*Aqua*

I mean both sets. Have a look at that: I can't distinguish the chain links in the lower half. This shouldn't happen in broad daylight. Maybe dark grey or 50% grey is the color to go.

That's a good point. I believe in one or two hundred years is will be quite normal to have cyberimplants in our bodies. If it's possible to transfer a human mind into a computer we'll be almost immortal. Then traveling for a thousand years to the next star isn't a problem anymore. So I choose ion drives powered by fusion reactors. Ion drives are save. They do not tend to self-destruct on a wimp and even today they are robust enough to work for months. Continuously. Which other engine can do this? Fusion reactors needs maintenance every few years, so a ship needs several of them. They provide enough power to boost the thrust of the ion drives to reasonable levels and they seem to be safe enough - behind a lead plate. Unfortunately they are quite complicated. The more complicated things get the easier they break.

The tracks are too black. I think it will be problematic to see them in the game. It can get quite dark and even in lamp light black will be black. Remember: We perceive black because we can't perceive black. Nevertheless I really like what you do.

Your command module is rotated by 180°. Rotate it by 180° and you won't have swapped de-/acceleration keys. It easily happens in the SPH.

Ah ok. Then my English skills are worse than I thought. My bad.

I don't think the current science system is per se a bad system. And I don't believe the proposed 'achievements science system' is better. Why should we get techs for just going to a specific location? Did some alien craft lost a part in space so it can be grabbed by Kerbals? That doesn't make sense. The question is: How can the player steer what to research? This can be answered easily: People get better by doing stuff. The more they use or do something the more they think about it, try to optimize it and have ideas to make it work by using a different approach. So instead of using a science currency or grabbing techs laying around somewhere I propose a learning-by-doing system. If you are using a lot of small rockets you'll get small engines, small tanks and other small stuff. If you are flying huge rockets you'll get the orange tank and the mainsail. If you'll land on planets without atmosphere you'll get landing gears. If there's an atmosphere you'll get parachutes. If your rockets break apart often you'll get struts. And so on. The details of this system will have to be worked out by the devs, e. g. how many uses of small decouplers are needed before you'll get bigger decouplers. Should scientific advancements base on the number of uses of parts? Or is the using time (in minutes, hours, whatever) a better indicator? Or a combination of both? Or something other? There is a lot to think about.

They said they are in the last step of the development - the testing phase. I guess it'll take at most two or three weeks until release. But that's mere speculation. It'll be released soonTM.

Bowling! Excellent idea!

I would guess gimbals are controlled by some kind of fuzzy logic. At least that's what is controlling automatic transmissions in cars. I study applied computer science and all I yet have to do is to write my master thesis. My teachers always said 'Take pity on those poor engineers. They have to calculate derivations all day long while you only have to pick an intelligent algorithm to let it do it for you.'

Infernal robotics is compatible with the career mode. The text on space says:

Thy called them docking washers

Try some university math and you'll want the simplicity of the secondary school math back. In university (at least in my country) you'll use almost no numbers anymore in math. It's all about mapping one kind of mathematical structure on to an other one while juggling with the properties of sets and fields. It makes you going crazy. You don't know abstract math. Have a look at that. I needed three tries to pass the exam in this. Not exactly. Math show all possibilities but in nature only some of them really exist. It's the task of applied sciences to identify them. For example math allow matter with negative mass (needed by the Alcubierre drive). In reality there is none (or rather we didn't find it yet).

Steam had major issues. But it seems they resolved them.

Scott Manley did that. Unfortunately I can't find the video.

Do you have a link? I don't know of this series. And what does he think now? I know about the string theory. According to this the big bang is just a collision of two strings and we are living on or in one of the strings. (I don't know how to put it into proper English.)

