Hobbes Novakoff

For starters, it has 512MB of RAM (KSP uses >3GB), as well as decade-old hardware and a declining player base. Current consoles will have trouble with KSP. Consoles from the Mesozoic Era, comparatively speaking, won't handle it at all.

A sort of From The Depths-esque SRB (or even LFO engine) would be very cool. However, From The Depths achieves its high degree of modularity by confining everything to a voxel system. With the free-form placement of KSP, that becomes a bit more difficult. Not to mention, it requires finely tuned balancing, otherwise within three seconds someone will have figured out the optimal way to do everything for every situation and everything will start looking exactly the same.

IIRC, the reason for the Rapier to have no alternator wasn't based in realism, but purely in gameplay balance. The advantages of having a single compact engine that worked in atmo and in space were counterbalanced by (comparatively) low stats as well as a requirement for other power sources, whether solar panels (which don't work in atmo aside from the tiny OX-STAT one), the PB-NUK (Heavy), or fuel cells (which use up, as you may have guessed, fuel.)

The apocalypse is upon us.

1. In that case, disable auto-updates. Also, they have been "warning" us for literally a month now. 2. Did you not read about the save upgrader?

IT'S HERE

DEPLOYING FONTS Hype Hype Hype Hype Hype

I think we all know exactly what that is. Also, HYPE

No, a new expertise called "finding out about, installing, then using Hyperedit."

In that case, she's quite a bit farther along than he imagines!

@cantab: The thing is, what if I have a super-fast rocket that can go from Ike to Eve? Or I use hyperedit? The game has to be able to handle that.

When you run out of physical memory, doesn't Windows just create a swap file on the disk? Seems like it would be laggy, but I don't think it would crash. That said, sometime in the future I may indeed drop $40 and pop in two more 4GB DIMMs. Just because. Also because it feels weird for my Macbook Pro to have more RAM than my desktop. PS3? I believe you mean PS4.

Have you never read a Tintin comic?

Dr. Turkey is leaving? Wow. That was quick. Well, goodbye, and thank you. I have obtained this intelligence photo of his successor. Please tell me that's going to be his avatar.

Is making a successor to KS the new cool fad or something?

My point exactly. But this is getting very much off-topic.

I'm not endorsing use on a website. However, for a school project, it should be fine. Here's the entry in the rulebook of the contest I mentioned: FAIR USE: The use of copyrighted material for your project falls under the Fair Use doctrine, which intends educational use for non-commercial purposes as acceptable with certain limitations. You should not place your project in a non-academic public setting, such as a commercial Internet site, without obtaining permission from the copyright owner. This is a national competition, I assume they know what they're talking about.

Another issue is weird firewalls like at schools or public wifi systems. For instance, the image at the top of Devnote Tuesdays and often the art in Fanwork Fridays glitches out on school wifi, because the images are hosted on Tumblr and my school blocks Tumblr.

Huh. I always thought it was constant.

KSP doesn't account for that. Gravity is the same everywhere within each SOI.

No, it's an excellent idea to define KSP, as it helps planning the direction of the game to no end. SQUAD appears to have defined KSP as a space program management game with a heavy emphasis on building craft and flying them under realistic physics. RPG-style character progression doesn't have a place in the game. One of the best things about KSP is the no-bull difficulty. Your rocket failed because you didn't add enough fuel and you piloted it wrong. It didn't fail because since your Kerbal doesn't have Level 4 Engineer, 2 Charisma, and 2 points in the Cosmic Fart skill, gravity became 10x stronger.

That may have been one of the reasons. I'm opposed to it because it would make sharing harder. "This craft can go to the Mun, but only if you have a level 5 pilot and a level 3 engineer." It makes KSP more like an RPG. Why do we need character skills? This is a game where you build rockets, not level up a character.

May the Kraken have no mercy on their stations, and may their rockets always be stowed.

Well then! We can enjoy the title of co-champions with Construct 2. According to their website: While I personally think that KSP had a few more legitimate votes, I'm not going to be salty about the outcome. Congratulations to Squad, congratulations to Construct 2, and many angry finger-wags to the vote-spammers on both sides.

The idea of kerbals providing buffs to vessel statistics was hotly debated prior to 1.0 (or maybe it was 0.90, it's been such a long time). It was decided that pilots and engineers buffing things like engine thrust would make no sense, and pilots buffing crash tolerance is just stupid. While theoretically pilot skill could help with some things (for example, less monoprop usage from more efficient RCS usage) since all these things are dependent more on player skill than pilot skill, and sharing ships would become more difficult, it was decided that pilots would simply gain the ability to point the craft places. Engineers already have the ability to repair parts, and scientists provide a science boost. Engineers also provide a progression system for some mods (most notably KER and KAS.) In KAS especially engineers have the ability to build things. I think that the KSP progression system isn't really based around kerbals as much as a) unlocking more parts with science and b) taking contracts and eventually getting more and more money. The kerbal progression system is sort of a side thing, though it does become more important with the advent of the science lab.