kmMango

There are existing ways to mitigate this. Say you have a two minute burn. You start firing your engine one minute before the node, so half the burn takes place before, half after. This minimizes, and for shorter burns, effectively eliminates, the error created by not delivering the required Delta V instantly. With that said, I like your solution a lot. My only concern would be performance for lower end machines, as KSP is not exactly known for being a well optimised game. From how you described the required code, it doesn't seem like such continuous recalculation would be too intensive.

The map screen would be so much better if you could just untether the camera and move it around with WASD. I do like your main screen maneuver editor though. Typically though, once I am ready to go interplanetary in career mode, I slap Mechjeb modules on my stuff and use it for rendevous, basic transfers, and putting rockets I have flown a lot into orbit. It just gets too tedious plotting all of it by hand.

The maneuver node system. The recent changes have made it somewhat more workable, but it can still be something of a pain. Besides that, the general bugginess of the game is also a drawback, although it has improved greatly from past years.

Whackjob used so many struts his PC literally melted, so he has to be included. All of the Youtubers mentioned previously are excellent. One of the best designers I can think of is someone who I actually knew on here, zekes. He took stock weaponry and armor to new heights, and also built a couple replicas of ridiculous scale. However, the individual whose style of play I enjoy the most is Cupcake. Sleek, high performance crafts, awesome cinematics with amazing stunts, and his videos always have top-tier soundtracks. He's been doing it for ages, too.

"Take feature that was stock in popular game and rerelease as DLC feature for sequel" is a method of capitalizing on a franchise commonly used by awful companies. Take Two is an awful company. Do not expect them to do the right thing here, unless it becomes very clear to them that nobody will buy the game if they don't.

Perhaps not. Take Two has lost my trust as a consumer. I am still not convinced that KSP 2 will not be a microtransaction-riddled heartless cash grab wearing the skin of one of my favorite games. Until it is released and proven not to be that, I will remain skeptical. I believe many people looking to buy the game will do something similar, so opening day sales and preorders will probably be lower than expected. Regardless, I am going to wait for a Steam sale to pick it up. It is sad, really. This was the only thing I was looking forward to this year, and the first game in seven years I considered preordering.

And thus ends KSP's greatest literary epic. Thank you, KSK.

I was fully ready for KSP to fade out as one of the best games ever made. As soon as I saw the trailer in my recommended, I was smiling. When I heard the song they picked, my smile widened. When I saw Orion drives, interstellar travel, and multiplayer...well, does anyone know a good jaw surgeon? I think I might need one now.

Jesus Jetfuel Christ man, how did you even build this?! Well done.

I will add it to the list of things to ask my friend to make. At this rate I may have to pay him.

What other engines could support KSP? My understanding is they adopted Unity in the first place because it was best able to deal with the large volume of part-to-part physics calculations needed for a game like this.

Oh I know, but at least then it seemed like the result of honest incompetence and a poor game engine. Game also never used to stutter like this. Just lag and crash.

I think the memory leakage is enough of an issue to be classified as a bug. Seriously. For anyone lacking a proper gaming PC, you are basically stuck playing stock. Maybe one or two mods. Anything more and clicking launch becomes an act of faith. As my game currently sits, with about 12 mods installed, I CTD every half hour or so, and even in pure stock my game stutters every 15 seconds or so on minimal graphics with anything over 80 parts. It is borderline unplayable. Guess I should have expected this from the corporate vultures. Gold plate them turds!

Huh. I thought the wakefield engine would have a constant isp more or less, since it has a fixed accelerator length. Adding more power would just add more mass being accelerated and allow higher thrust at the same ISP. Since the engine is basically just a laser powered particle accelerator, this makes sense to me. What am I missing?

Exactly what I was hoping for. Thanks!

Yeah that isn't showing up for me either on the discovery or regular plasma engine. Will investigate further. Also, should the singularity reactor be outputting hydrogen when set to do hydrogen fusion? Also also, is the thrust curve on the Wakefield engine supposed to be...weird? I don't know how else to describe it. Full throttle gives stupid high thrust (TWR>1) and low isp, lower gives the opposite, but it seems to have a hard transition between the two in the top third of the throttle range.

