cantab

Unless you follow that Nature (yes, the scientific journal) paper that proposed they be at least partially buoyant.

Therein lies the rub. The current solution was simple to code and is good enough. It doesn't affect the stock game beyond a mildly annoying startup time, only causing problems for combinations of certain mods. As such while there's no shortage of cleverer ways things could be done to reduce RAM usage, coding and testing one of those cleverer ways rightly ranks as low priority for Squad. Fixing bugs that directly affect the gameplay and adding features to keep old customers happy and drive new sales are more important.

Warhammer has a GTX 650. I assumed the basic one, but even if it's the 650 Ti or TI Boost, an upgrade to a good new GPU will be a significant one.

Well, I lied about it being "all your clues". I'll make the first additional clue that you think right.

Well it's an approximation. You've got things like the non-constant TWR due to fuel usage, the rotational speed of the body, and errors in the map view's display of the terrain. But it's usually enough to get a good idea and you can add extra safety margin if you want. Incidentally, an "ideal" suicide burn would have you only tilting vertical at the very last moment after you cut engines and are a just a couple of metres off the ground.

The old trick is after you've done your deorbit burn, set up a manoeuvre node on the surface and drag it fully retrograde. Then start your braking burn when the predicted duration equals the time to the node.

So which has worse aerodynamics: How to Train Your Dragon, or Kerbal Space Program?

Oh I don't know, I think vexx still has that title. Hawaii is mentioned for a reason, of course.

The riddle's written in English, yes But that's not the answer.

There's already a delay when another vessel comes into physics range, sometimes a noticeable one. But the VAB/SPH is the bigger issue - there, you need all the parts "on hand".

2300 does seem low for a Tylo landing. Yet another chart, http://i.imgur.com/skAIz90.png , quotes 2600. I expect the figures will normally assume a decent TWR. A low TWR lander will incur greater gravity losses and need more delta-V to make up for it, though it's possible it'll still be lighter overall due to less engine mass. With a very low TWR you may need to take a different approach and you'll have very little room for error; if your lander cannot lift off on Kerbin fully fuelled you're probably into that zone.

I think many of the "Astroliner" planes are simply open at the back. There's no aerodynamic need for a closing cargo door in KSP.

I've had a similar issue with launcher subassemblies, throwing their stages in with what I put for the payload. That's the reverse situation, and I don't know if a bunch of blank stages at the top would be preserved in the subassembly. Anyone tried? EDIT: Ah sounds like you have Renegrade, and good to hear it works. And yes, fuel lines and struts can make a nuisance of themselves.

Not written language, not "e". Not the President, either US or generic, and not a Hawaiian political controversy. And yes Stranded, the 6th line is correct.

Yeah, I've worked with a lot of Dells and they often show signs of penny-pinching. For example the motherboard design supporting four RAM slots, but only two are actually installed, there's just spaces where the others should be.

I believe if it wasn't physicsless it would give the same drag up and down. In the stock game it's only the parachutes that can change their drag coefficient.

So don't. Arrange things such that you never need to make any control inputs in atmosphere. Whether that's by a carefully-craft launcher that performs a true gravity turn, by burning straight up into space then straight sideways to orbit, or something else entirely.Some aspects of the rules do I feel want resolving though. At the moment if you enter timewarp your only way to exit it is to unplug or hard-reboot your PC! You also have no way to make control inputs in map mode, which while not a dealbreaker will probably get very old very fast, and mapless missions are another challenge. I suggest saying that all UI-only actions that don't affect the craft's flight - stuff like pausing, going to the map, opening the resources panel - "free". (Increase timewarp maybe shouldn't be free since it can be used to stop rotation.) Also, say whether or not control overloading is allowed. For example, I could bind stage and throttle up to the same key, allowing me to launch at full power in a single operation. On the one hand control overloading might subvert the challenge a bit, but on the other hand it opens the potential for some clever solutions.

Set the permissions on the KSP saves folder so your user account has "Full Control".

Indeed KSP does seem to load basically everything all the time. For example in the VAB/SPH, when you see the little icons and rotating views of the parts in the parts list, that's not a separate image, it's the actual model loaded and rendered there. I expect Squad will look at these things at some point, but don't hold your breath. After the Unity 5 port with any luck; optimising before that's out would probably be wasted effort, especially as for stock players there's not really any negative impact. And I don't know how much of it is Unity's fault and how much is Squad's.

The landmass pictured above and the others around the antimeridian are the largest. You still might need some trial-and-error or a mod to help, since they're small targets. Personally I suck at precision landing on Kerbin, never mind Laythe, so I just built a lander (actually, a boat) that could set down on water or land.

Removing the battery cleared the CMOS data on my motherboard. Though that is from like 2009, maybe things have changed in the last few years. Or maybe there's code that says "if the battery is pulled, wipe the CMOS because that's what people expect". As for why the non-rechargeable batteries are still used, and not say rechargeables or supercaps, bear in mind it's not unreasonable for a PC to be out of use for several months on end, then put back into use. It's nice to not have to worry about needing to set up the BIOS/UEFI again.

Not waves.

Bzzzzzzzzt

On boats, quite a few people have made them in stock. Buoyancy is really screwy but radial intakes float well and can be used for hydrofoil-esque craft. Wings work quite well too and are what I used. Most "normal" parts like fuel tanks will be very draggy in the water. For propulsion jets are super-efficient (but no good for Eve of course), and ion engines can work though they're low thrust. I concur that Firespitter is the go-to mod for propellers, it includes a few electric ones. Kerbal Aircraft Expansioneers has an electric prop too. They work fine above or below the waterline, so you can use them for boats as well as planes. To power them bear in mind extended solar panels will rip off at any significant speed. I used a nuclear reactor from Near Future for my boat, but you can just pack plenty of batteries and land/glide/drift when you need to top them up, or coat your craft in OX-STATs. If you want a pure stock plane for Eve, Duna, or Jool, your main options are unpowered glider, infiniglider, ion glider, or rocket plane. Ion gliders can be tough to make, especially for Eve, and I think don't tend to be fast. A rocket plane will probably be easier to build and more fun to fly, but you won't get much time with it.

It can be tricky to find exactly where to click on the hatch, it doesn't seem to fully correspond with the graphics. Mods such as Crew Manifest let you transfer crew about, so you can shift your lab workers to a different module that way.