basic.syntax

Could the model be modified with an additional "Keep out!" collider, or visual geometry? (It seems that the safe placement area is a box inside a cylinder. Players do want to try stuffing everything that they can, in the available cylinder space that they see. If the 'unsafe areas' were blocked off, even if just visually, it might reduce some of the support calls.) At the least, what about a yellow/black dashed construction-tape-line added to the texture, to demarcate the "safe / unsafe" areas?

RoverDude, on service bays: I've been advising folks to keep stuff away from the inside sides. Placement there seems to interfere with door collision geometry. Am I off base? Something else? Top-down view showing areas to avoid. Normal view of same service bay. Problem can manifest as parts being undecided where they are attached, noticed when I switch active craft. Whether doors are open or closed. Affected parts will appear to "jump" rapidly in or outside the bay, until the doors are toggled. In above pictures, parts are in balance and I don't have problems. But when I moved the small mono tanks closer to the sides, I had problems as noted above. Another recommendation I have read, seems helpful: Also, Bob's "Disco" dance floor / lab, is psychotic

Relevant quote from the 1.0 development cycle... this work vastly improved the situation for me. GC stutter was really bad in .90, requiring frequent restarts (which tended to happen automatically if I was messing around with craft, ~20 trips back and forth from the Launchpad to VAB would typically end in CTD.) I can see the GC problem happening in every play session, sometimes a mouse click is eaten and doesn't end up where I wanted it... but unless I was making a video... it's nothing compared to how bad it was.

I'm with 5th: adding GP2 and a couple moons is not enough to satisfy, for more than a few game sessions. It falls into the trap (that the game is currently in, and most games find themselves in) that content can't be created faster than it can be consumed. KSP will need a multi-system expansion, and revised timewarp system (probably to include thrust on rails) to enable transit that isn't pure science fiction. Since I find a lot of entertainment potential in career, I personally am happy with finding more that's worth exploring on the worlds we have, adding more variety to the landscapes, linked contracts / missions with stories to tell and mysteries to unravel. I don't exclude both possibilities happening, slowly, as long as the game continues to generate sales and find new players.

Frida Space, I like your encounter infographic, the layout is clean and I began to clearly understand the encounter. One thing that impresses again and again, is the speed at which all of this will happen. I have an idea for adding a timeline, that might visually highlight this. What I've linked is a rough sketch. (Lines could be routed around your text boxes.) If you like the general idea, it would benefit from being reworked and polished with your own tools. An additional scale below it, showing distance traveled in this time, might also be nice. (I had an alternate idea for a watch-face style of timeline, to be placed in the lower right, but I didn't sketch it. Routing lines around a circular object might be too chaotic, and the linear timeline idea is already adding more complication to the infographic, than you might feel is appropriate.)

Poor Dres, lol. regex: you will get your wish eventually. HarvesteR has said that he choses and area to focus on based on what has been sitting the longest with little attention. Career had to be fleshed out after Sandbox, and it if it had more flesh on it, I think that would help alleviate the sense of 'meaningless, boring grind.' IF you could drop the visual detail of an open world RPG onto the various worlds, with characters and stories, that would also be added visual interest and new forum challenge fodder, for Sandbox players. (The amount of work required would be staggering and expensive, and so, I think it's unlikely to happen.) Its too early to tell what 1.1 and 1.2 will bring new-feature wise, after the Unity porting work. We know HarvesteR wants to focus on Multiplayer, and Mu will be doing more core game feature work. Edit: At some point tho, I think they will find the 'bandwidth' to put more sand in the sandbox.

We've had threads about meaningful things, tater has written extensively in support of an overhaul to how science could work. Some of that would create more meaning for me. I don't feel its quite right that everywhere in a biome region is identical for science purposes.

Good article here.

Foxster is right that the game has many hand-waves and concessions to gameplay. You kind of answered your own question, observing that planets and engines see changes from time to time - Squad gets to say what is impossible in the "stock" game. Complaints about this change don't seem to be gaining traction. It's not rising to the level of a "Save the Round-8" outcry. Players who want the old ability will have to look into cfg editing or mods.

Mods are the way to go for now, you will pass out from lack of air, if you hold your breath until Squad does it. This was brought up in the 26th April pre-launch day Reddit AmA, and answered in the negative, once again.

JPL's Dawn site has an excellent ion engine educational section.