The TAC LS recyclers are great for most purposes, but when building really large stations the fact that they only service 10 Kerbals at most gets annoying. It means you need to add 30 parts to recycle oxygen and water. Are there any mods that add larger converters? Or a self-contained "all in one" recycler? I like TAC because of its realism, but for part count's sake I may be forced to use USI instead.

Where was this list of configs? Don't need specific right now, just generally which folder was it in, KSS or Kopernicus?

The whole dark matter halo bit is interesting and I hope Dr. Farnes is able to continue his research. His model already displayed a lot of unexpected behavior (gravitational particle pairs accelerating each other to the speed of light almost never happen, for instance). It would be interesting to see if it could explain other dark matter observations. Could a lack of electromagnetic interaction be responsible for the motion of the dark matter halos? I would imagine that that is the main component of drag. Also, his paper claims that gravitational attraction between negative masses and positive is possible, keep that in mind.

Can you post screenshots?

The more I learn about this mod, the more impressed I am. A few more questions. The Discovery Fusion Engine seems very weak compared to its counterparts. Similar ISP but miniscule thrust. Also, how does plasma nozzle ISP throttling work? Doesn't seem to do anything.

Off topic, but every time I read one of your comments I do it in Brain's voice and it's hilarious. Also, why would you assume we would easily find this sort of substance in particle physics? We have yet to find gravitons despite decades of work, neutrinos took 30+ years to find, and these are particles predicted by our current model whose predicted properties we can design tests around. If this negative fluid exists, it is something not currently in the Standard Model by my understanding, and nobody has been explicitly looking for it either. Add in the fact that it would likely have little or no electromagnetic interaction, and is likely only present in very small amounts in our neck of the woods, and it seems to me that finding this stuff would be similar to finding someone else's contact lens in a dark room by pure chance.

Dark Energy requires the same thing, or a force with similarly variable properties. I feel the same way, it goes against everything else we observe in regard to conservation of mass and what is actually "constant." As for the whole acceleration issue, I believe he states in the paper that it is possible mathematically for the fluid to have normal behavior inertially but still display repulsive gravitational properties. Otherwise you get a perpetual motion machine from particle collisions as many have pointed out.

I am aware, but it is always fun to imagine the possibilities. The same could also be said about our current theories of Dark Energy. The idea of an unknown counter-gravitational force that changes strength for unknown reasons over time IMO approaches "How do we make this model function so the last 50 years of work we've done isn't invalid?"

In my latest career mode game I am planning to start a Laythe colony. I am using MKS and USI Life Support, with the lowest levels of Interstellar Extended's power and propulsion tech unlocked. In short, no transit times to Jool that would be less than two years or so, at least while carrying a reasonable (30+) number of passengers per trip. I plan to use the Cycler to only carry colonists, building more as time goes on to eventually have a voyage every year or so. Cargo deliveries can be done with traditional Hohmann Transfers. Unfortunately my math and coding skills are not up to the task of determining masses and orbital parameters for this vehicle. I am hoping you nice folks can help me figure these parts out. My questions are as follows: 1. How many ships would be needed for one to arrive at Jool every year? 2. What would be the parameters of the Cycler's initial orbit? 3. How much Delta-V would I need for course changes, ideally or worst case, per trip? Could I use the Joolian moons to reduce this? 4. Is there a more resource-efficient way of doing this cost-wise? I figure that the Cyclers will pay themselves off within two or three voyages because the fuel and construction costs to carry the supplies and crew would be far greater for a similar ship that had to decelerate at either end of the voyage. Once I unlock the more powerful fusion drives this design will be obsolete, but in the interim I have contracts to do things near Jool, and I want to simulate the rotation of specialist personnel that such a facility would experience. As for off-world infrastructure, I currently have a mining and science base on both the Mun and Minmus, a big orbital fuel processor around Minmus, Science/tourism station orbiting the Mun, a science base on Duna with a fuel plant on Ike, and a fuel depot in Geosynchronous orbit over Kerbin, with smaller tugs to carry fuel to crafts in LKO.