cantab

-53 (-)

+1 to this request. I use a 360 pad and at the moment I'm stuck using an external tool just to bind pitch/roll axes to the dpad, *and* configuring the XBox button as a modifier key by manually editing settings.cfg. Works OK but is far from ideal.

It's a business decision by Squad that we aren't going to be privy to. That said it's just two considerations really. Do Squad want that mod in stock? Sometimes they don't. For example ferram denied ever being approached, which means that Squad for whatever reason didn't want FAR in stock and wanted instead to pursue their own ideas of aerodynamics. Does the modder want it in stock, and are they able to do so? If a mod has multiple copyright holders then typically the agreement of every single one needs to be secured to allow their work to be distributed as part of KSP under KSP's license terms; one refusenik or even one uncontactable person can stop the whole thing. And although a stockified mod will usually have some adjustments, I think the difference between "mod becomes stock", "modder works on stock features for Squad", and "Squad copy mod" is usually pretty clear. Examples: Spaceplane Plus is a mod that became stock, recognisably as such even considering there were tweaks. Karbonite did not become stock, Roverdude instead made a new ISRU system. (Though I believe the underlying Regolith framework was incorporated into the stock code). Porkjet and Roverdude are both continuing to work on new stock features for Squad. Squad are copying AntennaRange and RemoteTech for KSP 1.1, but neither developer of those mods is involved.

Attempted a VTOL landing at the island runway. It would have worked if I hadn't hit the freaklng control tower!

I think this is what I would try screenshot288 by cantab314, on Flickr The I beam provides a structural spine, and the 1.25 tanks can be attached as you choose - I put them on the small nose cones that are attached to the command pod. No messing around with the multi-way adapters. In a "real" ship I would arrange and gizmo it all to look tidier. I-beams are late in the tech tree, earlier on you can use girders and let them clip into the tanks. The main drawback to this approach is possibly increased drag in stock aerodynamics. The tailcones on the fuel tanks will help reduce it. In FAR if you make it all look smooth you should be good.

I for one cannot see anywhere to select best answer...

Nope, the latest demo includes Minmus. If you want to do flybys and orbits, it's relatively simple. Get into orbit with a decent amount of fuel in your ship, then set up the manouvre nodes and burn them. Just remember the demo lacks control options, you might need to spam the little reaction wheels on your launchers to keep control in the ascent to Kerbin orbit. (The full game has engines with thrust vectoring which makes things a lot easier). When you want to land the big problem in the 1.0 demo is picking a lander engine. The Reliant is heavy, but gives you the ability to throttle which will make the landing itself relatively easy. Your alternative is to use the RCS thrusters and monopropellant. Try 12 thrusters, that should do it. That will let you make a *much* lighter lander which is easier to get to the Mun in the first place but you have no throttle so you'll have to be tapping H (for forward RCS thrust) to control your landing which is tricky.

The change to the graphics driver is an obvious suspect, you may want to check that. Fine for a bit then lagging suggests a thermal issue, monitor your temperatures as you play.

If you got KSP on Steam, you can install Steam and your games on any PC. If you got KSP directly from Squad, you can log into your account and download it. If you forgot the password look for a reset option. Not sure about GoG or Amazon.

AMD's processors are competitive in certain price brackets, but the thing is that the extra cores you'll get with an AMD processor only help programs that can use those cores, while the better per-core performance Intel offer helps *everything*. With KSP as a main interest the pendulum swings very much in Intel's favour.

Drop it to minus forty-nine.

Anyone got any tips for curing a dynamical roll instability, I *think* it's "Dutch Roll"? This is the troubled spaceplane https://flic.kr/p/Cm5LRx I eventually got all derivs to be green in the relevant flight regimes, but the dynamic simulation shows divergence in a lateral sim and the plane is prone to a nasty roll oscillation at high speeds and altitudes. It seems to be worsened when I'm putting a big pitch-up input. A significant constraint on the design is it's going to be a shuttle orbiter, and I was planning on putting the ET "above" rather than "below" the orbiter. (Because it has a downards-opening cargo bay to deposit payloads on places like Laythe). That means I can't have a large central tailfin, and even with the twin-tail I'm mindful that I don't want them to be too high.

