Gaarst

The camera flip for orbit has debatable use, but it does give feedback to players when they reach orbit. No one cares when you exceed Mach 1, it doesn't change anything to what you are doing/flying. If the game had more realistic part resistances then the transonic regime could be a problem, but even then trouble starts near Mach 0.8 so way before creating a sonic boom. In the current state of KSP, going Mach 0.5, 1 or 1.5 has absolutely no consequence besides getting to your destination faster and getting a bit more lift. And as for the escape velocity camera flip, I highly suspect it's a bug, dating from the implementation of planets beyond Kerbin, that never got fixed and morphed into a feature. By the time you're going interplanetary you should know how to use the map view and this "feature" is completely useless (who even does an interplanetary transfer while in vessel view?). Having a sonic boom effect in KSP is both wrong (unrealistic if you prefer) and useless.

Windows 10, reason: am a masochist and love complaining about things.

The console ports were disastrous. A patch was made to solve the main issues and I don't think it solved anything because nothing seemed to have changed. The company that made the ports (Flying Tiger Entertainment) was fired by Squad after this mess, and a new one (Blitworks) was hired to re-do the ports from scratch. In the meantime the console versions were pulled from the Xbox and PS4 stores and will come back once the new port is done. It's been a few months now. The new ports get their two lines of "we're working on it and we're getting closer to the end" in each Devnotes KSP Weeklies and that's pretty much it. Don't worry about the current console ports, you're not missing much considering the feedback they received.

Steam achievements will most likely never happen (because the game is not exclusively distributed by Steam). Other than that why not? I personally think they are completely pointless, but some people might like them.

The fact it can only increase and that it's fairly easy to farm (some posts yield a lot more rep than others: witty one-liners, stories and art are on top) also make it lose its significance. I'm not a huge fan of having a total rep count next to your username (though I like the ability to "like" posts), IMO people give it too much importance and it becomes a race for the highest rep: subconsciously by making more "rep-profitable" content ("oh a lot of people like this post that I made, they'll be happy if I make more" and so on), or very consciously by outright farming rep/post ratio (using section that do not add to the total, or regularly posting on certain threads about how far you are to an imaginary VIP group). Still, it's not that big of an issue on the forums, I don't find it actively decreases the quality/originality of content (as opposed to, say, Reddit where the omnipresent karma farming is obnoxious).

vBulletin has security lackings IIRC, that's why they changed. Considering the outrage for the last forum software change, I don't think Squad wants to go through it again.

Thanks for reminding me why I don't go on YouTube.

Apologies for the delays, I didn't have access to my computer for a bit and couldn't edit the library at all for that time. I've edited the link and changed it to the one you gave me, that one doesn't point to any specific release so hopefully it won't need any more changes. Thanks for the heads up! I've marked the mod as updated to 1.2.2 and moved it to the updated list. All done! All done! I haven't taken a look at which mods were updated to 1.3 for a few weeks. I'll be catching up on the updates tonight or tomorrow, and once enough mods are updated for 1.3 (as I'm writing this, about 300 out of 800 mods in the Updated section are updated to 1.3, we'll see how high this fraction gets after I'm done updating the library) I'll start moving 1.2 mods to the Outdated section.

Not possible in stock, but there's a mod for that (not updated for 1.3 yet).

Launching for a flyby directly from orbit is a lot more efficient than waiting to escape Kerbin and getting a flyby once you're in solar orbit. For this example from another thread, you save about 2000m/s of dV by directing transferring to a Venus flyby: It's not exploiting physics, and you don't need cheat mods to do it: it's the standard way to do interplanetary transfers, the calculator to find launch windows uses this method as well as the dV map you linked. Here's how to break down the transfer in detail: In Kerbin orbit: In a single burn, burn 950 m/s to escape Kerbin, and burn 130 m/s to get a Duna flyby At this point, you've expanded about 1100 m/s of dV and have a flyby of Duna (it may be a bit more expensive depending on how accurate your manoeuvre is). In Duna's SOI, at flyby periapsis: In a single burn, burn 250 m/s to go from a Kerbin-Duna transfer orbit, to a simple Duna escape orbit, and burn 360 m/s to lower your apoapsis to a circular LDO. At this point, you're in low Duna orbit and you've expanded about 1700 m/s of dV total from Kerbin orbit.

There you go: http://alexmoon.github.io/ksp/#/Kerbin/100/Duna/100/true/ballistic/false/1/1 1038 m/s ejection dV. Count 950 dV for escaping Kerbin, that makes 88 dV to Duna from Kerbin escape. You even have room for inclination changes.

You need 130 m/s of dV once you've escaped Kerbin. You need 950 m/s to escape Kerbin. To go to Duna you need to add the two: 950+130.

There's pretty much nothing to do on the surface either TBF. Once you've planted your flag and picked up your rocks, the surface is as boring as the ocean. Planets need to be made interesting but it's not specific to the oceans IMO.

