cantab

And then you get burnt when the higher-ups decide that actually they're doing a rebalance to make 1 Fund roughly requivalent to 1 US dollar and the maximum is 1 trillion now. (Well, depending on how much work changing the data type is).

One more gotcha - you're assuming the rated thrust is in vacuum. I won't be surprised to see the rated thrust actually at sea level, thereby ensuring that (aside from Eve and Jool) the player always gets at least their expected TWR.

6/10. Simple and effective but you don't need decouplers either

I'm not sure I "buy" this. After all, nuclear submarines have their reactors on board, and typically located amidships. While weight is less of an issue for a sub it's still a factor.

22, and FDIV bug worked around.

Kethane Does Not Break Conservation Of Mass Kethane Does Not Break Conservation Of Mass Kethane Does Not Break Conservation Of Mass It used to, but that was changed. The large converter's rocket fuel mode makes 0.975 kg of product for each kg of kethane, including the 0.005 kg of xenon gas. Its monopropellant mode, and the jet fuel and oxidizer modes on the small converter, all have much worse mass ratios. Kethane tanks are lighter than corresponding rocket fuel tanks (with the possible exception of the Mk3 parts) so there is a small advantage to shipping kethane. Even back when kethane *did* break conservation of mass, it was by a few percent, not enough to have a meaningful impact on gameplay. Now with that rant out of the way, I've only tried kethane so I can't really have a favourite, but as I see it the main differences are: Kethane is finite and deposits deplete, while Karbonite deposits are bottomless. This is probably the single biggest difference, and which you prefer is up to you. I opted to stick with Kethane because I want the encouragement to keep on moving and I feel it chimes with modern concerns about the environment and the depletion of our natural resources. Karbonite on the other hand would let me set up infrastructure that will endure indefinitely. Karbonite has a bunch of cool engines, while Kethane is focussed on the mining and has just the single kethane-burning jet. Some players might like the engine options in Karbonite, others might feel they have enough engines as it is. The scanning systems are quite different. I'll be honest, Kethane scanning isn't great, though keep in mind that it doesn't take too long to locate numerous deposits, you don't have to scan every last little hex. Oh, and did I mention Kethane Does Not Break Conservation Of Mass?

Flew the Dirty Rascal 2 (the one on the left). Looked for some kethane southwest of KSC, an adjacent hex in the ocean had it but it seems like the deposit has just missed the land. Then went to the known deposit in the desert. She's not got much power, and landing is tricky even with the safety wingtip gears, but empty at least she does her job. How she's going to behave now she's a full 32 tons heavier I have yet to find out! Will the takeoff speed be safe on the rough terrain? Will the wings be strong enough? Will she be landable? EDIT: Oh, and I flew it with my XBox 360 pad I needed to use an external program to map some button presses to keys - in particular I'm using holding the XBox button and pushing the Dpad to adjust trim. Still need to work out the rudder controls, so my turns were a bit un-co-ordinated, but overall it worked well.

14. Countdown is progressing.

31. 5char

Contracts give you a certain amount of money, reputation, and science for completing them. Six of the strategies let you shift the balance of these away from the defaults. For example if you have plenty of science, you might adopt "Patents Licensing", which will reduce your science gains from contracts (I don't know if it affects experiments as well) and instead give you extra money. Currently the game balance is rather wonky. Basically anything converting from funds is overpowered, with "Outsourced R&D" being an infamous game-ruiner. Conversely anything converting to funds is rather pathetic.

Yeah, a safety wheel or skid under the tail that you don't normally roll on can be useful. A fair few real aircraft have them.

Fonts? Since you keep posting in different ones

The problems are solely with the Windows 64-bit build. On Linux the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of KSP have both been perfectly stable for several releases now. Meanwhile on OSX the only build is a 32-bit one. The differences are down less to the actual operating systems and more to Unity's varying quality on the different operating systems.

Motherboard limited, unfortunately - two slots for DDR2, so the practical maximum is 4 GB; 4 GB DDR2 sticks exist but are extortionately priced. I'm waiting for Skylake and DDR4 for my next build to avoid getting in the same situation again. /offtopic

Yup, just open the FAR flight data and it's there. Keep in mind that it depends on your rocket design and its orientation. For example a typical simple rocket will have a much higher terminal velocity when travelling nose first than when travelling engine first. Generally speaking unless you either have crazy TWR or a very draggy build you won't get near terminal velocity in FAR on ascent anyway.

