LongHairedHuman

Of course it's a bug, just like everything you listed there. Lack of forethought can result in bugs, poor design can result in bugs. Both game breaking bugs, and minor ones like this. And as far as accessibility for the bug tracker goes, if you have any intention of finding it, a simple search will suffice.

While you might find this thread as such, I rather think of it as a PSA.

That's what we call a bug. I checked and saw nobody has yet reported it. You might want to do so, so that the devs can get on it and fix it. http://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/

Maybe certain developers have certain opinions, but Squad is a team. Don't mistake the opinions of developers with the statements of squad. In team projects, discussions about the product are always ongoing, and changes to the design and plans are always made. It's all for the best possible product. On another note, it's about time you read the Terms of Service. You should have read it when you bought the game. Especially this line.

Pausing a game just means the game is frozen until continued. If you no longer want the game to take up any computer resources, close it. While saving a frame and drawing it rather than redrawing the entire scene would be more processor-friendly, the memory resources would still be taken up, unless you want a load screen whenever you unpause. As such, close the game to get back your resources.

When 1.0 hits the fan, it'll be a fair target for all sorts of criticism that could be waved away with "It's in development!" in the past. Make sure it's a complete package, without incomplete or imperfect features that may seem broken. Make sure everything is well-documented in the interface, to prevent questions being asked as "How do I un-do stuff in the editor?" and "Where did my saved rocket go?". I'd say rather than focusing on a specific bug or feature, interact with the QA team to polish the product to perfection. Perhaps expand the QA team to get some new views on the product.

... that being the very video that got me into KSP, What are the odds! ... practicing orbital rendezvous with two orbiters in a single launch, for the upcoming craft persistence update! ... messing around with insanely broken RCS rockets, escaping Kerbin with tiny crafts!

I hope it all works quickly out mate. When my video card was borked once, I was lucky to have a laptop I use for uni. I hope you too have a temporary solution to feed your KSP addictions.

The last thing you could try is having a monitor plugged into mainboard and on into video card when you try to access the bios. It could be something weird like that the mainboard switches to the video card when you go into bios. If that doesn't work, support indeed. It will probably involve shipping your computer, going to a tech centre, store or having a technician visit.

Resetting BIOS might work indeed. Plug your monitor into the mainboard, and reboot. You should be able to access the BIOS through that. If it's not booting and just beeping at you, best bet is to contact the warranty provider to fix it. If you can get into BIOS, just look around and see if you can find factory reset, default values or something amongst those lines. Next, if you manage to boot into windows, go find the latest drivers for your video card, and install them. If that doesn't fix it, contact the warranty providing party. Hardware problems are always annoying, I hope this helps and good luck.

I doubt that there is a need of population control on Kerbin. Not anymore, at least.

I wouldn't calling it a space drydock, as it isn't pressurized, but it is quite the structure indeed. How did you get it into orbit?

In game development, unity is a godsend. It allows for easy implementation of object-oriented programming, and the interface allows you to work closely with the code. It allows for easy asset importing, and you can get feedback quickly with the scene editor. It's one of the best game engines out there for small teams.

It's both. KSP has objectives and fail states, so it's obviously a game. It's also some sort of physics simulator, so one might label it as a simulator. Both are applicable really, depending on the play style of the player.

Just be mindful of what kind of statistics you try to pull out of this, the poll simply states what is being used right now. Modded aerodynamics is not used by many simply because it is a mod, which is inherently less accessible and desirable than the stock aerodynamics. If you consider that, it is instead rather surprising that the majority votes for a combination that uses a mod.

To create a .craft file, you need the game+mods for it anyway. Just have the software use the game installation to make the mesh. I doubt there would be legal problems, even if you were to use the game assets and send it to a printing company directly.

Looks like a fine landing to me.

Just have him EVA during an interplanetary burn. And if you don't want to spare the seat in the capsule, just mount a seat on the side of your vessel.

You can presume the costs of the parts that you recover will be refunded upon recovery. This way, you can use the funds returned to you to re-launch a craft of the same time, except now back in launch configuration. While it is not exactly the same, it is still a valid way when funds come into play.

I do not de-orbit them intentionally. It adds some tension when doing manoeuvres at certain altitudes (which can lead to spontaneous unplanned re-entry). When low on fuel, it also helps to have many options to refuel at.

I don't think the multiplayer will done mmo-style, with a few public realms. It wouldn't make sense because everyone plays ksp differently, and mods wouldn't be compatible with public servers. Another client-server architecture that could be used, but unlikely will be, would be migrating host. I don't think that would work because that architecture works best for short matches, and not for persistent save files. What would be most likely, is a dedicated server system, where a community can set up a server, or making a lan-server and playing trough Hamachi. It would also make sense with the persistent save file that KSP has.

"What was the noise?" - When checking your apoapsis on the map, during a mainsail burn. This happened to me countless times, yet I always manage to forget it.

Stating that Unity isn't good for space games is silly. It's quite good for it, the proof is in the pudding. If you start up KSP, you can see that it runs at a reasonable to good frame rate, and is very much playable. "Switching to a different engine" will not guarantee that suddenly, everything looks better, plays better, and is better. What it does guarantee, is that ALL current progress is lost. Not your own silly game saves, but the actual game. "Switching engine", is like tossing out all you made the last few years, and starting from scratch. All you might be able to bring over is some art. At this point I could ramble on why you couldn't directly "switch engines", but instead, I shall give you a silly analogy. You can't compare a game-engine with a car-engine. The game-engine is a car, developers modify the car so that it, in ksp's case, can go to space. If you were to "switch engine", you would salvage some stickers you put on your current car, and then scrap it. Then you would take a brand car, and you would have to modify it all over again. Except this car is completely different, and most experience you got working on the previous car would be useless. You can't just switch out out the engine for a better one. In other words, no there is no other engine that KSP could realisticly "swap" to. Sources: My experience working with different 3d engines.

That would be handy, but I'm saying, if your plane has trouble taking-off, you might want to check if it's designed properly before requesting a ramp on the runway.

I personally have no problems with the runway as it currently is. I usually tweak my planes until they take of at at least half the runway, or on brakes, if it's a vtol. What really helps when doing this, is knowing why your plane won't take off, because the chance is quite low that your plane's take-off speed is reached at precisely the end of the runway. What's most likely the case is, is that you have your landing gear placed inefficiently. Try to place your main 2 wheels, so that they are right behind the plane's Centre of Mass. That way, when rotating, the plane has to lift less, as it will pivot around the Centre of Mass, rather than some point far behind it. Keep in mind that correctly placed landing gear will also result in smooth landings, as you won't slam down, but simply lower your nose as you slow down. Combine this with a slight angle of attack, or trimming your elevators before take-off, and it should take-off like a charm. If, however, you can easily rotate your plane, but it won't fly, you simply don't have enough lift. Which can be resolved by adding more wing parts. For more stuff on designing a plane, I found this guide: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/52080-Basic-Aircraft-Design-Explained-Simply-With-Pictures