Wallygator

I'm playing on Mac, I expect people like me will just ignore KSP2 until it's ported. Sad really.

In school I was taught that the plural of spacecraft was spacecraft.

hence the last line in my post.

I would think a better way to celebrate would be to include more content, a new planet, etc. But fireworks? Ok then. Zzzz... I hope you can't earn science points for exploding fireworks - that would be ridiculous. For all the other elements of the update - great work and thank you!

welcome! Nice to see a fellow michigander!

sorry, I assumed folks would successfully interpret my humour.

but where was she for the past 5 years?

Try using launch clamps, and elevate the vehicle slightly above the launch platform surface. This fixed it for me.

May your next computer enjoy a longer life. However to be a bit more serious, I found that reducing graphic settings helps. I run KSP on a 2019 MacBook Pro, and also on a 2011 iMac. Both computers can handle RO/RSS easily IF I reduce the graphics settings. I don't need 4k graphics presentations to visualise what going on. It would be nice in the future, but for now it's fine. One day I will obtain an ultimate windows gaming PC, but until then it's reduced settings...

Perhaps they are hinting at new terrain features. Or it might be poor choice of words. One is to hope for and the other is for placing a bet on.

Any thoughts as to if and/or when CKAN will be compiled for macOS beyond 32 bit? It's not a deal breaker or an issue - just a question.

I'll see your "console first" and raise you with a "Mac OS only" straight flush - BAM!

WDIDIKSPT? I waited for a Dev blog update.

reading this entire sequence of messages in this thread is likely even more entertaining as the actual Mod itself! Regardless, I will try this mod and then consider how best to describe it at some point in the future.

K.S.P. or M.A.S.H. ??? Stop the bleeding and get it back into action regardless of other lingering issues. EDIT: Regardless, a fix is a fix.

bortoro anyone?

Hades Star, and a bit of NMS. Also Russian Front by Hexwars (A bit mindless, but sometimes that what's needed when spouse is watching say yes to the dress...)

That which was never born cannot die, and that which can never die will live forever in our false memories or threads like these.

I kindly request... we can avoid devolving this into a "failure to communicate" response thread. This specific response is intended to short-cut that. So, I will do my responsible part to clarify and expand so as to eliminate any doubt... and do so in a respective manner. I trust that neither of us (nor your friend) is trying to minimise anything - if we are like-minded folks, we are more than likely trying (or should be trying) to maximise... So, in all seriousness, when you say... I only know "your friend" based on what you typed.... Also you didn't clearly indicate in your original comment that it was regarding "tone and demeanor" as you reference (quoted) further above. However, I accept your clarification in retrospect - and do so without qualification. This comment I find actually quite out of character for a fellow KSP enthusiast. We all enjoy this game. It's a game. It's not history. It is a leisure pursuit. Something we all enjoy in its' own space (sic). I find it confusing that someone who enjoys a game would infer onto a fellow enthusiast such a broad characterisation. KSP is not broadly comic in my opinion - It's not a comic representation of physics. It's not a comic representation of the quest for extra-planetary exploration. (and frankly, we would need to previously agree a definition of "comic", but lets just keep going...) Sure, it uses "comic" themes to create a more accessible gateway for a wider community of players to engage, but it's not comic in the generally accurate representation of the actual challenges of planning and executing space missions (even in a simplified solar system equivalent). KSP does not force a player to misunderstand and fail to appreciate factual history. Games may be "based" on history, but they are not history. I expect you already know this - I only state it as a clarification for others who are reading this thread so they do not assume we are arguing this concept. >>> My soapbox moment (and definitely not a criticism of your post): A thread in a forum about a game about a real life event should never be construed as a failure to understand a real life event. MODERATORS: There is nothing about this response that is intended to be aggressive or disquieting. I hope it shows a constructive way to express differences. TL;DR - Apollo 12 was cool.

Well said. Also, people forget that all software has bugs even after passing a QA process. Also, QA in present times now includes community input - and game that arrises from a community/early-access mode retains many aspect of its earlier community QA approach. We should all continue to support community bug identification and documentation - its all in our best interest.

In my opinion your friend appears to be a bit narrow minded. The 12 crew and mission teams proved the pinpoint landing capability of the Apollo system, and allowed us to retrieve (at that time) relatively long duration equipment from the lunar environment. If by "camping" we mean that the 12 mission demonstrated that it was then relatively easy to put men on the moon and let them operate in a relatively stress-free setting and also return safely, then sure... "campin'" is a great word. In my opinion, we should strive to never appreciate people or messaging that purposely minimises the efforts of any person or crew that chooses to be blasted off the surface of this planet. All crews from all countries take great risk to their lives and families when they volunteer for these missions.

No... v 9.1.1 life support.

Yes, except if you want to eliminate fuel reserves without affecting DV - that said, purging fuel without combustion STILL creates DV, but without the high energy release, just more like the old "throwing bricks off a snow sled", but it's still physics. But if there is no DV impact implemented, then one can always plug a dump valve on opposite sides of the tank in question - just to assure a more reality based model.

Cool! So, it's a switch (Or a DLC - thank you @DStaal) so there is no player barrier in this hypothetical scenario We should likely assume that the switch/DLC includes the necessary parameter changes to parts/contracts/science. Oh and BTW, your "100% Sure-ness Prediction Capability" is not functioning correctly - see last paragraph... Now, just for clarity - when you say that the problem is player barriers, and then you say that if it is a switch then it wouldn't be a barrier, but the switch would never be used - are you saying that this solution is actually a barrier if a player chooses not to use it? This is not a criticism, it's just that I am not following your line of logic. And also just for clarity - then you state that because of parts, ST would have to delay KSP2 "further". Have any delays been announced? Just curious, because I haven't read anything about that (But I'm not on the forum nearly as much as most, so it might be my fault for not being up to date) And lastly, for the record, I personally don't care when KSP2 is delivered. The concept looks great, the gameplay is not defined enough for me to have an opinion and frankly, It looks like the player engagement model is exactly the same as KSP. In my opinion, ST really need to come up with something that is extra special and therefore my expectation is that they would take the necessary time. Thank for taking the time to respond my previous post - much appreciated!

Clarity is most effective when established up front. The OP is confusing.