normal just because we can not have any engine "on" in the time warp designed by squad. But you will notice that you burn xenon gas a lot faster than in real live. So is the same! So if we had a different timewarp mode for some kinds of propulsions where structure physics is not taken into account then it would be no need to modify ion engines. In fact you can reach higher delta V with ion engines in real live than in KSP. Also you are wrong about how it will be incorporate real propulsion system in ksp. Yes! it will be a "little harded" than build an space station. But once you have all set up, then you can use it for any amount of travels that you want. And in the case that you dont wanna waste time in infracstructure needed, then you can download your favorite save file according to your tastes. And is not only to probes!! Of course your first mission it will have a lot more of sense if you do it with probes. But if you want you can expand your collector and send kerbals. Also we already need to set up a big infrastructure in space to send a manned mission to laythe, and the mission time it is like 4 years. But it seems that you want a mission frame of 1 years without any infrastructure to send kerbals to other stars.. IS CRAZY!!! Agree, but if they use those examples in benefic of FTL idea, then we can use thousands of examples where similar ideas (like FTL now) was claimed and prove wrong later. So we dont go anywhere following this path. seriously? star trek a grand vision?? Of course, it can be entertaining and inspiring , like those tight outfit that the womens use But if you wanna see "true vision", you need to read Arthur C Clarke, or Larry Niven, or Robert Forward, etc. Even when I was little (8 years old ) I knew that star trek was not accurate at all with real science. In case of Arthur C clarke you will see that anything that he wrote in 1950, was very accurate with 2000, and so go on. Why?? because he was a scientist, and he based his novels on real science. Even 2001 space odysey was a lot more accurate then than to day hollywood movies. A discuccion only has sense if we talk about things that we know, the technology is like a ladder, we can add one step if we have the one below. But we cant talk about a step at 300 meters high if we dont have any idea how would it be the middle steps to reach there.

The blue line only shows the path currently being used for communication -- it doesn't show the entire network. It will usually show the path back to KSC, unless you're using a closer RemoteCommand module that's controlling the craft in question. For Kerbin I like to use 4 equally spaced relay satellites at a lower orbit (~1000Km). At that altitude, the dipole antenna has more than enough range to comfortably reach the two neighboring satellites as well as KSC, so you can put on a single dish and save that for long-range communication. Geosync is cool, but isn't really necessary. With 4 relays, at least one will always have line of sight to KSC. At Geosync altitude, you can outrange the dipole if you don't get the spacing just perfect, so you need to use the deployable antenna (don't forget to deploy it!) or a dish. In general, I prefer antennas over dishes whenever possible since you don't have to worry about targeting them and they can talk to more than one endpoint at once. The one advantage of Geosync is that if you get the orbits perfect you only need 3 relays for full coverage.

Could you test this, with removing time warp completely and putting in the Anti-matter/Warp mod? Maybe even talk with that mod dev to see if he could mod the mod, to make it so, you can convert power or something, to power a warp drive, to make it auto set the vessel in question up by increments of 10 fold in speed, while making it a static physics object some how, so you can't turn, etc, gotta warp in the direction, keep the "deflector dish" or something going, to bounce away particles, if you don't it removes the static and lets the kraken get at your vehicle going however fast? or something of the like, just as another "viable" multiplayer test, even if you made a simple on that allowed two computers through LAN or other means could play together, or something. Would be amazing.

Dislike: The connection node system; The flying spaghetti monster is supposed to be an expression, not an object. Like: The direction the devs talk about taking; In which not everything is realistic for earth terms, but fluidly transitions within the reality the game presents.