cantab

I decline to play "free to play" games. Maybe there are a few good ones, maybe Pokemon Go is decent, but they are overshadowed by the many money-grubbing pay-to-win types that have utterly corrupted mobile gaming and now threaten PC and even console. I feel the only way I can take a stand is a complete boycott of the business model where-ever it appears.

Personally I strongly doubt a craft capable of escaping Kerbin yet somehow incapable of making any closed Kerbin orbit at all will top the leaderboard, if such a craft can even be constructed in the first place. Now, less rules lawyering, more entry! Here's PLANSat 2, massing 2.000 tonnes on the pad, and making LKO with ease. This is not in the slightest bit honed or optimised, but I think it makes a baseline entry for others to try and beat. Album: https://flic.kr/s/aHskCUoJK1

I see Kerbal rocket parts, compared to Earth rockets, as reliable, rugged, and cheap - but heavy and underperforming. Kerbals have that luxury because they live in a small planetary system that makes spaceflight a doddle, whereas we Earthlings have to push the limits of engineering just to make orbit round our bloated planet. As for why Kerbin and its friends are so dense, best idea I've come up with is dark matter cores. As in, I feel we can't say that's definitely impossible in our universe.

Wheels and landing legs are currently bad enough that it's easier to make a VTOL that lands on I-beams or fuel tanks rather than try and deal with a rolling landing. They are bad enough that designing a small light aircraft is likely to require more time and effort spent sorting out the landing gear than designing the actual plane. That is not a state of affairs I feel should continue.

Sevastopol. (Cities)

I found a niche for the Thud in a lander that needed about 200 kN of thrust and good streamlining because it was on an atmo body, but a single Swivel would have made the whole thing too tall. A pair of Terriers wasn't enough, a pair of Swivels massive overkill, and a pair of Aerospikes beyond my tech tree unlocks, but a pair of Thuds was just right for that particular ship. I think the Goliath is one I too have yet to use, and I find the welded-on mounting somewhat irritating. On the other hand it's still an imposing enough engine I don't feel able to call it the worst. If it wasn't for the nightmare that are wheels in KSP 1.1.x I might give a big plane a go.

So make Klawing the target a contract failure. As for bumping the object to null out the rotation, you'll never get it perfectly zeroed. I can say from experience that docking with a fairly slowly tumbling object is not quick or easy. But therein I think lies the rub: Nobody seems to like hard or time-consuming contracts. I frequently see complaints that X contract is "too hard" or "takes too long" and the reward is too slim. I never see anyone moaning that a contract is easy money. If the spin is through the port axis, on the other hand, then I believe it's elementary because of the tolerance of KSP docking ports. I don't think they even mind snapping docked with a major relative rotation rate.

Banned for comparing sci-fi and fantasy.

69 Making rude jokes *snigger* *snigger*

Wow, as voxelization errors go, that one takes the biscuit. Unless it's remembering the voxels of what you had loaded before, I can't imagine what would cause such an error. You also appear to have Tweakscale involved. I still recommend caution when using that with FAR.

Who handles the accounts of the Kerbal Space Program? Bill. ( Basically any thread for posting jokes )

Oh yeah. Or house numbers (like to put on your door), is the usual answer. If @Ethanadams doesn't confirm soon I move that Stranded gets to post the next riddle.

I have almost always done a Munar orbit rendezvous. Indeed I've almost always done destination orbit rendezvous *where-ever* I am landing. It just to me felt obvious and natural, I suppose because that's how Apollo did it. But in KSP Direct Ascent to the Mun is very possible, indeed maybe better.

That one "backup battery" on your probe that you locked in a previous version and now the new KSP prevents you from unlocking it when your probe has no active power.

That's how you do a gravity turn...

Push, get knocked over by a St Bernard. Push the button and it's the 1st of September.

Dinorwig Power Station in Wales and Cruachan Power Station in Scotland both store about 10 million tonnes of water in their upper reservoirs. (And by the way both are in mountainous areas). That's an equivalent weight to fifty thousand heavily-loaded freight wagons. A moving vehicle system is not anywhere near as scalable as the established pumped storage systems. As far as output goes, Dinorwig will do 1650 MW and maintain that for six hours. Cruachan's turbines max out at 440 MW but it has the water for 22 hours of running. A railcar or similar regeneratively braking is going to make just a few megawatts, and is going to descend any reasonable slope pretty quickly.

