Alshain

I know this has been marked as solved, but I just wanted to say, this shouldn't a problem if you are landing using a slow burn you can always adjust up and if you keep an eye on your map you can see if you would be intersecting the ground. I'm not sure what you mean by an "acceptably steep descent". A good descent would kill lateral movement right before touchdown, it's not steep at all. A steep descent just means you are fighting gravity longer, and that costs fuel.

They have a public bug tracker. They prefer that.

It was you, wasn't it?

You can't add a feature and then remove it again. That would lead to community backlash.

Well thats a bit extreme. I hope you are joking.

I do Funds mode. Basically career mode but starting with all the insanity research out of the way. Based on what I've seen here on the forums, I don't think there are a large number of people that like the science tech tree. But I do enjoy needing to fund my projects.

It was already in development. It wasn't finished but it wasn't just talk either. The unfortunate issues with FT and the other two consoles is the only reason we never saw it released.

@Starman4308 They were already planning a Wii u version which is less powerfull than the Switch (in docked mode) so it must certainly be possible. Technically it has that same power in mobile mode but it would drain its already terrible battery life quickly so it might not be wise. Regarless, it must be capable of running the game because the Wii U was and external batteries can be used.

I can do vertical SSTO's, I've done them before, but I don't see the point in them.

The misspelling is one thing but it's also redundant. An apsis is a point by definition so saying an apsis point is like saying a point point.

As low as possible. The height of the tallest peak on the Mun is a bit more than 7km, and that's near the poles. If you are inexperienced however, it is easier to land from a higher altitude, you have more time for corrections. This of course costs more fuel.

Congratulations! In all the years I've been on these forums, you have just taken top spot on the list of most ridiculous things I've read here.

This poll is from 2015. Everyone knew what theyblooked like then.

You can make ProcFairings look almost any way you want. It's just done with sliders on the tweakable menu instead of "drawing" them like the stock system. It looks a lot more like a fairing than stock though. In addition to smoothing better, the shell covers the base. Real fairings do have an external base, but it's nothing like the stock ones either.

I'm with @regex on this. Any Mun trip I plan would put me on a return trajectory rather than an ejection trajectory if I somehow forgot to burn.

Well, he said he was using partless mode, so there was no other function of the part. It doesn't replace the whole parts config either, it just removes the Engineer module. Removing the module avoids conflicts which are theoretically possible (though unlikely).

It should be pretty straight forward. The following patch turns the chip into a rover body (except for mass and drag and stuff). I feel like if you really want it to be balanced you may want to take away a lot of that though. Maybe it shouldn't have an internal electric charge, antenna, or SAS to account for it's smaller mass and drag. @PART[EngineerChip] { -MODULE,* { } %vesselType = Probe MODULE { name = ModuleCommand minimumCrew = 0 RESOURCE { name = ElectricCharge rate = 0.04 } hasHibernation = True hibernationMultiplier = 0.25 } RESOURCE { name = ElectricCharge amount = 120 maxAmount = 120 } MODULE { name = ModuleSAS } MODULE { name = ModuleKerbNetAccess EnhancedSituationMask = 7 EnhancedMinimumFoV = 160 EnhancedMaximumFoV = 179.5 MinimumFoV = 5 MaximumFoV = 10 AnomalyDetection = 1 DISPLAY_MODES { Mode = Biome Mode = Terrain } } MODULE { name = ModuleDataTransmitter antennaType = INTERNAL packetInterval = 1.0 packetSize = 2 packetResourceCost = 12.0 requiredResource = ElectricCharge antennaPower = 5000 optimumRange = 2500 packetFloor = .1 packetCeiling = 5 } }

Apparently I am a Piloneerist Director. (none of these are really mutually exclusive)

Which is BS really. Those achievements could be in the PC game, lots of games have their achievements internal to the game, and just duplicate the trigger to the client (such as Steam). They could have those achievements unlockable from within the game's execution. Even those people running the store copy could achieve them, they just wouldn't be documented anywhere other than inside the current game client. Anyway, on topic. Workshop support probably wouldn't be able to handle the kinds of mods we have here anyway. I'm not 100% sure of that, but DLL based mods are likely not permitted. That is just an educated guess.

Maybe. I know DMP allows it (probably because it can't stop it) if the game is configured through Squad's settings to allow it, but if you do it, ghosts of the reverted craft tend to occur. Before you know it you have a lot of junk around everywhere in some cases MIA kerbals. Why would time have to be frozen for them? You shouldn't leave the game if your craft isn't in a pseudo-stable condition. Time would move normally.

Quicksaves and Reverts wouldn't be a thing in any multiplayer format. You just have to get good or be prepared to deal with the consequences if you aren't. Server operators may want to run slightly easier money profiles to deal with that unless they just want a hardcore server.

Stuck at 3.5. KSP isn't running the latest version of Unity.

Then there is the "Jebediah, get the heck out of my unmanned rescue craft!" achievement.

Underwater, duh!

FarSky somewhat got pushed to released and abandoned by the developer. Subnautica is an amazing game, but buggy and unoptimized (it's early access). Never played depth.