cantab

-94 (-)

-92 (-)

What else?

-90 (-)

The Sun has an infinite SOI, though in practice the game can only handle things so far. However there's still a clear definition of an escape trajectory - one with an eccentricity greater than 1.

-87 (-)

- 86 (-)

This is why there are the console ports.As I see it KSP has good expansion pack potential. Something big and significant that adds real new gameplay and visuals, upping the system requirements over the base game if need be. There's less potential for DLC in its usual a bit here and a bit there sense, because most small things will already be done by mods. Though the console side of things might be more receptive to that if mods on console aren't possible. I feel though that even with Unity 5, KSP is held back somewhat by its engine. I don't want to see Squad working on KSP forever, I want to see their new ideas and also see a KSP 2 running on an engine designed for the task.

I did think it looked like a non-inverse-square pattern, having seen them in a flash gravity sim I played around it. But that oddity of syntax is devious.

Old bug, no idea what exactly causes it.

The modular wing pieces work pretty well for me. I haven't worked with the bigger stuff so much. If we do get procedural wings, then the fairings are an example of how not to do it I feel. I don't want something that I can't remake if I delete it.

Being able to EVA out through a blocked hatch, and not get back in through the same hatch, is a pretty clear-cut bug I feel, and maybe should be reported as such.

You could use manual trim, Mod+WASDQE, Mod+X resets.

-85 (-)

-84 (-)

-78 (-)

They are entirely arbitrary units. There is good reason to believe they're not litres, most obviously by comparing the fuel quantities with the physical volume of the tanks. They're probably not even consistent between resources.

Basically you've got two things to consider. Specific Impulse or Isp of course expresses your fuel efficiency. The other thing is dry mass - heavy engines will need more fuel to move themselves around, potentially undoing Isp gains. This tool may help http://meithan.x10.mx/KSP/engines/ But some very general rules of thumb for high delta-V applications: If you're happy with under 0.5 TWR, the ion engines will be the lightest option. For 0.5 to 0.75 it's the nuclear engines. If you want more TWR you're best off going chemical, and usually Rhinos is the payload is big enough.

That sounds suspiciously like leaving the wing leveller on. That's confused the heck out of me SO many times.

-76 (-)

75 (-)

-73 (-)

This shows a complete lack of understanding of a simple fact: Not everyone is as wealthy as you. And not everyone stays as wealthy as they were when they bought that games console or once-great PC.In any case it doesn't matter whether you have a £200 potato or a £10,000 dream PC, you'll have adapted to what your hardware can and can't do. For a game where performance was already marginal for a lot of players, taking a step backwards in performance is Not Good for KSP. And for many it will be better to stick with the version that works, if the alternatives are to suffer intolerable lag or to have to throw money at hardware. EDIT: Unlikely. Linux and 64-bit KSP will let you run more memory-hungry mods and may reduce game crashing. The benefits even apply if you have only 4 GB of physical RAM. However framerates are at best going to be equal on Linux as on Windows, sometimes worse, depending on your hardware.

-72 (-)

- 71 (-)