[Why doesn't this rotor blade design fly?]

Yeah, for whatever reason the devs chose to only give certain parts lift aspects rather than all of them. If you want lift, I'm afraid you'll have to use the wings from the wings tab in the VAB.

[Show off your awesome KSP pictures!]

Did you SERIOUSLY just quote an entire post, images and all, to make a one-line response?

Please start saying that to everyone who quotes pictures. It's almost always a series and it hogs up a whole page, and mods for some reason do not choose to say anything about it.

[-]

Sorry, but what do you mean by "alterior "¿

I mean different vantage points of something happening. Somebody viewing something happen may be a different view then someone watching the same thing, but from a different location.

[-]

As he said, they can't touch anything

Excelent taste in webcomics by the way.

Anyway in order to answer your question i think we need more information. For example could we see the moment in the past only in real time? Or also faster or slower?

Well, if we can look back, we could record it with a very high definition camera, then play it back as long as we like. If we got to the point where we could look back any time we want, we could just view things from alterior places.

[Show off your awesome KSP pictures!]

Yes, but in an hour it'll be pointing prograde.

GTG, burn coming up.

-- Steve

My mistake, I didn't read the mission timer. Good luck on your trip.

@ DeadWeasel

I suppose, but he would have wasted fuel getting a retrograde orbit.

[Show off your awesome KSP pictures!]

Final Trans-Jool Injection burn in T-01:00:00... mark.

-- Steve

You realize you're pointing retrograde, right?

[Show off your awesome KSP pictures!]

Laythe and Jool (from my AAR "The Grand Tour")

-snip-

Holy crap dude, this looks fantastic. Any chance of you taking more screenshots like this?

[How are rockets (real ones) stable when they lift off?]

As for rotation, I'm not quite sure. But for pitch and yaw they use gimballing with engines. You can view this in KSP when you launch as your rocket engine will look like it's angling itself to the opposite direction of the key you are pressing. The thrust being angled provides a force that is below the center of gravity and rotates the rocket.

[Cassini vs Curiosity - which is worth saving?]

Our military would use money on fractional bombardment system or kinetic rod strike array not a nuclear capable moon base.

Kinetic rod bombardment is a purely fictional means of being a weapon. Flying up a several ton rod of tungsten compared to a 1 ton nuclear warhead that can level whole cities is far more economic, and you get a lot more bang for your buck.

[Getting into Lunar POLAR orbit]

Nah. Try it in KSP. If you think in terms of SoI, there is almost no difference. Just plot your transfer to touch Mun SoI in direction of one of the poles. Same for the return trip. dV is almost the same.

In the real world, however, you are dealing with 3-body physics. You are never influenced by just the Earth or just the Moon. That makes transfer from Earth to a roughly equatorial Lunar orbit to be significantly easier than a transfer to a polar orbit. I don't think there is a simple way to visualize this. You kind of have to work in a rotating frame, where Earth and Moon are almost static with respect to each other due to effective potential of the rotating frame. Then see how the forces on a transfer trajectory work to note that it's easier to organize a transfer in the plane of Earth-Moon system than out of the plane.

Basically, the simple answer is 3-body physics, and complicated answer is complicated.

I think I get you. I must have been thinking in a simple 2-body system in which you wouldn't have alternative forces working on you. Thanks for clarification.

[Getting into Lunar POLAR orbit]

Mostly for the same reason that getting into a polar orbit expends more Delta-V then equatorial. Mostly just for the inclination change, but more so it's a bit more complicated to come back to Earth when you're in a polar orbit, because the extra normal or anti-normal altitude changes your placement. I'm unsure about velocity if leaving from a polar orbit, but what makes sense to me is the inclination changes, as those can be pretty taxing if you don't start immediately from launch.

[Now-defunct-thread-that-should-not-appear-in-google-search.]

Let's not have that discussion here, yeah? However you feel, it's not exactly relevant to the mod

Pretty sure constructive criticism is necessary to a mod here, bud.

[Now-defunct-thread-that-should-not-appear-in-google-search.]

I'm not on 4chan. I don't even know how to post on 4chan as I'm just a plebian redditor. The posts were just pointed out to me.

At least you'll get actual criticism on 4chan. Reddit and these forums are a marshmallow pit as most just scream entitled or rude at the sight of any dislike for a feature, or even a bug sometimes.

[Krag's PlanetFactory]

Yeah, I've actually got the mod. Found it posted on an external website. So far I've found no problems with it and the planets are really fun and interesting to visit. Skelton, kind of a Mars analog has an Olympus Mons type mountain but on steroids. So much so it looks like a bad pimple on the planet.

[What are the space center buildings made of?]

Okay, since i didn't mention this, i may as well say it.

It's not about the strength, i mean by how it looks.

Metal can take on any kind of pattern and just about any look.

