Alshain

Not a problem at Eve, but from Jool? Solar panels are going to be very ineffective. Do you not have the fuel cells yet?

I think OPM is a great mod and should stay a mod. The biggest detractor of any further out planets is that timewarp has computational limits even in on-rails mode. It takes forever to timewarp out to Eeloo in stock, more planets, further out? Nah.

It wouldn't be much different than landing in the grasslands, it would be even less of a hill though. Or as bewing says, the poles are essentially a long flat runway that goes in all directions. Kerbin may be small but it's still be enough that the curvature of the planet would have very little impact.

As I said, it's a game not a simulator. It's also a game on an alien planet, so their markings don't have to be the same as ours.

ROFL, It's not voodoo, it's just obsession and a lot of practice.

Nothing as fancy as the hangars, but it may be possible to make a simple external tool that parses through a craft file and lists the non-stock parts (comparing to a pre-programmed list of part names). The biggest issue is that KSP files are not a standard serializable format (AFAIK). That means the writer of such a tool would have to first write a parser to read the file. It's still possible though.

Yes, but we aren't talking about flight speeds, takeoffs, or landings. We are talking about runway markings and the distance between them. It's an inaccurate simulation because of the scaling, but a believable one if you don't think too much into it. I'm betting a relatively few number of KSP players even know what the numbers on the runway mean, let alone the other markings.

Afraid not. As I understand it, all information about a part is stored with the part. That would include it's length. The only thing external to it are the attachment nodes which are assigned on the attached parts. So once the mod is deleted, the definition of the part is gone, there is no way to detect it's length or any other attribute. This does pose a problem if you are trying to replace a part on an active craft, but not so much a problem if you are trying to replace the part on a craft you are loading into the VAB. In the VAB you could theoretically replace it with just about anything, it would look screwball but your in the VAB so you can fix it. The biggest concern in the VAB case is replacing the part with the same attachment nodes, as some mods have some really awkward attachment nodes. These cases would be very hard to adapt to, though with some intelligence I would think the game could at least reduce the number of craft that simply can't be loaded, while some would still suffer from the problem. EDIT: Correction, the rotation of the part is also saved in the craft file, as well as a general attach position. However the dimensions, as stated earlier, are saved in the part definition.

Which makes it comparatively sized to a 12,000 meter Earth Runway (or approx. 39,500 feet).

I fully agree this should be in stock. Just in case you were not aware though. There is a mod for that.

KSP's runway is considered incredibly long. Assuming it accurately painted (which it probably isn't because it's a game, not a simulator) and assuming that KSP standards are the same as the image you posted (which is a big stretch given Kerbin is ~1/6th the size of Earth) then the white stripes would seem closer to the threshold simply because of it's relative length.

Moho, finding an encounter is annoying... Even with TransferWindowPlanner and PreciseNode it is really hard to find an encounter.

I think that is more or less their intent for 1.2. Though they are also optimizing and refactoring code, and there are at least a few new features.

It's just a matter of tweaking a script to re-direct to another texture. Do you have other textures you would like to use?

Fine by me, but re-upload. Can't promise I won't clear out my imgur.

Same here, I even use KER in partless mode and delete the parts. I think RemoteTech is the only part mod I use, and I'm hoping after 1.2 it will have even less necessary parts if it reuses the new stock antenna.

Because that's how things are done here. There hasn't been a PC release that didn't feel like it needs more testing, why would console be different.

Depending on the attachment nodes you could replace it with something innert, like a girder for tanks. This does more difficult when a part has more obscure node placements. however radial parts should be very easy to remove.

Well the good thing is, you aren't limited to one kind of multiplayer. We could have as many types as the developers wish to allow. I think a "mission control" multiplayer style would be very interesting, however I think a DMP-style would as well.

Personally, I don't recommend CKAN, but, its fine to do what you want. It doesn't manage mods you install manually. It just won't let you install a mod which has an outdated version number through its own GUI (whether it works fine or not).

KSP has always been Unity, it just upgraded to a newer version in 1.1.

Nah, we have been doing that since before KSP was on consoles.

Unless you are using it on the lower stage of a two stage rocket, in which case space an low atmosphere are irrelevant. You will be discarding it before that point. Pair it with an LV-909 upper stage and you don't need it to have gimbal. If you are doing a gravity turn ascent, you only need control right off the launchpad anyway. A couple of fins will do that.