cantab

Well I think what's more refereed to is if the developers make a game and everything would be ready for release, but then they decide to only sell half of it as the main game and the rest comes out a month later at an extra charge. More generally, substantial expansions released a reasonable length of time after the original do tend to be well received. They're often practically a sequel, apart from needing the original to play. But in the case of KSP I'd rather see a real sequel, since the game engine has so many issues.

A virtual wind tunnel would indeed be awesome, but I think it's outside the scope of the game. The chief issue is that the actual aerodynamic model used in flight probably won't be a virtual wind tunnel, in that it's not going to be doing CFD.

This is a stock bug, it was around in .25 but seems to be worse in .90. There's some thought that stuff near the hatch, where the Kerbal would appear, worsens it, so try and keep the space clear. Landing gear has suspension, and if heavily loaded that can compress a lot. A small initial tilt will grow as the CoM shifts towards the most-compressed leg, and if the ship is top-heavy enough it can tip. Again, not a new problem in .90 I don't think. I'll also point out that landing gear aren't meant to be used like that

Now this is a good point. FAR already has the lift and drag tinting, but I've not found it that informative. Norpo's idea would be helpful too I think, at least for small craft (for big ones with lots of wing pieces you'd get a forest of arrows).

Marketing Squad weren't all that big I don't think. I thought they were maybe dozen employees before they started KSP, doing marketing installations - stuff like fancy window displays basically. But I may be confusing them with another company.Regardless, KSP was basically Harvester's pet project, and while obviously Squad thought it had potential, I don't believe it was never a game "intended to reach a large market". Or at least it's not a game designed to be what sells - if it was it would have no orbital mechanics and lots of guns.

Wow, not what I was expecting from the next update, though I knew Squad were thinking about aero. IMHO the basic aerodynamics should be as accurate as reasonably possible. KSP, after all, gets its core gameplay from realistic physics. But I could get behind not including the weakness that FAR's aerodynamic failures do, and I don't think we'll see the analysis tools in stock. (Perhaps Ferram will do a mod that's FAR's analysis tools run against the new stock aero.)

Interesting idea. It should technically be possible, since the game tracks where your spacecraft go and have been as part of the science system. The hard part is how you work the game balance. There'd be no advances, like there is with the contract system, and I think the player would be left very un-directed. You won't have a way of knowing before you do a mission whether or not you'll be given more than it cost as a reward - and if you do get this information up front then really it's just the same as the contract system again, except you get all the contracts at once and don't have to specify you're accepting them.

Yeah, I've had this problem with a few parts. I think there needs to be a way to tell the game "Only attach the top node" or "Only attach the bottom node". Maybe something for Editor Extensions?

That's because the other designs are manned. Not that a probe mission isn't worth doing, but there's an order of magnitude difference in mass between the probe core and the command pod.

You sure? I know the small cubic and octagonal struts are physicsless, but I didn't think the larger girders were. I just looked in my .90 config files and they don't have the PhysicsSignificance = 1 line. Yeah, there's a warning about doing this being a bug-magnet. I think in my case because I have four identical parts attached, and no parts attached to them, I'm likely to be safe. But if you do more complex things it can be different.See, for example, the four engine clusters on this ship built back in .23.5: https://flic.kr/p/nkQxru Both the four-way adapter and the girder are attached to the bottom of the orange tank. Depending on what order I placed those parts in, I could end up with no fuel flow to the engines.

The designers took some flak for including that feature, but they maintain it's the height of accomplishment and key to ensuring sales take off. The knife also includes a tool for arming British nuclear missiles.

Ensure you are controlling from a part in a good location. SAS responds to the movement of the controlling part, so you want that somewhere nice and stable, like near your main fuel tanks and/or engines. That way the front end of the ship or whatever can sway around but the SAS will ignore that rather than making it worse.

If you want it for the looks, just put it on and then hide another probe core somewhere to do the fancy functions.

With mini lightsabers on the hilt.

Yeah, you attach one, offset it, attach the next, offset that, and so on.Maybe it's cheaty, since otherwise I'd need 12 cuboct struts, but it's not like I'm gravhacking or fuelhacking. WanderingKid, on your rocket design ditch the girders and land on the engine.

