cantab

I would let the new cockpit take a separate nosecone for versatility. I also think it would be a good idea to keep both in, but make one of them a 2-Kerbal cockpit. There's a real void for a 2-Kerbal 1.25m pod or cockpit in the game.

Equally it's plausible that the majority of KSP players are actually on nVidia graphics, outnumbering users of AMD and Intel graphics combined. That said it would be a slim majority, nowhere near enough that KSP could make meaningful use of nVidia-only features which was the original context of the discussion.

The mod Kopernicus has already opened that door, and there are numerous planet packs for it. If you're using 32-bit KSP you will probably be limited to one or two packs at a time. It's true that from the surface planets tend to not have much detail or interest, but that's something I can only see changing with an outright sequel. Squad haven't spoken about adding more planets to the stock game. It could be something for 1.2, once the Unity 5 port is mature and there's a good idea of how much RAM stuff uses. And I'll advocate what I long have. Add axial tilt to the game and then add a combined Saturn and Uranus analogue with a ring system like Saturn, the whole system tipped up like Uranus, and moons inspired by those of both.

It's a little complicated. Nowadays NVidia provide excellent Linux drivers but they're proprietary. They've provided very little support for Free Software developers, so if for some reason you can't use the proprietary drivers you may have problems. AMD on the other hand have provided rather poor proprietary drivers, with inferior performance compared to Windows and for some users stability issues. They have though been much more supportive of Free Software developers, but the Free driver remains mediocre on performance. For some perspective of just how bad AMD can be on Linux, when using proprietary drivers for both NVidia's GTX 950 will beat AMD's much more expensive R9 290 and R9 Fury in several games. http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=nv-gtx950-linux&num=5 http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=nv-gtx950-fury&num=2

Well, Mission Control should know how much stuff is on the station, considering they control the routes on and off it. Where all that stuff is is another matter. The snacks might be in the little cubby-hole in the cupola, or they might already be in Bob's stomach.

The gimbal limits are already tweakable. But hey, never let reality get in the way of a jab against Squad.

The delta-V requirements are significantly less for Aptur. I estimate 220 m/s for landing/launch, and about 100 m/s to break orbit and return to Kerbin. Capture can bite you if you use an inefficient transfer but with an efficient flightpath that too can be around 100 m/s. What got me is the fuel used hovering, combined with the trouble finding flat terrain for landing, but then again Aptur's gravity is weak enough that when I did tip my lander (by bumping the Kerbal into it) I simply put it upright with the magic of reaction wheels. Aptur ended up being my first Kerballed target and notwithstanding Bob's predicament I feel I made a good choice. Once I have him back I think I'll take on Serran next, because new worlds are more fun than the Mun, and I can unlock even more science gear ready for a Mun station or base with the lab.

While KSP isn't a super-flashy AAA title, it does demand a competent graphics card and benefits from a high-end CPU. That probably correlates somewhat with RAM.Of note for Squad is that 3 GB isn't uncommon, and is what KSP currently lists as the minimum. They'd do well to ensure the game will still run OK, if with reduced details, on a 3 GB system. That's actually been true for me so far, but with a caveat: 4GB is enough for virtually all single tasks. When I run into trouble is when I want to run multiple things. For example I might have a Windows VM open for testing OS/software deployment for work, that takes a lot of time but needs no real attention from me so I'd also like to play KSP and I can't do that.

Yes, of course. However, I see KSP multiplayer as being something between friends or on private servers. Without strong competitive elements and a well-defined "match" duration it's not a good fit for random matchups, and the potential for griefing along with the CPU demands make it not good for an MMO either.

NVidia. Had a 610 when I got KSP, upgraded to a 750 Ti now. I've owned five successive NVidia cards and will stick with them as long as they continue being bothered to make good Linux drivers.

The nosecone could simply be moved into the same tech node.

Try fine controls, or set up an analogue gamepad or joystick.

I think Kopernicus offers a way to make the internal name of a planet different to the displayed name. That may be useful if conflicts are a concern. In particular while it might be odd the combination of Urania and RSS ought to be possible if name conflicts could be handled that way.

