cantab

Haha. Not that.

Neither sorry

Lololol no.

Well it does and it doesn't. On the CPU side it makes heavy use of one core and it absolutely benefits from a modern fast Intel CPU. It doesn't benefit from four cores rather than two but that's not something Squad can fix quickly anyway since they use an off-the-shelf game engine - their options are wait for it to improve, switch to a better one, or write their own, and all of those would take a lot of time.On the GPU side, sure it doesn't tax the GPU much, but then nor do many other indie games. Ultra-flashy graphics require a big and experienced studio with a big budget, which Squad are not. Tanuki Chau, regular streamer on KSPTV and her own channel, who was working on the KSP biomes at the same time she was waiting for test results for cancer. Why don't you ask her if she worked "real effing hard" on the Duna biomes? And now you're yet another person spouting the whole "Squad are scam artists" nonsense. I don't know why I even bother replying.

Ike is your friend. But like all friends he doesn't really appreciate you just barging into his house willy nilly.

That was spectacular And I thought this case (which could have stayed there forever) was bad. The strength-stiffness ratio is seriously out of whack. A degree of bend is desirable to make things visible to the player before they snap, but not full 180 degree springs.

Lol nopety nope.

I've done a few. My ultralight Mun rover was a fiasco, I failed to set the handbrake before decoupling it and it tumbled down a hill for over 4 km with my Kerbal running after it, sustaining some damage. It was then unable to drive back up the hill and had to be abandoned. My much later Mun probe rover was more successful, thanks to landing on better terrain and remembering the handbrake. I mainly built it to test out AntennaRange - it relies on the lander or an orbiter to relay its signals to Kerbin. I drove it for a few km, it did well and with the old .25 version of the QBE it had the torque to right itself when it tipped. On a much larger scale is my Duna lander-rover, here seen not on Duna. I took a copy to Gilly which was interesting, I covered a few kilometres mostly with the wheels not touching the ground and could only reach a top speed of 7 m/s. On Eve it performed admirably, having no trouble with the gravity and reaching speeds of 25-30 m/s even up 25-degree slopes, taking a dip in the sea then backing out using RCS, and covering around 60 km in total. On Duna it did rather less admirably. My first landing attempt in stock aerodynamics resulted in disintegration on chute opening. My second in FAR+DRE landed safely and covered around 20 km. I built it to cope with crashes and tested it extensively on Kerbin, and on Duna it survived a 70 mph rollover and used its SRIMEC engines to get back on its wheels, only to then be heavily damaged in an 85 mph tumble. The Kerbal survived but he wasn't going any further. Which all means I've never actually seen if it can launch back into Duna orbit like it's designed to. And, arguably, there was my Laythe Boat. It's capable of land travel but driving it is seriously hairy - the thing is unstable, wobbly, and thanks to using propellers lacks the power to climb steep slopes. Really it's unwise to do much more than beach it. On the ocean it's much better, capable of a steady 20 m/s and stable at 4x warp, just don't try and turn it too hard.

It's dropped off a little bit this year only because I've been playing Pokemon instead. I tend to be a "one game at a time" kind of guy. With KSP I also don't tend to give it my full attention. I'll be browsing the web or watching a stream as well.

This is a shortcoming of the SAS, it assumes gimballed engines are aft of the centre of mass, so when they're fore of the CoM it gimbals them the wrong way. The solution is to lock gimbals on such engines and provide alternative control. Other ways to get the LFB into space: Activate it without staging and use it during the launch that way, then stage to run the test. Or stage during launch, then edit the staging and stage again to run the test. Flip it upside down and put it on top of your rocket.

Nope. What's the significance there, just the numbers?

Malala Yousafzai. And nope.

I believe it's equipped with several powerful "Merlin" lights

'twas not. Newpage repost: 'twas a day, like no other, 'twas a day, there'll be another, 'twas a day, the routine broke, 'twas a day, the woman spoke, 'twas a day, to end, it's fate, 'twas a day, to celebrate, 'twas a day, that much is plain, 'twas a riddle, to puzzle your brain. Hint 1: It's happened this century, ie since 2000.

Yes it was. It ran from 84 to 95. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev#Birmingham.2C_United_Kingdom.2C_1984.E2.80.9395It's been replaced now by a cable-hauled system (how boring), but the old one was "the maglev" and locally known as such.

Personally this was and is one of my concerns about KSP's direction. The game grew up as a flight simulator where you build your own vehicles, and the flight side of it has a steep learning curve, partly because there's little guidance but mostly because orbital mechanics is just plain counter-intuitive. I'm just not sure that bolting on an increasingly complex business simulation game to that is a good idea, especially as success in such a game is liable to come from understanding game mechanics that don't really relate to reality.

On a sidenote, why did they need to do a roll program like that. I kind of get it with the Shuttle, that's all asymmetric and stuff, but the Saturn V was pretty much symmetrical, why not put it on the pad the right way round?

To both I decline to answer. Nope.

You know maglev trains? Those things that were supposed to be the super-fast trains of the future. Yeah...wasn't always quite like that Travelled the 600 metres from the regular rail station to the airport, at a top speed of Not Very Fast.

Accounts who spout clear nonsense, and inflammatory clear nonsense at that, on the forums.

In a sense it's not. It's way out, and because of that it has a big SOI even though it's a small planet. I think it's the largest SOI after Jool, and certainly larger than Kerbin or Eve.

It depends on the task of course. Passmark for example puts the FX 9590 and the i7 4790K quite close on overall performance*, but there's a much bigger gulf in single-threaded performance. Generally more tasks will benefit from faster cores (that you get with Intel) than from more "cores" (that you get with AMD); KSP is an extreme example of this. *The forum throws a wobbly at a link with square brackets in so you'll have to look them up yourself.

Oh, since 2000. And it's hard to think of clues that don't feel like they'd seriously give it away.No to the three guesses, and not sure what you mean Bill Phil.

Yet another option is to use KER and configure it to show orbital period.

"EA" can also mean Early Access. Not the first time that abbreviation clash has caused confusion.