FenrirWolf

There's not a lot of helpful advice to be given. Chromebook is a tool designed for certain purposes. Playing CPU-intensive games is not one of them. After a while you have to stop trying to optimize your hammer so that it can cut wood, and buy a saw instead.

If I recall correctly, Duna's design was pretty much lifted from a nifty looking randomly generated planet someone found in universe sandbox. Or was it space engine? I forget which.

Difficulty levels plus SP+ parts

I use FAR and I'm so afraid I'll kill off my entire space program once I start trying to design and land planes. At the very least I'm going to lose a looot of probe cores.

@KBMODIGITY: I don't think you read his post correctly.

Welp. Think I'm gonna have to install this one.

Been wondering about that too. Same with the off-center CoL with the bicoupler.

They hate it because it did kinda suck at first. But now Windows 8.1 is the best OS Microsoft has ever released and hating it is silly.

This guy knows what's up.

Interplanetary space planes are the best. Ever gone all the way to Laythe landing and back on one tank of fuel? Did it back in stock but one of these days I'll have to attempt it again with FAR.

My PC has a 256GB SSD and a 1TB HDD. I generally keep all my games on the HDD except for KSP.

You also want to wait until the moon in question is positioned such that your escape trajectory sends you retrograde relative to the Jool system.

You're asking if it's possible to achieve a retrograde solar orbit? Yeah it is a thing that can happen, but I imagine the delta-v requirements are rather high. Chances are it would be more easily obtained via a bi-elliptic transfer instead of the usual hohmann transfer.

Pretty sure there's some other ISP preset that just does a flat decrease in efficiency of engines vs loading all the inefficiency into the lowest layers of the atmosphere. I'll bet you could even tweak things to make a profile more to your liking as well.

That's when he released the newest version. And yes. It most certainly could use a thread of its own. I'm confused why there isn't one already.

The userbase has been "split" in this regard for years already since Linux had a 64-bit build for a long time. Why hasn't this mattered to you until now?

Rapier fuel consumption still feels really high to me once you actually do the switch to rocket mode. But maybe that's because I like having planes with LV-Ns if I'm doing a turbo/rocket combo

That's what trim is. Hit ALT-S while flying to set up a downward trim. Keep hitting ALT-S if you need it to be stronger. Same goes for any of the other WASDQE controls. ALT-X resets the trim to neutral when you're done with it.

One thing I'm curious about is how spaceplane launch profiles should be in FAR in relation to stock. I've been messing with the best way to get my current set of planes into orbit and so far I'm finding that usually the best I can do on jets alone is getting to 28-30km at 1600-1650m/s. After that point I generally have to switch to rockets for the rest of my ascent. Frankly that makes more sense than in stock where airhogging and other factors let you go on jets all the way into orbit, but I'm curious if my results represent the usual limit of what a FAR spaceplane can be expected to achieve or if a better design would get more mileage out of jets.

Both 7.3 and Astronomer's pack have been working for me.

Yup. It does.

The Polygon article in question tells you that information.

I dunno, see if you can map the function to an action group or something.

Yeah they've never said that the stock atmosphere is anything but a placeholder until something better comes along. But as of yet there is no disclosed timetable for when that model would be swapped out for another one.

This. The general principle to remember is that orbits closer to the planet are faster. So if you want ship A to catch up with ship B, make sure that ship A's orbit is lower than B's on average.