Granted. Many eons from now, when we are both just bones in the ground, a tectonic collision will cause the destruction of my fossil as it is faulted against the rocks containing yours. I wish bananas were always just ripe.

Granted. Everyone stops watching after 10 seconds. I wish everyone would take the 1000 yard walk. http://www.noao.edu/education/peppercorn/pcmain.html

Definitely not timewarped in the KSC scene. Been able to reproduce it without ever timewarping in the save or the play session. There's a reported workaround which involves first loading another save. And when I go straight to the Tracking Station on loading the save I briefly see the affected craft saying "Orbiting the Sun" or "Orbiting [Kerbin's parent]".

@KocLobster what other software did you use to stress test your overclock? And in particular did you stress CPU and GPU together? I've read reports where people reached CPU and GPU overclocks that were stable individually which is what a single stress-test or benchmark program will focus on, but the system became unstable when both were heavily loaded which is what some games will do. In any case if an overclocked system becomes unstable the obvious thing to do is knock all the overclocks back a notch.

A game like KSP certainly can't render everything at full detail at once. And indeed KSP doesn't. Terrain further from the craft uses a lower level of detail, and planets that are more than a few dozen km away are rendered in their simpler "scaledspace" forms. (KSP doesn't entirely pull this off though, the less detailed terrain is frequently obvious, and the scaledspace view clearly visually different.) But on the other hand the speeds attainable in KSP mean that you have to at least load a wide area at a time. If you tried to use the standard Unreal Engine "open world" tools and the default scale then on a low flyby or orbit of Tylo you'd be pulling in a new 'level' every few seconds, while possibly just a km or two above the surface. I can't imagine that feasible when those tools were probably built with nothing faster than a horse in mind.

So it seems like there's a bug now where reparenting Kerbin causes orbits around it to change when a save is reloaded. Reproduction steps: Install Kopernicus 1.1.3-1 on KSP 1.1.3. Install a config that reparents Kerbin. Here's a simple-as-you-like one: (But I encourage you to also try others) @Kopernicus:NEEDS[!GalacticNeighborhood]:AFTER[Kopernicus] { @Body[Kerbin] { @Orbit { @referenceBody = Jool %semiMajorAxis = 108737000 } } } Put a craft in a known orbit round Kerbin. (I used Hyperedit). Quit and restart the game and reload the save. Observe that the orbit has shifted.

So I took it on myself to do a spot of digging. Started with a clean Steam-verified copy of KSP 1.1.3 on Linux. Added Kopernicus 1.1.3-1, New Horizons 2.0, and Hyperedit 1.5.2.1. On first load of KSP (64-bit version), changed resolution and music volume. No other setting changes were made. Started a new Sandbox save and Hyperedited two copies of the Orbiter 1A into 100 km Kerbin and Mun orbits. Immediately reproduced the orbit shift bug on game restart and save reload. Now for fiddling around mode. In all tests I used a clean save each time. Disabling "orbit drift compensation": Does not help. Commenting out the SOI definition in the New Horizons Kerbin.cfg: Does not help. Removing all New Horizons planet configs except for Sonnah, Kerbin, Mun, and Minmus: Does not help (Restored full New Horizons config) Changed Kerbin to orbit Jool: Does not help Removed New Horizons altogether. Added a custom Kopernicus patch that just moves Kerbin to orbit Jool: Still the same bug. So at this point it looks like a general bug with recent Kopernicus when reparenting Kerbin.

Not only does Unreal Engine have problems with environments the size of planets, one of their staff said about it "Why would someone want to play a game like that? You wouldn't be able to fill it with enough interesting things for it to matter." Source: https://forums.unrealengine.com/showthread.php?29261-how-to-create-planet-size-world Until someone can point me to a game made in Unreal Engine that features planets comparable in size to KSP that can both be explored at "human scale" and flown over at hypersonic speeds, I'm going to retain my view that for all Unity's flaws in handling KSP, Unreal would be even worse. More discussion of it: https://forums.unrealengine.com/showthread.php?29502-Simulate-Planet-Orbit