Bear in mind I'm in a modded system, so some delta-V needs and aerobrake speeds are different to stock. I'm also in science mode, so not worrying about funds. Most of my landings were one-offs with expendable vehicles. I did though put a space station in Mun orbit. For that I then used expendable capsules to take crew to the station and back to Kerbin, along with a reusable lander to make Mun landings in various biomes and bring science back up for the lab on the station. This seemed to work pretty well. I sent the space station out with a bunch of fuel, but tech tree permitting I could have done ISRU to fill it up. Since pictures are being requested, this is said station Delivery of our new solar array by cantab314, on Flickr The orbiter is on the near side, the Mun lander on the other side, and the solar array is being brought up - science labs are power hungry! The half orange tank was enough to support five landings, and I sent four orbiters to visit (though one was destroyed being used to rescue Jeb from the Mun's surface after he got stuck on a mountain with no EVA fuel).

I think I have quicksave enabled, but quickload disabled. I can still quickload by enabling it in the debug menu, but having it default off stops me hitting F9 without first thinking, was that KSP's mistake or mine? I also have my entire KSP folder, including my saves, backed up to a cloud service every half hour or so. I've used those backup saves on multiple occasions, whether after a bug in an ironman save, or in a reverts-allowed save just when I forgot to F5.

Shop around a bit more I would say. Make sure you know a few things: Budget. What hardware you need. For example do you need a monitor or do you already have one. What performance you need. Gaming has different demands to office work which has different demands to photo editing, and so on. Desired form factor. A desktop will offer best performance for your money. In laptops there's a tradeoff between performance and compactness. All-in-ones look good but combine the portability of a desktop with the performance of a laptop. As for KSP, it benefits from a processor with fast single-threaded performance paired, which means a recent Intel CPU capable of a fast clock speed. KSP doesn't make good use of multiple cores, so that's not important. It also needs a competent graphics card or chip, budget gaming cards or good integrated graphics will be fine but bottom-of-the-barrel stuff may struggle. And remember "Core i-whatever" are marketing brands, nothing more. A dual-core Skylake processor with hyperthreading in a desktop will be called a "Core i3", but a very similar processor in a laptop can get the "Core i7" moniker. Especially with laptops you *really* need to check the exact processor model number and its performance.

Baseball only has four bases. A window = ?

Something untranslatable.

Yeah, the IRL advantage of simplicity doesn't really apply in KSP where *all* the engines offer deep throttling, unlimited ignitions, and 100% reliability.

I don't *think* Kopernicus can do it. So far as I know the situations are limited to those in stock.

The rocket would crash while I'm more concerned about whether my £75 mechanical keyboard is broken. Later on I can revert the launch or restore a backup save as needed.

The O-10 engine has a high TWR, which may in some cases offset the low Isp, though I think it's unlikely. The poor mass ratio of the monoprop tanks is what really kills it. That leaves just convenience, of not needing separate tanks for RCS and main engines, and personal taste and fashion.

"Keverest" is the name I've always heard in the past. As far as height goes, well in general crustal thickness depends on surface gravity, and not directly on planetary radius. So Keverest is about what you'd expect, if anything Kerbin has a bit less topography than you'd expect looking at the real solar system.

Once in a while. Either if KSP is annoying me and I want some simplicity, or if I want to see if something is possible in the demo. I made a shuttle in the 1.0 demo

Hitting debris in orbit is indeed possible in KSP. That we tend to launch everything into the same zero-degree inclination encourages collisions, but the inability for anything to happen to a ship you aren't flying majorly discourages them and the number of objects is generally tiny compared to real life. Personally I just get rid of my debris with the big red button in the tracking station. I like to think it fires a giant laser that blows the debris into a wisp of expanding vapour.