cpast

The Super 25 has a different IVA - only two people on the flight deck, with four on the crew deck; different RPM styles (more touchscreen-like); better visibility from the cockpit; a more spacecraft-like crew deck.

It can actually vary based on the warhead. Some thermonuclear weapons surround the fusion stage with unenriched uranium, which triggers a second round of fission, producing a lot of power (generally a pretty substantial portion of the destructive power of the bomb, for practical weapons; Tsar Bomba derived almost all its energy from fusion, but it wasn't a practical weapon). fenerzilla may also be thinking of boosted fission weapons, which use small amounts of fusion to massively increase fission yield. Additionally, fusion bombs don't fuse regular hydrogen. They fuse deuterium and tritium, which takes a much, much smaller amount of energy.

You can only do that if you bought KSP before the Steam version was released. If you had the option of buying the Steam version and didn't take it, you can't switch without buying the game again.

So go to one of the stores that sells Steam gift cards and buy it with cash. Why would they ever want to give out the actual game for free? I'm not sure KSP would even work right with free-to-play weekends; it currently has no DRM, and I don't know how much trouble it is to add the necessary DRM (if they didn't, then it'd be possible to keep playing the actual game after that weekend).

The K1 Truss is in fusty's original pack, not sumghai's remake.

Rocket sleds - the most Kerbal thing ever done by humankind.

I have no objections there - in fact, they actively *should* be there (and "infinite electricity" should also be there, IMO). That's what the Alt-f12 menu is for. Even if they're available as per-save difficulty options, they should still be available to freely turn on/off in Alt+F12.

Injection molding is cheaper, but only for large production runs. There are higher setup costs than for 3D printing. Limited temporary sales periods of injection molded figures wouldn't make sense.

I believe not - in the stream, Helldiver said the Super 25 is more for *other* peoples' parts, both stock and from other mods (as well as complex Phase II designs that don't fit in the KSO). If you want 2.5m station parts, FusTek has a lot of great options, and there's a texture pack that has KSO-styled textures for it.

Why enable/disable life support? Do probes let you enable/disable an electricity requirement?

This. The same craft should behave the same way in all games.

There's a problem with that? It sounds glorious.

Conclusion from this thread: Discussing the one actual exception to Godwin's law doesn't work very well when the forum enforces the law.

I'm not sure why, honestly. If you give the capsules enough life support to last for a complete transfer orbit to and from the Mun, new players have time to acclimate to life support in their first, getting-into-orbit missions. Likewise for re-entry: players already have to stick parachutes on to survive, heatshields are similar.

No. Please don't make every save show the user a mass of options to pick before they can play. I know it's a thing around here to say "the game shouldn't force you into any method of play", but at some point that has to stop and actual decisions need to be made about what the game will be. This applies especially to things like aero (it's nonsensical to have two separate physics models in the same game; the same craft should respond to control input the same in all stock copies of the game), cost (that's a balancing decision that actually needs to be made, and shouldn't be punted to end-users; if you want no cost, that's what sandbox is for, but it shouldn't be a slider), impact tolerance (again, shouldn't be a slider - at most, one impact tolerance and the option to turn off parts breaking), and the like. Game design decisions should not be left to users to pick and choose. The game should ship with one or more (at the moment there are two) well-defined sets of rules, all of which are playtested. They should differ meaningfully; there shouldn't be "X" and "X with life support". Customizing the game is the proper domain of mods, not of stock. EDIT: That's not to say all choices are bad. But every single choice you make in a game is the game developer punting something to you. In most cases, that something actually *is* the game - choosing what engine to use is core gameplay, which is why Squad gives you the choice between various engines instead of just saying "You'll use the LV-T30 and you will like it." Other options are not really the game at all - options screens tend to have control selection (insanely dependent on personal preference, and has no effect on the game), video options (some people like the many options there, and what your system can handle is particular to your system [though presets are nice and also common, because not everyone knows what the options all mean]), etc. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to not make a decision, and tell the users to make it instead. But it should be a meaningful decision wherever humanly possible. Sandbox vs. career is meaningful - do you want to just build and fly rockets to explore at your own pace, or do you want to manage a space *program*, seeing it go from humble origins to wherever you will take it? Those sorts of things are nice. Micromanaging options, not so nice - that means the designers haven't actually *designed* a game, they're just making you do it for them.

Take a guess. EDIT: Clearly, it's not the censorship filter at all; are you telling me you haven't heard of books by Philip Fourstar (his pen name)?

Furthermore, his OP says that that's a WIP incomplete IVA.

In my experience, KSP autosaves often enough that you normally don't have to worry about it.

Yes, the game is played 90% in space. Not sure how "Kerbal SPACE Program" gives a different impression. In stock KSP, there is no digging, drilling, or terraforming. There are landers and rovers, but you definitely don't need terrain deformation for that. It's a minor graphical enhancement. Terraforming wouldn't work without terrain deformation, but that's not in KSP. Those are mods. You're posting in Suggestions, meaning you're asking the devs for stock features. There's a big difference between mods (where one person liking it is enough) and things the devs spend their limited time on (which should be restricted for stuff that actually has to do with the point of the game).

The main landing gear *should* be near the center of gravity, because it, not the nose gear, needs to hold the weight of the shuttle. On real aircraft, the main gear has 80-90 percent of the weight of the aircraft; the nose gear is mostly there for balance reasons. If the main gear were further back, the nose gear would have too much weight on it. The actual Shuttle's nose gear could hold less than half the weight that either main gear could. So yes, *main* landing gear (it isn't "rear landing gear", it's "main landing gear") do belong near the middle of the craft. What I do, because I tend to come in with excess fuel, is stick a couple of fuel dump nozzles on the back of the shuttle and activate them on final approach. That works pretty well. EDIT: Helldiver, you've said the KSO was made by Murika, but the cockpit says it was made by VEG. Is this intentional?

Even if this were true, it *still* wouldn't make all the forums useless - much of the forum is stuff like challenges, or people sharing gameplay moments, or asking questions and getting answers, or showing off addons - there's a lot more to the forums than talking about development. If you're complaining that things aren't clear, you can start by making your own writing clear. What, exactly, is the difference between a mod and an addon? For that matter, what's the difference between a major official addon and a DLC? If, as of the release of ARM, it becomes impossible to buy KSP without ARM, what's the difference between that an an update? Are you just assuming that describing something with a different word means there's an actual difference in the thing itself? That it actually matters whether you call ARM a DLC, a mod, an addon, or an update? I'm also confused how you can consider something that on release is given for free to all users of KSP, and which on release replaces KSP 0.23 in stores, and which makes changes to 0.23 instead of just adding new things (e.g. joint strengthening, engine rebalancing) a "mod" or an "addon" instead of an "update"; the only thing really addon-like about it is it partially uses the addon framework for its new parts, but it's really pushing the boundaries of the word to say that that alone makes it an addon.

The main reason I was wondering was actually just because Vessel View isn't supported in the KSO's MFDs. If I replace KSO/RPM/Hyomoto/MFD/pages with the ones from the latest Hyomoto MFD, will that work properly, or are those customized as well?

Hydrogen molecules combine with oxygen molecules at a 2:1 ratio, but oxygen molecules are much bigger and heavier than hydrogen molecules.

Workaround found (if anyone else is interested): Have a protected tab in Firefox refreshing the page every 5 minutes in the background.

Isn't Maxmaps the PR person?