Virtually all planet mods nowadays use Kopernicus, which you may need to download and install separately. Adding planets can mess up the positions of existing craft. The Outer Planets Mod doesn't suffer that issue so it's a good pick to add on an existing save.

Mechjeb might be showing vacuum figures.

You can. And I *really* strongly recommend you don't use your email as a username. PM one of the mods and ask if it can be changed.

How did I manage to do that I stranded Bob on Aptur, with a mere 60 m/s left in his lander. I was biome hopping but I thought I had loads of delta-V left, I don't know where it all went. Maybe on inefficiently hovering around trying to find a flat spot to land. Seriously, what kind of place has craters with bottoms that are on a slope? Now I need to decide whether to send a rescue ship or have Bob EVA back. I do have Vanguard EVA chutes, but the idea of re-entering in a spacesuit is worrying. Then again encountering Aptur on a timely basis is a bit of a nuisance and Bob doesn't have any noms.

Prograde: Inclination between 0 and 90 degrees. Retrograde: inclination between 90 and 180 degrees. An inclination of more than 180 degrees would not normally be given; rather the LAN would have 180 degrees added or subtracted so the inclination is in the 0-180 range.

When it comes to KSP, this might pour some cold water on the hypetrain's fire. Collisions between disconnected objects are not a major part of KSP, it's not like a game that has to check what bullets are hitting all the time, though I'll grant that the game may still need to spend time checking for them even if they're rare. Joints between parts are a major part of KSP and that's where the improvement is modest.On the bright side, that 20% is *just* PhysX. Unity may well bring more benefits, and Squad's own code yet more. I'll make an optimistic guess at 50% better performance than 1.0.

The model is OK I guess, but not great. It just looks like a bare nozzle without any supporting hardware and it's not much like the other engines. True, a lot of the existing engines would like an art pass, but I hope this isn't meant to be the "type specimen" of said future art pass. The specs seem all wrong, giving it a crazy amount of thrust for a 1.25m engine as well as an extreme gimbal. Maybe that is what's needed for KSP shuttles to fly well though? (The balance on them is harder than in real life for various reasons after all). Also I'd rather see a stronger thrust falloff with altitude. Not as bad as say the 909, not least because sea-level thrust is needed for the engine to do its job, but maybe something like 260-330 s Isp would be good, a bit worse in atmo and a bit better in vacuum than the LV-T45. Then again, the specs on the SLS parts are still all wrong too.

I heard the old basic jet is going to be changed too. I think it's set to be a strictly subsonic engine, hopefully with greater fuel efficiency than at present to compensate.

WAC's map is pretty, but only applies to journeys to and from Kerbin. For trips such as Duna > Jool, or even Vall > Tylo, I use the more comprehensive charts here: https://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalAcademy/comments/1qu5jv/deltav_charts/ They can be tricky to use but the examples explain it well. Keep in mind that those charts are old so the values for Eve, Kerbin, Duna, and Laythe ascents aren't accurate, but all the stuff in space is still the same.

I don't believe FAR accurately adjusts the CoL marker. Ignore it and instead use the analysis tools. Run the Sweep AoA on the first page and you want to see the yellow line sloping slightly downwards, that means you're stable in pitch. And remember FAR will make your plane behave differently at different Mach numbers and altitudes, so you need an idea of your flight envelope.

I on the other hand am dead ended with 4 GB of DDR2 and no empty slots. To add more RAM I'd need to get a new motherboard. To buy an ancient motherboard would seem questionable, but a new motherboard requires a new CPU and possibly a new disk drive (since one of mine is PATA). By that point I'm looking at practically a whole new PC. Not cheap unless I buy low-end stuff and even then it's a non-trivial cost.EDIT: When you start talking about x70 cards and LGA 2011, you're immediately in a price bracket beyond my and many other people's means.

Memory-related crashes *do* normally strike when switching between ships, going back to the VAB, etc - anything that's a "scene change". It's because that's where the game has a memory leak, upping the memory usage a little bit each time.