Technical Ben

Sorry, thought it was for landing rockets etc. As some weight reduction could help parachutes etc on really tight builds (I sometimes try to vent my RCS fuel).

If you don't need it, could you not burn it up on descent, but so as to not change your landing position too much?

Might you be able to shrink the scope to something achievable? http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=world's+smallest+bus

The card should display bios details/boot before it even goes into windows. Even with Windows 8 and EFI (I think/hope). The 660GTXTi that just arrived for me has VGA over DVI-A on one port only, and DVI-D on the other, so some VGA monitors may not work (I'm not sure any are supported, as just realized my spare monitor is DVI-A, just over an adapter for VGA cables. The HDMI port though should be fine. I'd suggest: 1) Booting up without the card using on board graphics first (as you mention you have HDMI on the motherboard). Check the PC is ok, and all things ready for the swap. 2) Uninstall the drivers, AMD or NVidia. 3) Then reboot and go to the bios and set "pci graphics" as preferred/first. 4) Then add the card, making sure the additional power connectors are plugged in, and using the HDMI port to begin to rule out compatibility problems. This should then boot up with the new card and Windows will install it's basic NVidia drivers (usually good one, but will be an older revision and no settings/control panels). Once we can confirm the card boots up and shows the bios page/windows loading, then the new drives can be tackled.

Or artistically collide-able only. Shows physics animations, but has no damage. Plus the animals will be as hardy as Kerbals, so no tears. Indestructible bunnies and birds.

Yeah, that build has an integrated GPU (better than most), so really depends on use. I'm still waiting for a NVidia 660GTX to drop by, 3 days late now. Will use it to swap out the AMD4870 in this box. Will help for Space Engineers recordings for certain (should get 2 or 3 x my current FPS). Don't think it will help KSP though, and I'm not likely to upgrade the CPU in this system for quite a while still. :/ But the nice thing is the 660 is free (if it arrives). [edit] Arrived! Whooo!

Ps, might be relivant for your story: http://what-if.xkcd.com/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25150072 Survived the SUN!

I'll agree with Kerbart. I'll put lots of stuff in the background mind, nothing wrong with Chekhov's gun if it's clear it's just scene dressing... but even then, it would sign post (make the reader know) the house belongs to a shooter/hunter/farmer. It will have an effect. Think of the situation and why and how you wish to move it. I'll admit I'll want to put in a cool scene. So how do we get there? It has to fit the reality and consistency of the characters and setting (can be a fictional setting, and not real life, but needs consistency). What's the simplest or most prominent reason to add? Is there one already set up? Which is where the black hole complicates things if made part of the plot (I guess it can still be in the background). The Super Nova could break consistency. Fixing that could be complex (needs super shields on the ship or certain orbits of the planets). Where as some other type of nova, or a "burp" from the sun (I think it could be possible one would be "eating" the other, so mass transfers and changes in size/flares would exist) might do. I guess this does not apply to "space opera" though, or to "magic" or "dues ex machina". It's just I personally prefer consistent stories. I've stopped watching my favorites when they have devolved into constant "dream sequences" (Far Scape seemed to be really susceptible to this, and even ended the entire thing on a dreamscape plot device). All this commenting on stories, space and explosions, reminds me I still need to post up my ending chapter to my story!

Yeah. It's sad and true. There is a possible work around this, but it's convoluted (orbits and such I guess). The sad truth is, it's not the exciting things (black holes) that kill you in the end, or are they scary things (black holes are not scary), it's the normal and mundane (suffocation in space, fire, electrical failure, freezing). Hence why I've tried to keep plot devices as background scenery and discussion and perhaps a driving force, but people are the main concentration of my stories. Though I do suffer badly from LOTS of plot devices. That and I generally could not take out 1 of my characters from a story, let alone all of the crew. Hope the story goes well. I can't really comment on the science, as I try hard science myself, and don't know how routed you are in the current plot/setting. If it was me, I'd make the concentration all about the supernova, and the black hole the afterthought/deep impression. The black hole is not their problem, or what they are running from, but it is all that will be "remembered" or left over. The supernova is their death dealing enemy, the black hole is just their skeleton remains... (fade to eery sci-fi music). PS, I've toyed with a similar idea planned for Space Engineers Machina (or anything really, but SE could let me do the artwork in 3d quickly). The story has FTL, and FTL coms. A star goes supernova, so the local corporation pulls out mining and coms from near by systems. Thing is, stars are 3+ LY away from each other, then more so for surrounding systems. So they have years to move equipment. Not so much time for within the system though! PPS, QM transmission of data is impossible in all instances. Sorry, tis the facts. But you can just "handwave" it or "lampshade" it. We write sotries for "what ifs" and "imagine if". FTL is the imagination. As long as your clear it's possible in the story, and happy our real world is different, both the writer and the reader can get on well. It's when people wish the imaginary to be real, or make a story all about imagination (it becomes too random) and no facts (consistencies) it gets more difficult. So you can keep your story consistent and allow FTL, as long as you don't try to involve relativity, as the two are not compatible. Might get away with throwing out locality instead, but that's a whole other ball game, so I just stick to lampshading and what if'ing. PPPS, what Wesreida said. I'll refrain from posting my current sci-fi short story (very amature I hasten to add), but I do what Wesreida says. While I've used some reasonable plot device vehicles to move the characters around the story, at the end, the enemy is human nature.

It's made out of the stuff from the core of the overly heavy/massive planets! That's why it's so strong and their so heavy!

