tater

I can probably gain membership to this society...

Your OP says "vastly important." You need to demonstrate that this is the case. I'd not have bothered posting if the title was "Airships---a cool/fun addition to KSP" but "vastly important" requires some demonstration that this is the case. The world's 3 real manned space programs have managed so far with no airships whatsoever.

I already put wheels on them, ksp has wheels.

Make the kerbol system a binary star system, and put a 2d sun several real AU away (Eeloo is around 0.78 earth AU from kerbol).

So far so good on career.

Maybe kerbals are less stupid than most human beings, so this isn't a problem.u

I'd not call them even slightly important, and certainly no where near "vastly" important. When all the actually needed features are added, then this would be down the list someplace on new things to possibly add.

We watched from the patio with the kids for about 30-60 min last night and saw maybe 25 decent meteors (didn't count any faint "slash" ones, only bright guys that moved across a decent chunk of sky). About 5 elicited involuntary "wow!"s from all of us. light pollution was bad to the west, but our house is about 500m above the city, so looking east towards the mountain we can even see the Milky Way.

My graphics settings are one tick down, and I'm running modded with hgr, kpbs, spacey, usils, and kis (all have parts, I'm also running a few other mods). I rarely crash (Yosemite, mid-2010 i7 iMac). On second thought, it's a new career, and my first probe won't reach Duna for 2 years (6.4 x distances). In my last, stock kerbol system career, I started having frequent crashes, but I had vehicles around Eve, Dres, Duna, and Jool in addition to kerbin...

So your first post is at 8 pm (my time, anyway, Mountain), and the above post is at 10. The devs are scattered around, many in the DF (which is central time, so 11pm). You might try posting a proper support thread, with logs, and other data useful to figure out the problem, then, you know, give it a little bit of time. It would be rather stunning to get support from dev on any game within minutes of a first post on the subject, in the middle of the night---particularly with no data so that they might try and replicate the problem.

Please tell me this is a typo/autocorrect, and they didn't actually collect names from astrology nuts.

I'm using the 365 mod, which is 3.2x planets, and 6.4x distances, and this mod has made it much better with otherwise stock parts, since I'm needing bigger parts. Really well done mod.

Ah. Too bad the stock parts in question (hitchhiker and mobile lab) are not horizontally orientated. The trick for me is I'd have to find 2.5m (or whatever) parts where the IVAs matched this orientation. A similar part to the "green" one would be cool with wheels. That or the legs retract, and you throw wheel on such that the legs lift them off the ground once aligned.

The non-intelligent life will be the people in an uproar It will be fun to watch the facepalm-worthy backpedaling to try and square their circles to the new reality.

Nifty part. The docking ports should obviously be removed, then the player can use existing parts for that (no need for more custom parts than needed). Still, quite cool. Like the hab as well.

Yeah, KIS/KAS is on my "always install" mod list. It gives EVA kerbals something to do. Quite fun.

Seems like it would simply decrease consumption rate. That or it adds new supplies as a function of power, and number of supplied kerbals (functionally the same as decreasing consumption). X kerbals always add X waste/day assuming they are alive, right? This never changes. X+2 kerbals make X+2 waste/day, as long as you know the number of kerbals, you know the amount of waste the "greenhouse" has to work with. Obviously this disallows throwing a greenhouse to a planet ahead of time... but unless you can ship waste ahead, then that's not a thing, anyway, right? I'm not really arguing it, I just think that it's not required, per se. I might totally be missing a programming aspect of it, I admit. I'm fine with "waste" as a generic term as a stand-in for all the post-consumption stuff that cannot be directly recovered. It's not like tracking another resource is a huge issue

Roverdude, I'd disagree on one point, single resource. All LS is lossy, so you need to add some consumables. It can be 1, or 100 unique items, doesn't matter, it boils down to adding X mass per person, per day to the system. Waste, OTOH, is effectively only related to the number of persons aboard. X mass of waste per person, per day, regardless of "supplies." I suppose when starving, dehydrated, or unable to breathe you emit less waste, but at the fidelity of LS in KSP, that means you are no longer a person, but dead. So you could have a single-resource LS system in KSP where the "greenhouse" part simply bases it's "waste" resource on how many kerbals happen to be in the craft. Obviously this does;t let you store up waste ahead of time, but it's still workable, IMO. USILS doesn't spam every right click with 10 things, which is a major feature to me, I don't mind 2.

Mass neutral is OK, massless makes no sense whatsoever. So the LS consumables needed for a 20 year trip have the same (0) mass as those for a 20 minute trip? The added mass is the point.

Mass neutral is perhaps what you actually mean, Joonatan1998?

Yeah, career is always grindy, but this is somewhat worse in that getting around with stock parts can be pretty tricky, or requires many rendezvous.

I had been running Lion on my mid 2010 i7 iMac, with no problems, and I am now running Yosemite (did a clean install when I threw an SSD in to replace a failing HD). Seems really odd. Watch the console next time, and see what errors it is throwing.

It is my understanding the launcher hasn't worked on OS X---possibly ever. I've never even tried to use it.

Yeah, I know it technically doesn't apply, since you didn't trivially shoot it down to prove a point. Any of the rest of us could have as regex did, so I tend to think of them as straw man targets---for US. Realism is entirely unconnected to gameplay quality/difficulty. Realism can improve it, or it can harm it, it depends on what is added, and how it is added, there is no correlation at all that says realism --> bad gameplay. WW2OL would have been so much better if it were far more realistic than it was, for example. The best moments were always when it accidentally ended up "feeling real." Those moments were few and far between, but incredibly powerful. Seems like Easy would have no LS, Moderate would have something like Snacks!/USILS (no deaths), and Hard would have death, with custom options available.

This is a total straw man. It is an unambiguous plus for gameplay. It creates a rationale for manned vs unmanned missions. It creates a small amount of meaningful time progression (you need to complete missions, or mount time-critical rescues, etc). It actually increases difficulty somewhat with progression (instead of the opposite). No downsides I can see at all (of course I always play with LS anyway). - - - Updated - - - LOL, true. Or indeed any physics at all. How about liftwood?