LaytheAerospace

I'm not saying it's not possible. They could build an array based ship if they wanted. I'm just saying they're already pretty strongly committed to the tree based approach, and probably for good reason. Seems you agree with that on principle, though. Compatibility isn't as simple as you seem to think. I'm a software engineer (bachelor's degree and everything), and have professional experience porting Linux software to Windows. Cross platform software may have been around for a while, but that doesn't change the basic economics of software engineering. You're not going to invest the time and money into developing for a platform that doesn't have enough customers to justify the cost. Highly specialized software like simulation software is rarely multi-platform (I don't want to say 'never' but I'd bet that's the case). Essentially all HPC clusters run Linux or some proprietary OS, so there's no additional market to capture by making it multiplatform. It also needs to be as fast as possible, which often means OS or hardware specific optimizations. This software is often built on contract, anyway, and the contractors aren't going to pay you to build a version for an OS they aren't using. Fluid dynamics is also a lot harder than you seem to think (apologies if you meant several decades out when you said "FAR future"). The stock aerodynamics and Ferram are just approximations. Ferram is the better of the two approximations, but it's not because they found some revolutionary trick to simulating fluid dynamics, it's because it uses the correct equation (stock aerodynamics don't scale lift correctly, which is part of why you nose down at high speeds in stock). It also does some nifty stuff with part by part drag (using a raycast, I assume), but again, it's not actually simulating anything, just approximating. Fluid dynamics is actually one of the hardest problems in computing, and brings the fastest supercomputers in the world to their knees. Doesn't help that it gets harder the faster the simulated flow is moving, both in terms of the necessitated step size, and in the complexity of the calculations being done in each step. Several supercomputing records have been broken by machines designed to simulate fluid dynamics and turbulence. Really, something like Ferram is all you need in a game. I just wish we didn't have to resort to an addon to make lift scale correctly with velocity.

#1 and #2 are pretty much impossible. Well, #1 is possible, but don't hold your breath. The way the ship works right now is it's a tree. What you're asking for is an undirected graph. These are two VERY different data structures, and anything they've written to work with tree based rockets would have to be literally thrown away to handle a graph based rocket. Tree based rockets also let you make a lot of assumptions (like staging a decoupler will never cause a part above it to be staged, while all the parts below it will always be staged). This is not true of graphs. Proper fluid dynamics simulations require enormous amounts of power. Most people game on barely adequate hardware already. There's also the huge cost of developing the simulation software, since off the shelf products aren't going to integrate well with a video game that has its own ideas about what the computers hardware should be used for.

I would really love some girders/struts that were twice as long as the "regular" variety we have now. I find I'm frequently doubling up on the regular length girders. Having longer girders available as stock parts would make building some designs very slightly simpler, and also cut back on part count slightly.

My "standard" heavy lifter carries 300t of payload to Jool. Not sure what it will take to LKO. Maybe 500t? I have an "ultra-heavy" that I wasn't able to find an upper limit on, that was used to send a ~500t payload to Eve. Tried putting bigger payloads on to test it, but the rocket started exploding on launch before I found the limit.

I've been meaning to start recording my launches, and missed a really spectacular failure about a month ago. I was testing launching six 50t spaceplanes at once, attached radially to my 3500t launcher's center tank, mounted on girders. Forgot to put a probe core on the launcher, so Jeb hopped in one of the planes. Things actually went pretty well, until I dropped the first stage. Not sure why, but almost every tank in the rocket separated and started drifting apart. The engines kept burning, spreading out the tanks. It takes me a couple seconds to rearrange the stages and drop the spaceplanes. It takes me a lot longer to cycle through all the bits of debris until I found Jeb's plane. At this point engines are spiraling off into the distance, tanks are exploding all around Jeb, broken bits of rocket and plane are falling from above and Jeb is (rightfully) losing his mind. One of the planes smashes through the mass of fuel tanks, sending the last of the engines careening off into what is now a debris cloud and setting off even more explosions. Miraculously, Jeb's ship appears undamaged. Jeb made a valiant effort to fly out of the debris field, he really did. For a second I got cocky and thought he was going to make orbit anyway. Pride cometh before the fall. Like a bolt from the blue, one of the other planes comes crashing down from above, shears off two thirds of the starboard wing and its engine. Now Jeb is part of the debris field, too, several kilometers up and falling. The plane flies like a brick, but Jeb manages to keep it from rolling over long enough to not hit the ground nose first. Any landing you can walk away from, right?

2110. There's a fair bit of leaving it on overnight, though. Started playing in 0.19, played maybe an average of 2 hours per day since? So about 750-1000 is a better estimate.

How are your sepratrons oriented? If they're just decelerating the tank, then you'll still get collisions commonly. Orienting them so they push the tank directly away from the rocket has tended to work better for me. Lots of ways you can place the sepratrons to accomplish it, but generally I just put them on the sides of the tank, at right angles to each other, so the net force is directly away from the rocket.

My standard "heavy" lifter is ~4500t. I've made some bigger, but it's not often I need to. Generally my payloads are no more than about 250t, going to 650x650, so they don't need all that much to get where they're going. Smallest craft to orbit was ~4t, using only a turbojet. Biggest spaceplane that successfully orbited was ~450t, which had something like three dozen turbojets.

I use Kerbals as ballast. I test manned spaceplanes before placing control surfaces. I stranded 30 Kerbals on Laythe trying to rescue Jeb, then called it a permanent settlement.

I don't do this because it feels very exploitative. You can quite easily make orbit on jets alone, with a small enough craft. Grossly unrealistic, so you won't find me doing it.

I picked KSP up about a year ago on a Steam sale, and immediately bought a second copy for a close friend who tends to play these things together. Since then I've bought four more copies for friends to get them playing, just to get them over the "But it's early access..." fears that they'd waste their money and not have fun. So I've bought half a dozen copies in total, will probably buy more as time goes on and I continue to spread to gospel of Kerbal. How about you?