Lol! I covered that. This is the penultimate chapter. We've already left the home planet, a Gas Giant, 1 chapter ago. :~) Thanks though. 10 mins is more than enough, and I'd probably go with just 3 or so. I'll see how the dialog pans out, and if it needs to be mentioned, or can just be assumed to cover the time involved in the actions portrayed. astropapi1, ah thanks. That's a little longer. No idea if I plan on making this moon smaller or larger, but I'll watch the video and get an idea of the pacing. PS, wow those last 3 mins are amazing in the video. Sadly I'll not get to cover it in that detail in my story, it just glances over such events.

I guess I could do a Kerbal landing and multiply up the timescales/distances, but I'm not that good at maths or KSP! So, I am writing a little bit of sci-fi. I'm at the penultimate chapter, and, I'm stuck. I need a very precise measurement. Why? Well, one is because I'm trying to stick to Hard Sci-fi, the other is to be plausible and also add some suspense. The crew is in a lander, about to approach a moon. I've lampshaded the transit time to just 3 days. This should not need any explanation in the narrative, as I've not covered the power/thrust etc of the vehicle, or the distance to the moon. So I can be flexible and just say "it's 3 days". The other details are not needed for the story, so I've left figures out in case I get them wrong. However, with the landing, I don't want it to be totally imposable, or to get it completely wrong. So how long roughly, did the NASA moon landing take from the orbital stage to touch down on the moon? When the lander approached the surface, am I right to consider it came in rather horizontal, found the spot, killed the velocity, then landed vertical? What time scale was between those additional course changes? How long should I keep my readers in suspense as to if the craft makes it in one piece* or not!? *This detail is actually redundant, it's going to have explosions, because it's titled "In the Air: Explosions".

Thanks. I'll hope it gets added at some point then. Thanks Rhomphaia! I'll do one or two similar tests. PS, works! Thanks! No idea how well it works, but a similar craft that was before nose diving on a return landing, stayed just far enough upright to land. Well, attempt to land, ran out of fuel as I overspecked the payload.

This is my fav right now. SSTO and return. Can take a nice little section/pod/drive at a time. So I'm sending up pods, then fuel, then drive units. For a forth or fifth launch including a rover and orbital pods. It's not much to look at, but it's had zero failures so far... after initial testing and refinement that is! The parachutes are for emergencies only, and have not been used... or tested yet. Oh, and I have to use Mechjeb for it as it often lands with less than 10m/s Dv, and at times zero fuel left!

I've often got a selection of "spare parts" docked into a "junk station" or two in orbit around quite a few astronomical bodies in the Kerbol system. So why not, might come in handy. Just remember though, refueling might take longer than just sending a new, better stage up. So just keep it for emergency returns and stuff.

Does not initially seem to be "achievements" either, though in gaming that word means "card/labels/medals", I'd assume the OP only means as "records" of past missions. Seeing others mission stats/reports would be interesting. If you've ever seen Dwarf Fortress, this has a similar mode, and is not MP.

Just a simple video of me building an Orion craft to fly and test. The build I use for my sandbox game has a few tweaks to allow it to dock in orbit with large docks. Should allow me to build an interplanetary version. Will upload some tests of it going to the mun and duna later.

That or have crew selection an actual "opt in" not an "opt out" option as it currently is. Which ever is easier to implement and maintain and works best for players.

We've all done that at one time... or a hundred. PS, sorry for accidental double post, please delete.

Decided to launch my own Orion (the new style, not the old atomic style) craft. Just as I set the burn up for Duna, I find I have the perfect window in 5 mins (MechJeb, but still!)! Normally I have to wait 6 months. What's the chances of that!?

Is there a method at the moment to deploy an airbreak? I'm considering it for some builds as the new effect of the nose cones causes most craft to point towards their vector (is that the correct term?). Where as for a powered landing, I want rocket down and nose cone up. Parachutes would give the desired result, but are less re-usable and less reliable (IRL at least) than using the crafts own aerodynamics. So basically I'd want something that has no drag, that I can deploy to give a little drag to re-orientate the craft on an atmospheric descent. Like a radar dish, but as a wing I guess. I suppose I can just add extra wings, but it won't really be the same effect...

"Space Station" may be the indication of what others are getting different results. A ship in orbit, will have a planet near by. Your system might be struggling loading the terrain. So a difference in HDD/RAM/GPUetc might be the bottleneck. PS, what is the GPU?

There is only video recording software. Currently there are not plans for and no mods for game recording. There is a flight statistics mod somewhere, it even uploads to the net if you wish. I'd like to see a graph plot of "velocity" and "altitude" etc for each flight once returned/recovered. A recording part, like the science parts, would be cool.

1) "Kessler syndrome" is still too rare in this game to warrent the worry. Once in orbit, it's got plenty of opportunity for a crash. But the game already can calculate paths, you can check for crossover (ahead of time or in real time). 2) It could have a survivability rating. More manual flights, better survivability (though I agree, KSP is avoiding random events, so might be for Mod additions instead). Or, it can only perform to the percentage of the Kerbal pilot, which is always less than 100%. Thus you never get back the full fuel use/orbital height you had in the manual flight. 3) I'd actually be happy if it only covered launches. Things like supply launches to a station (fuel/food/kerbals). Or possibly to other planets, but again, as above would have a distance limit and also need to have been done manually before. A bit like setting up a trade route. When I have 10 fuel tanks to add to a station/tug, sometimes I long for a way to skip to the next part, flying the tug! Or just a "SimCity" style watching the Kerbals do their thing while I only tell them "build, go there, find that". But it's only a suggestion, not a requirement. It's not something to pick apart all the possible faults in.