mattinoz

Would it be easier if it worked reverse. Instead predicting a mass left on particular trajectory. Let use set the mass we want at a location then play with different options of getting it there see both the path and the Delta-v needed. Pull that into the VAB for to use to predict a stage and how much "pilot error" that design might cope with.

Depending how it works - you could use it to play with yourself. Use different timelines for separating out unrelated missions. Set up an agency for long running special missions, then let them sync-in to the cannon as shorter timeframe agencies catch up. Joint venture with your own diverse group of agencies for complex missions.

Here's me thinking that would great engine arrays, blown away by space balls.

The challenge mostly, ie. the fun of beating a semi-realistic situation in different ways to see which one works the best. (replay value) There are millions of dollars a year spent on games that rely on timing as a factor and KSP can't talk multi-player without people point out how fun a space race would be.

Doesn't suggest that taking some of these mods pulling them in to the base game and optimising them would be a better plan. Then not only would you have fewer mods but they'd each have for interface frontage to stay out of each other ways and avoid battling for resources.

The most disappointing thing about this is that with out a base game mechanic to act as a starting point we'll end up the same as KSP with thousands of close but not compatible LS mods so adding one LS factor would require a whole LS system in the mod to build that factor on. If the game had a basic mechanic like USI-LS (picked at random as author is part of dev team but not sure he's alone as KSP dev team members who've written an LS mod) then at the very least we need to factor in enough mass for supplies as part of our designs. We get simple trade offs about speed to get there, how long to stay, how many crew to take. etc... other simple mass trade off items like recycling to save weight. If base LS in place Someone wants to expand that then at least the leavers to pull in the mod are in place and another mod could pull the same leaver for another reason. Without it each builds a potential conflicting leaver or tries to pull the other ones leaver. ie. You could build a radiation exposure or health mod that triggered behaviour or lack of productivity as the low supplies state, instead of creating a whole new behaviour.

Having had a mis-spent youth with a good hand me down lego collection the whole Procedural parts aren't lego like still confuses me. I mean if I make a shape like a tank profile I can repeat that profile in one block high increments until I run out of blocks and It become one things as far as I'm concerns although it still could fall apart. Well just adapt to the changing situations on the fly. ie Bring it on as far as procedural goes for me . Tanks, booster, solar panels, wings the works. Have an off thread structural test in the part that might deform the tank in a future (milliseconds later) physics frame so the slow down happens as things go pear-shaped and you can watch the full glory of the explosion.

Would assume most major theme updates and DLC will each have a new system to well offer challengers specific to the each new game mechanic.

I am excited for the Mac edition

Steve Jobs showed the the first Halo demo seen in public at Macworld New York last century.

Who does that leave given the Mac/Linux 15% were dumped 6months ago?

I assume the Mun lander is caller R2-Detour?

Mac version or No Buy.

Sure as long as we at the same time don't underestimate the time skill and vision of KSPs community content creators and their willingness to share tip tricks learnings with each other and interested newcomers. The free publicity alone from foresting the community would sure cover maintenance and improvements of a tool that is used in house anyway.

Unless what you are trying to do is put the Kerbal back into orbit without a vehicle.