First up, KSP is a single-player game with no online connectivity and no DRM. Squad cannot stop you from playing the KSP you have. Now, the KSP site won't load so I can't check the EULA

The R one is a bit of a control clash, since Alt/RShift+R does the no radial attachment. It makes it easy to accidentally change the symmetry mode.

The IVAs on the new spaceplane parts are indeed just black spaces. IMHO Squad did drop a clanger here, because it looks so like there's a bug. They should have put a placeholder. Just literally a box with "There is no IVA here, sorry" would have done. Yes, I want bigger xenon tanks too. Ion clusters are viable for larger ships, except the needed xenon will spike the part count. Landing gear is in development, it missed .90 but we'll hopefully see it in .91. Refuelling stuff that's landed was made much simpler with the claw. No need to line anything up precisely, just drive the fuel truck into the vehicle it's filling up. Explorable IVAs would be awesome, but also a LOT of work for Squad. Just regular IVAs are a lot of work.

Pursuant to this forum thread: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/103878-18t-%28or-less%29-Returnable-Manned-Mun-Lander I made a Mun lander that's within the level 1 pad, VAB, and R&D facility limits. Mission album: https://flic.kr/s/aHsk6n3gmU

Just investigating does suggest it's tough. It's definitely possible with Fuel Systems, which gives the 48-7S and the fuel lines. I came up with this guy: Specs by cantab314, on Flickr One caveat: I turned on debug menu clipping to make the engine clusters Flew it on the Mun and back mission, though I did have patched conics and manoeuvre nodes. There's not a lot of room for error, though of course on non-ironman saves you can just retry until you get it. It's also probably possible with Aerodynamics, giving you the Basic Jet and Radial Intake. A jet first stage will hugely slash your launchpad mass. To do it without any 90 tech nodes is going to be much harder. If you can EVA, which you probably can when you're considering a Mun landing, then you can do a two-launch Munar orbit rendezvous mission. One launch sends a kerballed ship that lands on the Mun and gets back into Munar orbit, but doesn't need to get back to Kerbin. That cuts the delta-V requirement by 270 m/s - not a lot, but every little helps, and you can save more if you use the EVA jetpack for the later part of the ascent. The other launch sends a ship with a vacant seat that gets into Munar orbit, waits for the Kerbal who's coming from the surface, then takes them back to Kerbin. That one needs about 1300 m/s less than a direct ascent lander so is no problem.

Autoland is not installed however.

Got my Tylo ship on course for Jool Tweaking the thrust limiters was a big help in keeping the drop tanks (which had their own engines) in order, and as the parts dropped away things started feeling better. Now, I don't have enough fuel for a powered capture into the Joolian system, and I'm using DRE so I can't aerocapture. Means I'll need to work out a gravicapture. Fun times. I may need PreciseNode for this, not actually had it on the save so far.

I can only think that site is either giving scores that factor in cost or using a very non-linear scoring system. Benchmarks aren't the be all and end all, but these are the Passmark scores and it's an absolute chasm. http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=33&cmp[]=2152 Real game framerates are perhaps better of course. The 610 is such a low-end card it's not often tested, but it's in this test of a bunch of cards in TF2 on Linux. There's no 660 in there but it should be between the 750 Ti and 760 in performance, and thus give around 5 times the framerate of the 610. http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=nvamd_binary_comparison&num=3

Granted. It turns any liquid it comes in contact with into more spoiled milk - including the cytoplasm in human cells. Then you spill it. I wish for a cup of free time.

I dunno, I've gotten used to the whole starting out with manned pods thing. And it is a game after all. In terms of capabilities, at the moment we start out with more or less Mercury-Redstone, which is basically a manned sounding rocket. No staging and most players won't make orbit until they get decouplers. Small sounding rockets aren't going to be very interesting to most players I don't think, and missiles aren't really in keeping with the tone of the game. Not to mention unmanned stuff in general doesn't necessarily imply smaller rockets. The Sputnik rocket was about twice as heavy as the Mercury-Atlas. So I think where we have it now is about right.