Well, there's one way to ensure your pictures aren't dark: MOAR BOOSTERS!

For the most part, fun. In science and career mode the biomes are large enough that on most worlds it's quicker and easier to fly rather than drive between them. Rovers are notoriously easy to crash too, because we drive them fast - 30 m/s is 70 mph after all. Rovers are useful if you need to go to a specific location - an anomaly, a survey site, a kerbal needing rescue, etc. - and you are bad at precision landing.

The thing is that the proper solution here is to fix the memory leaks. Releasing an otherwise stable 64-bit version without fixing those leaks is just kicking the problem into the long grass.The leak seems to have only arisen in earnest in 0.90 As far as if and when the 4 GB limit starts to cause an issue for the stock game, I'd rather have fewer quality assets than loads of degraded ones. As far as mods go, only a certain subset of them significantly increase RAM usage. *cough* RSS *cough* . Mods like KER, Alarm Clock, even FAR and DRE have a trivial effect. Worst case scenario, RAM-hungry mods needs to either be like Ven's Stock Revamp replacing existing parts instead of adding new ones or they need to automatically including ATM-like functionality. Regarding a load-on-demand approach, this was discussed in a previous thread. Someone (NathanKell?) suggested that the game could monitor RAM usage and automatically fall back to lower-resolution textures if you do something like build a ship with every part. But then all this is somewhat academic to me. I've been a Linux user for a decade, so neither the 4 GB address space limit nor it seems the memory leaks affect me. (On the other hand I do have to make do with only 4 GB of physical RAM). Now if Squad for some reason cancelled the Linux version, that would be the death of KSP for me.

Minmus?

Thirty five

1) Engines low will tend to pitch the nose up when more thrust is applied, engines high tend to pitch it down. As Obsessed says, the horizontal stabiliser will control this. If you fly without SAS you'll notice you need to change pitch trim as you change power, but then you sort of need to do that anyway because changing power means you need to change AoA to maintain level flight. If you fly with SAS you might not even notice. 2) I'm not sure about this. If the wing is low that in theory will make the plane less stable in pitch, but I don't think it's a big effect. 3) For me a slight dihedral does help roll stability. Usually I use the rotate gizmo with angle snap, then hold down shift for 5 degree increments. Wing height seems to have less impact. 4) This sounds like normal behaviour For almost all planes, turning is primarily done by rolling, and the rudder just used for adjustment. (A plane with a strong dihedral effect may be able to turn using the rudder primarily, some model planes do that so they don't need ailerons at all.)

Yeah, I'm not sure of anything quite like that. Dres and the Mun both have steep-walled canyons, but they're grey of course. Pol has some steep mountainsides, but nothing as sheer as that. Kerbin has some mountain faces that are similarly sheer, but not as extensive.

At Mach 0.5 and Mach 1, that red L-Beta number I think means your plane is unstable in roll. (But I'm not 100% sure on the stability derivatives, so take this with a pinch of salt). A slight perturbation, probably just due to floating point error, will increase instead of self-correcting, producing the behaviour you experience. A slight dihedral angle on the wings can help this, as can raising them. Workarounds include using FAR's wing leveller, or dialling in a little roll trim. As far as the build goes, if you do suspect the engines are producing unequal thrust, have you tried the intake placement trick? (Place intakes, engine, intakes, engine instead of all the engines then all the intakes.)

Is it a ship called Ulysses? There've apparently been several.

If you have a discrete graphics card it's best to connect all your monitors to it. As DuoDex mentions, most graphics cards have a range of outputs and can use two or more at once. Just watch the compatibility. In particular it seems like you can only use one analogue monitor nowadays, so if you have old screens you might need to use an active adapter to convert the signals. Any monitors connected to the ports on your motherboard will be using the integrated graphics. As such anything showed on them won't have good 3D acceleration. Using the integrated graphics may cause driver compatibility issues (I don't think either Windows or Linux likes having AMD and nVidia drivers at once) and will also mean you can't disable the integrated graphics to reclaim the memory they use. All round, I don't recommend it.