The background radiation is the leftover heat of the big bang under the assumption this 'explosion' really happened. The further the universe expanded after that the colder it gets. So if there was less energy involved in the explosion there would be less background radiation. You got the idea of the big bang and what happened after wrong.The universe came into existence 'after' the 'explosion'. I use quotation marks on these to words because they don't really describe what scientists think what happened. It is unknown if there really was some kind of explosion. 'After' is also the wrong word because the time dimension formed 'after' the big bang. There is no point in asking what happened 'before' because 'before' needs time and there wasn't any. It's a bit mind boggling. Multiple big bangs are unlikely. We would see the consequences of that (e. g. shock fronts, disturbed space and time). Edit >Hopefully better explanation: Space and time formed as effects of the big bang. They didn't existed at the event of the big bang. <

Prove it a LKO can be stable for at least 10 Kerbal years. No mechjeb allowed. They use computers in real life.

Lets say I have a small sat with a kethane scanner and want to map Kerbin's deposits. I put it in a 75x75 km orbit and timewarp as fast as the kethane plugin can keep up. With the rails system this works. With n-body-physics it won't work. After 10 mins (RL time) or so Mun's influence will change the orbit to a like 69x80 km orbit. Other example: I parked a Jool probe in Kerbin's orbit and timewarp to the transfer window (which can take up to a Kerbin year). Same result as above. The Kerbol system won't work with these physics. The celestials have way to much mass. And if you remove the mass the whole system will break apart. And how is a normal player supposed to handle that? This needs ultra precise control of a craft. Say goodbye to the nav ball. That thing isn't accurate enough. Is the craft too light or too heavy? Sorry you just missed the orbit because of that.No kraken is a fine thing. Lagrange points, sun-synchrounous orbits etc., too, I can't deny that. But the other stuff will make the game unplayable.

Let's look at the facts: - N-body-physics make orbits instable. - Some kind of autopilot is required to keep a stable orbit. I guess the autopilot needs electricity and/or fuel to work. If it hasn't that it will stop working. At this point the orbit will gradually decay shooting the craft into a planet or out of the system. Due to lack of fuel/electricity the craft can't do anything anymore. Usually the player will mark it as debris and forget about it. Summary: - With working autopilot you'll have orbits like those of the current system. - Without working autopilot you'll have chaotic orbits but you don't care. You'll discard the space ship anyway. So what's the point of having n-body-physics?

This will happen earlier. The Moon will escape Earth's grasp in about a billion years. The consequence is that the Earth's axial tilt will change. Not at once but gradually. Subsequently massive environmental disasters will occur like complete melting of a polar cap. And there's the Sun, too. It will gradually shine hotter and hotter torching the Earth. The Sun is atm ~20% hotter than when it was born. I don't know when it's too hot for life on Earth. Nevertheless in about 1-2 billion years the last live on Earth will die.

Did you take a look a these unstable orbits? How am I supposed to leave a craft in orbit, knowing it will do everything but not staying there? N-body-physics mean orbits will not last. They will resonate with celestials changing the paths up to a point where they will quickly end in a complete chaos. There is no way for a player to set up an orbit which will last an in-game year.

I think without access to the full source code of KSP modders won't be able to integrate their mod in the game the right way. Unfortunately there is no way Squad will let a modder look inside their code. Therefore there is a lot confusion among the modders how the game works. I made the same experience. It's quite hard to understand what happens where and when and you usually need hours, days and weeks to reverse engineer just a small part of the game mechanics. Conclusion: Mods will nearly always be inferior to what Squad can do. Question: Why would Squad review mod code when they know it has to be reprogrammed to integrate it into the game?

That bright spot in the center... is that the great attractor? And the formation in the upper left, is that the great wall?

Often it helps to have two front wheels. Have only one usually make my planes flipping over.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lever A standing human with a backpack is a lever from a physical view point. If you fill the backpack the center of mass will move a bit in its direction. To not falling over we lean a bit forward to shift the center back. But whatever you calculate remember that a 1 kg backpack will always apply ~10 N force on the human.