[2014 Olympic Torch In Space]

Dateline: Day of the Olympics

Olympic Torch lost in space! Clumsy astronaut allows torch to slip away from the ISS while on EVA! Details at 11.

[Everytime after an update, I go through this cycle.]

I see a lot of hate directed at career mode in this respect, but I feel its misplaced. Sure, career mode should and probably will provide a stepping stone for new players, but its not like that will alienate old people either. This early in its development, its easy to forget that career will eventually encompass things like budgets, consequences for failure and personell loss, etc. In other words it will help achieve the overall vision of actually running a space program. And that's not gonna be an easy thing.

While I think career mode is a fine step, I believe it is the wrong one to be taken right now. As of right now there is nothing to back up science. These things should have been implemented before career mode as to provide a scientific background for the findings you get with your sensors. Right now you are just using "Mystery Goo" which doesn't even have a reasonably scientific name. It almost sounds like magic.

I like career mode, but Squad really needs to get it's priorities in order.

[Everytime after an update, I go through this cycle.]

I don't understand that perspective at all

Over the past few months, people including myself have noticed HarvesteR and Squad have been trying to simplify KSP so it lures in new players, or should I say potential customers. Worrying about introductions with a game still in development is pretty ridiculous. They should get the game done, THEN polish the game, as most all companies do.

[Everytime after an update, I go through this cycle.]

From what it seems to me, they're just trying to complete the game We're playing an early development game, it's normal that there is not enough gameplay to keep us hooked into it continuously.

That is all well and good but as for a lack of gameplay, the devs seem to be trying to just bait people into the game at the moment, and that may be a viable strategy for business, but as for the devs I once knew it feels like they are stabbing the community in the back.

[Everytime after an update, I go through this cycle.]

Until we get something like resources or procedural missions and such, this will be the cycle for a very long time. Sorry to say but there really isn't anything in KSP to keep a hold of people. After all, the developers are for some strange reason trying to make KSP first-time-player friendly, leaving the rest of us in the dust.

[Engineering Jokes]

An engineer sees a glass twice as big as it needs to be.

The way I hear engineers talk (and I do work with a few), it's less twice as big and more that there MUST be a better way to do it.

[Found the manual for this game]

Dang, nice find, and from MIT too! Wish I had one of these, even if it would simply be a mantle-piece.

[Original science parts (negative gravioli detector, etc.) now at exorbitant prices?]

The accelerometer, barometer, negative gravioli detector, and thermometer used to cost 200 kerbucks (or whatever the Kerbal currency is).

Now they cost 6000, 3300, 8800, and 900 respectively. And what look like more advanced science parts (Mystery Gooâ„¢ container and Science Jr.) come earlier in the tech tree and are also just 800 and 880, respectively. What gives? I know that there isn't any money in career mode yet, but I want to voice my concern about this.

I suppose it could be kind of like the whole iPhone thing. While it's taken us years to make one, it is inexpensive because modern technology is upgraded to be able to mass produce them. It's researching what the iPhone needed to operate that is expensive.

[.22 playtesting being waylaid by mods?]

No, because the community has pushed them away in the past when Harv said something that everyone blew out of proportion and took massively out of context. Being open with the community is a fine line, and neither side has toed it correctly yet.

The reason the community freaked out over the DLC thing was because HarvesteR wasn't ready for lashback. I had hoped the developers might possibly learn from that mistake and be brave enough to face the community again. Do they just want to silently push away the vocal audience and do things the easy way? As the direction of KSP seems to be going, and what I have heard from Maxmaps, fleshing out gameplay is not even a priority right now. All that is being focused on from what I see is luring in "new players" ie: potential customers.

[.22 playtesting being waylaid by mods?]

I can completely agree with the OP's post. I've been with KSP from the beginning, and the hardcore players that started KSP up and spread it around are now being abandoned by simplistic hand-holding gameplay changes. In R&D, there is hardly anything really to do other than grind. There is no edge that you can get, only going to as many places as possible. No specialization, no specifics, just "science" which consists of right clicking on something and then flying home. For all the noticeable changes, I really hope they got a truckload of things in the "behind the scenes" part of the game.

Also, would it kill the devs to try and build a ocean generation type that didn't drop my usual 60+ FPS down to below 15?

EDIT:

Completely understand your frustration. And hopefully the devs find a nice balance for vets and beginners. But again seems hard to judge a system that is not totally intact or complete. So it's hard to balance on a game mode that is basically sandbox with free science unlocks.

It will get there.

If the devs are having a tough time dealing with our criticism, maybe they should be more open in their plans. Right now as it seems everyone is locked in the closet until about halfway through the update. What we need is to know Squad has a plan and that they will follow through. They're at a point with KSP where money is the last of their problems, surely they should be able to be open with their community that feeds them, right?