Cross-platform multiplayer? On the list of things that are definitely never going to happen, this is the thing that will the most definitely never happen. Basically take the countless issues with console ports, the countless issues with multiplayer, the countless issues with console-PC compatibility, add them all up, add all the issues that will arise from the interaction of the individual issues, add the issues that will arise from these issues, repeat a dozen iterations and you'll have an idea of what it'll look like. Spoiler: it won't be pretty, nor playable for that matter. Back to topic: What I'd want? Better rocket parts and more realism.

You're probably right. In hindsight it looks like the landing was soft so it might very well be an actual parachute.

To be fair, if you're considering a direct ascent to Duna and back with a single burn, you're probably way past the rocket equation. I guess you could either brute force it and burn straight to Duna consuming immense amounts of dV, or work out some math and launch at the right moment. The second method would save plenty dV, but would require a bit more planning than the first one. Once you know where / in which direction to launch, the challenge is far from impossible (the hardest part might be landing on Duna without engines). I don't have much time to try it myself, but I'd enjoy seeing how people did it. If you have already done it yourself, posting a few screenshots of your attempt might give other players an incentive to do it too.

This doesn't look like a satellite. Even if it was there's no way it could have survived reentry. I'm not saying this ironically, but it's probably a weather balloon with the parachute actually being the deflated balloon. Balloons are cheap and pretty much anyone can send one up for experiments, weather measurements and so on, even if this one looks more advanced than a simple "GoPro balloon". I'm sure some university or meteorological association will come claim it soon.

I see what you mean. Yeah it's probably insulation flying off, it happens on the right side booster too and I wouldn't be suprised if it happened on the other two boosters as well. I don't think it's related to the failure.

For those wondering the large bits inside the tanks are there to prevent sloshing and liquid propellant "hammering".

Got a replay of the launch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyKXiXTRAuI Big outgassing at T+5:46 (around 10:50 on the video). As people on NSF said, it could be turbopump venting cold propellant after an engine shutdown, and it coincides with the point the actual flight profile starts diverging with the planned one. Where/when do you see this?

It does look like a serious lack of thrust midway through the 1st stage burn. Yep something definitely happened near 400 secs, trajectory was correct before that. First stage is powered by 2 engines, I'd bet on one engine failure: the stage still continued to burn after loss of thrust (stage was still functional) and it did burn longer to try to compensate (so probably not a leak). Edit: it could have been a leak related to the engine itself, I don't see why a single engine would keep running if the propellant/oxidiser tank was leaking and losing pressure. Here's how I read the graph:

Yep launch failure. Folks as NasaSpaceflight say it may have something to do with the second stage. Although the rocket seems off its planned trajectory as early as the first stage burn with 1st stage shutdown occurring over one minute later than planned. Discussion: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42798.100

1) Easier said than done. KSP runs fine on lower end machines, it'd be nice if it stayed that way. Either way, an art overhaul would be a pretty big update, I don't expect it to come this soon. 2) The current ion drive is overpowered enough, I don't see a need for more. 3) Additional star systems would take centuries to go to. As for random star systems replacing the Kerbin system, why not? It could bring some novelty to the game, but ultimately all planets are similar and pretty bland, it would not make the game that much better. 4) Loading times is not something you choose. It depends on the code optimisation, and while KSP still has some way to go, loading times are more than acceptable. IMO performance improvements would be needed in a lot of other places before looking at loading times. 5) I personally don't care about achievement so whatever I guess. 6) Steam Workshop has already been discussed and Squad has explicitly said it won't happen. A significant portion of the community got KSP outside Steam and having mods unavailable to these would be unfair. 7) IVA/EVA are currently pretty boring so yeah I guess. You'd need to be a tad more specific with your suggestion on that one though. 8) I don't use planes much so I don't really care about that one. Again, there are other priorities. 9) Discussed a million times before. General consensus is that it would be extremely hard to implement properly. A part of the community wants it, another part thinks the time investment wouldn't be worth it when it could be spent doing other things. 10) Same as for 8): I don't really care, but there are other priorities. Water related craft are currently a pretty minor part of the stock game and developing this aspect properly would require a lot of time. I personally feel like rocket parts are in dire need of attention: 1.0/1.1 added lot of plane parts, 1.2 added a comms system for probes, 1.3 added localisation; overall rocket parts have received very little attention in the last few updates, a shame for a game where launching craft to orbit is the start of everything (some rocket parts will be added in the upcoming DLC but that doesn't improve the existing ones). There are already a lot of mods adding marine parts and I'm satisfied with it staying mod domain.

Step 1: Take your Mun rocket. Step 2: Go to Minmus. Going to Minmus is very similar to going to the Mun. It's easier in some ways since Minmus gravity is smaller, so you will need less thrust to slow down when landing. The ejection burn is usually about 100 m/s more expensive than the Mun, and you have to mind Minmus' inclination (transferring at the ascending/descending nodes or launching to an inclined orbit).