cantab

Now that's an interesting idea. Provided it does not affect single-player play at all I could get behind a big name being involved in the multiplayer side of things. After all, we know that Squad's own servers struggle sometimes (ie when a new update is released).

And it depends on the license. So far as I am aware the GPL v3 does not prohibit decompilation or similar of object code recieved under it. You might want to do that for any number of reasons.

So you have speakers in your display that's connected to your graphics card, and you want the sound from those? I'll grant that the following might already have been covered: Is the display connected by HDMI? DVI doesn't do sound. DisplayPort can but it might not work. Have you installed the proprietary nVidia drivers? If not, do so. You'll want them for KSP to run well anyway. Then, it's been a while since I used KDE but there should be a detailed volume control available from the system tray icon, similar to in windows. If you can find that, see if there are any useful options there. And incidentally, I'll be the first to admit that sound in Linux is a right mess.

Indeed. More generally, look at where the yellow CoM line crosses the axis in the static graph. That's the angle the plane will fly at without any pitch or pitch trim input. It can be nice for it to be an angle where you get non-zero lift. But keep in mind how things shift around at different Mach numbers.

Or make a Linux install. It feels like a bit much for just one game and it's not a magic bullet (the game might or might not run as well as on Windows depending on your computer), but it's an option.

Where are you departing from? If you're at Laythe or Vall, then the Laplace resonance between Jool's inner moons restricts you. When departing from Laythe, if you encounter Tylo before Jool apoapsis you effectively have only three choices of position for Tylo to be in (albeit with some leeway). Usually you can secure a Kerbin return but you might not be able to get an express trip back if that's what you want. If you encounter Tylo after Jool apoapsis you can get more freedom but it becomes extremely sensitive to your departure burn. For Vall it's far worse, you can only encounter Laythe or Tylo in one position each unless you make phasing orbits round Jool.

When I reach 100 m/s, which is almost always below 5 km. FAR Master Race. I've done turns like that in stock too. They work, and they even seem efficient. But a true gravity turn is very sensitive to the size of the initial pitchover. Get it right and you can click hold prograde and watch it fly. Get it wrong and you can click hold prograde and watch it fail.

In some ways the VAB would work better with a gamepad I feel. Three axes of control for three dimensions, rather than trying to map it to the two-dimensional mouse movement. Lots of issues like trouble attaching to the centre stack when it's surrounded by boosters just go away. To be honest that doesn't really rule out much.

One tip I have for FAR: start by making conventional planes, with separate wings and tailplane. You can certainly make a spaceplane that way. Tailless delta aircraft, ie looking like Concorde, are much more difficult to make fly well.

The fuel indicator in the staging list considers all tanks that can be accessed by the engine at the moment. So as you burn, the engine's fuel level will decline and the fuel will be drawn from the drop tanks. When you decouple the drop tanks, the engine's fuel level meter will recalculate to consider only the central tank, so the indicator will actually jump up because it's a percentage thing.

Trying to make Kerbal Space Program meets Final Fantasy VIII? Anyway looks like EVA Follower, linked above, does it. Maybe Burn Together will work for EVAs as well?

-snip- We already know that Squad want the game in more outlets than just Steam and their own website. Designating the game as a full release may well be motivated by that. Now that's a fair point. I suppose a good reasonable scenario is a partnership with another space company. SpaceX is obvious given Elon Musk has complimented the game, but there are others. (Virgin Galactic, and we get new hybrid rockets and swing-wing parts? Well, a guy can dream.)-snip-

Downforce does increase speeds in KSP. I've done it with rockets but wings should work too. Though I agree that a lot of the effect is probably infinigliding.

Everything I can do in KSP with the exception of interplanetary transfers. I've never used an autopilot exactly for them, but I've only ever done them by plugging numbers from Alexmoon's planner into Precisenode. I can't work them out myself. Also, I can't precision land. Only one on the list I've never been able to do.

Oh great. I give at least a 50% chance this is a major company in the gaming industry that players don't like.

That's less than one percent difference. It seems blindingly obvious to me that it's just a rounding error. Quite possibly not even in the physical values but merely in the numbers shown in the user interface.

Landed a failed spaceplane attempt safely after a fuel leak, worsened by misidentifying the affected tank. I don't really know how I did it, the thing was overweight and difficult to keep aloft, and touched down at something like 120 m/s, but somehow it didn't roll.

A wide lander alone isn't enough to save you from tipping though. You need to also ensure you don't touch the ground with any significant horizontal speed, or you'll start to tip even in a wide lander. I think most novice lander tipovers are because of touching the ground while still drifting sideways, rather than by having an over-narrow ship.And of course those of us who use FAR have a pressure to keep our landers fairly narrow. Though building the lander to go sideways in the fairing can work well.

Regarding the above charts, do they take into account the mass of the ion engine's power supply? I suppose technically it can be zero if you spam oxstats on octagonal struts and/or radial batteries, but more practically you're going to be using the extendable panels to keep the part count under control.

Yeah, I saw this a few versions back. The simple solution would be to rename the KSC West biomes.

Well, just by the looks it doesn't look like a spaceplane, it looks like a heavy lumbering fuel tanker airliner. Somewhat like the last plane I built, which weighed about 60 tons full and had four mini-jets that combined give about half the thrust of a basic jet. But keep in mind your speed was reached quite low. As you climb the air gets thinner and you can fly faster. (And don't forget to retract your flaps!) You'll also get into the operating range of the turbojets, I don't think they're at their best at Mach 0.5 and 4 km. It looks like your disassembly happened when you were approaching Mach 1. Did you get an aerodynamic failure message, or did you experience unwanted pitching that then broke your plane? If so, you probably want to sweep the wings more to reduce drag at trans- and supersonic speeds.

Well I gave up on it. I couldn't even come up with vaguely sensible guesses.

An idea I had on the topic earlier to make things interesting: Separate the camera optics from the sensors. So you might have a few different size lens/mirror arrangements, and then a few different sensors (eg Monochrome Imager, Colour Imager, Spectroscope, etc). That way you get a range of permutations without ballooning the part count, and you actually get to think about your science experiment instead of just slapping the part on.

The big problem I see is how would multiple connections be handled in the VAB? If you just connect parts that physically touch, that causes all sorts of problems. Boosters often don't physically touch their cores because there's a decoupler between them. Let's say the booster does touch the core, perhaps because it slopes in like on the Russian rockets, well what happens when you fire the decoupler? In the current game is one ship that clips through itself is turned into two ships they both get blown apart with extreme force. If you add multiple attachment nodes that can connect at once, you end up with a rather inflexible system. Shifting the boosters vertically would throw away the benefit. Even having different tanks in different orders would cause issues. And if the player manually marks which nearby parts will be connected, how is that an improvement on struts exactly? Any other ideas?

In stock aerodynamics the key is to build in stripes outwards from the fuselage. Also, the new gizmos significantly ease angling wings.