Though I support KSP willingness to expose players to various real tech concepts with a "game first, realism close second" approach, I actually like the new atmo thrust curves for different engines, and ions especially. It's a nod to reality that they are useless in atmosphere now, while preserving their usefulness in game terms for space probes. KSP players still learn, proportionally speaking, that Ion drives are low thrust and high ISP. I'd support taking their thrust down to nearly realistic levels, if Squad were to face the programming challenge of thrust on rails in timewarp. But I'd have (additional) mental troubles with going all the way to reality, in the Stock game. 10 years of timewarp for one burn would start pushing my "Are we there yet?" gameplay button.Thanks Nova, for sharing your original design intent. Reading these forums is like a never-ending treasure hunt, you never know what nuggets of KSP backstory you might uncover.

One of the problems they have in movies and TV with accurate helmets is not being able to see the actor's faces. So they combat the problem in various ways, like putting lights inside. Big helmet window is another concession to the problem. I cringe every time I see lights inside helmets - I wonder if the actors can see out? Reflections!

I recall a discussion with some input from a Squad person, about the Gus on KSC staff being a reference to another Gus, not Grissom. I've searched the wiki, this forum and reddit, but haven't turned it up yet. perhaps it's in a different area than standard searches look in. Or I remember it from another site. If someone else could find this, please link

Propellers: I've heard or read SQ summary where Maxmaps acknowledge that such mods exist, without any commitment on his part. Propeller driven engine is a case where the rotator doesn't necessarily have to remember its rotation position in a save, or be linked with other rotators (a Unity headache, IIRC.) Lack of a roadmap is one way of negating the "But you promised!!" complaint, that happens when years go by and they haven't implemented x, y, or z. What we do instead is complain "Is that ALL the update has in it? When are you going to add clouds?" Not talking and players suggesting features they want added is potentially less of a feedback headache for Squad. They can look over the most frequently made suggestions, and choose which three they can accomplish in a given dev cycle. If the feature happens - great, if it doesn't and everyone respects their NDA, then no one was the wiser, and less work for moderators

Like many other parts in KSP, the ion engine gives us the idea of what they are like, without being a completely accurate simulation. That is not meant to be a criticism, I have branched out to learn a lot about real space flight thanks to this philosophy. KSP has introduced me to a ton of stuff that I've never been able to interact with before. Given enough time, I hope the remaining squad at Squad will eventually rework the necessary code to allow greater realism, and some kind of player-pre-programmed thrust-on-rails. That work would be hard to justify for one part, but, it could be justified, if they think about how it would enable a lot of other near-future, very-low-thrust engine types.

Keep stuff away from the inside sides. Placement there seems to interfere with door collision geometry, whether doors are open or closed. Top-down view showing areas to avoid.

Other people may have started this chain of events. If so, that is close to 'blaming the victim' for no longer making deliveries on that street. I don't know what led to his decision, so I should not speculate further.

This thread has a lot of posts discussing MPL Check it out, and be sure to read every post by RoverDude. You may learn more than you thought you wanted to know

You might have to temporarily remove some mods, to isolate which one it is. Check out this thread, some of the folks there are typing about similar issues.

The upgrade is free, but every new PC will be paying something. As with Win8, they are hoping folks spend money in the windows store.

I think ARM could make headlines and be long-term inspirational, but not if watered-down. Move a large rock into orbit around the moon, something big enough to be visible with a cheap telescope.

This, so much Per science-fantasy, Star Wars doesn't want us to think about how stuff might work, just enjoy that it does. Sometimes you need an R2 unit to sort out problems, other times a swift kick does the job. On BSG's FTL, I don't think it was explained. Something had to "spin up." (Moving parts were shown in a final season episode, and also in the prequel pilot, Blood and Chrome.) The effect looked like a space warp / instantaneous relocation, probably at a high fuel cost. Then they had regular engines that burned Tylium, shown burning away most of the time. In a few episodes I think the big ships did some coasting, but perhaps they always kept the fires running on low, in case of trouble. I listened to a bunch of Ronald Moore episode commentaries. Fuel was important to him; that worked well in stories, because you could always be running out of it

NK rocketry was in the news on May 9, a successful but very short test flight, for a submarine-launched ballistic missile. But, US officials believe the released photos were doctored.

Star Trek Impulse Engine "exhausts" are behind the centerline of the saucer. Fractionally above the thrust line, the warp nacelles. Significantly below the line, the secondary/engineering hull. To balance this, the warp nacelle coils would have to massively outmass the secondary/engineering hull. Unfortunately, the first official-looking ST: Tech Manual, published 1975, put some numbers on things, saying the nacelles weighed 18,000 metric tons each, and the entire ship: 190,000 MT. (The same total weight figure is also in The Making of Star Trek, published 1968.) [ 18x2 = 36, 190/36 = ratio of 1:5.3 ] I now dislike all you people*, for drawing attention to things I happily ignored for years, making me read books, and think * But not that much. "You'll thank us, later!"