Loskene

They do have colliders and you can splat yourself on them, but yeah they don't explode.

You need to edit the config file to suit your tastes, all of the effects are cranked way up by default for demonstration. The parameters are generally all self-explanatory and you can just fiddle around with figures until you're happy. I turned the vignetting and lens dirt way down myself, looked filthy.

With no fuel tanks?

What is this poll data for, exactly?

That's how a lot of early prototypes were steered before we figured out engine gimballing. Sorry mate, can't have this one unless there's a really effective programming trick you already know to accomplish it. There's no point going to the effort of physically simulating thrust deflection around airfoils or other objects when an abstraction will do the same job for a minuscule fraction of the performance hit, at the cost of odd edge cases. FAR is the closest we have and even that isn't doing exactly what you want here. That's just the price we pay for trying to simulate the physical universe, it gets exponentially more complex and resource intensive the closer you try to model reality. When it comes to things of minor importance like this, we just have to settle for less. Particle simulation in particular is a big no-no if you want it to run in realtime, we really want as few of those as necessary in stock KSP.

An aircraft-focused DLC with engine management/fly-by-wire tools and extra plane/heli parts for those people who rarely leave Kerbin (by choice or not) would probably do well come to think of it.

Hasn't the inline one always been a 2-seater or am I imagining that?

Worth knowing SAS also obeys fine control mode (caps lock), as far as I know, which can reduce a lot of wobbles or wasted RCS fuel on some craft.

I went with planet revamp and/or life support (contingent on the most important LS mechanic, habitation volume, as food/O2 just become extra "fuel" mass in practice) because you didn't put transfer planner and alarm clock on the list. Though I'm sure those two have been mentioned by name as vital QoL tools so often they're probably already in the pipeline.

Hmm, yeah. If the game treats water like soupy air, the best way to go fast in it is to avoid being in it to begin with, keeping a tall, streamlined stance, hydrofoils or abusing nosecones and other aero model tricks.

If we're doing work on the mission editor I never use, please integrate it into sandbox games, maybe another button in the VAB or something, so it can easily access saved craft and be used as a "computer simulation" tool for craft design. It'd be handy to have a tool that lets us quickly deploy a craft to the exact location on or around any body we want to test it in, and define the test parameters in a reusable fashion and as much detail (with the node system) as we want. That way I might, y'know, use it. It seems to be intended for making challenge scenarios that can be shared with other people to compete on, but that's a very minority use case and I think there are far more practical applications for what something like the MH mission editor is capable of.

Boats I've found to be finicky alright. Sometimes they just get hung up on something and make it impossible to pick up speed in the drink, often necessitating a major redesign. Particularly painful are seaplanes because of this and depending on how big I go it may require hydrofoils or something just to lift off, idk. Does KSP model hydrofoils the same way as aerofoils, or am I just setting myself up for hydrofailure?

I bet you wish you decided on solar electric propulsion now. Watching your little boat tour I've kind of wanted to explore more of Kerbin's landscape by non-space-based vehicle, but in a fashion that would take less time than your journey. Maybe a seaplane carrying a rover, something that can transport Kerbals anywhere and just go sightseeing. I might make the refuelling process a bit more interesting though, seeing as there's a lot of it when covering real ground. Maybe firing suborbital drop pods ahead from KSC and having the plane land near wherever they end up. Adventure!

God I once had a minor, uh, accident in LKO and had to aerobrake for a landing... with a 69km perikee (nice). 20 orbits? I wish.

Wuh-oh, tripped yourself there. Don't forget exobiology 101. Kerbals speak their own language (which to us just happens to sound like spanish played in reverse), we read the english translation, or whatever language one plays the game in. This leaves a lot more wiggle room for naming conventions since we don't really know precisely what Kerbals would call various celestial bodies, just a rough translation of sounds the human larynx has a tough time recreating. Also worth noting our sun has many names, all of which considered acceptable for various use cases, be it The Sun, Sol, Helios, whatever.

Nice, I like a good environment-specialised rover . I might give the ATS rover stubby wings to reduce its reliance on rocket dampers across rough terrain and sharp drops, at least for the atmospheric model.

Okay mate, I didn't ask for your life story thanks. BTW if you read my first post you'll see one of the benefits of a stock visual overhaul would be not just adding shiny bits to the high end but getting a bit more performance out of the low end too. You say you run EVE on a craptop, you obviously care about the appearance enough that an overhaul in the next update or two would be welcomed, no? If you're just worried about being left out for one update cycle because your hardware won't let you take advantage of it, I can assure you that's unlikely to be true. The low graphics settings can still be made better looking and performing while working on the high ones. Having seen long lived games go through similar processes many times, they tend to go hand in hand.

Damn, son. You have to save the crown spot for a magic boulder.

I think you're overselling the hopelessness of your particular use case a little. How many KSP players do you think regularly have to sleep in their offices and will need to play the game on a crappy work laptop while there? You're not exactly "common folk" lol. KSP has remarkably low system requirements for a game of its kind, practically across the board (RAM usage could be better but w/e) but it makes barely any impact on the GPU really. The fact your tuber-based laptop can even run EVE and Planetshine with the onboard graphics chip is testament to that. Have you got the volumetric cloud layers turned on in that thing? Wowee. Suggesting that something as fundamental to a video game going through an iterative multi-year post-launch development process as a graphical overhaul should be gated off as DLC is a woeful or wilful misunderstanding of how these systems work and would be impossible to lock behind a paywall without enormous headaches and player dissatisfaction to begin with. Where you even come up with these notions I'll never know. By the way my computer is pushing 8 years old, only the graphics card has been replaced recently, to a 4GB GTX1050Ti. Usefully enough someone posted a hardware statistics survey showing that the average PC player has at least... a GTX 1050 or equivalent. Funny that.

Well, I think it's just a custom texture swap setting for the stock 1x1 panels, tweakscaled to fit around a command seat. You could probably change the texture to whatever you want with a short tutorial if triop wants to give one.

Yeah but funnily enough it gets cheaper the more delta-v you pay them to burn since the karborundum comes from the hardest to reach places.

No. Is it possible the keybind changed since you last tried it? I think it's Alt+F12 or something like that, I just use hyperedit tbh.

This is everything I use (ie everything my machine can handle since I'm RAM bottlenecked) for tweaking visuals. KS3P is a great though little known post-processing mod but you need to customise the config file when you install it, by default all the effects are cranked up for clarity and it looks filthy. I vastly turned down the lens dirt and vignetting and tweaked the depth of field until it had a nice rounded bokeh effect. Given the theme of 1.7 has been reducing the number of vital QOL mods that we need to wait for after each KSP update, you can see how a 1.8 (or 1.9, I'm not picky) visual overhaul would seriously cut into my waiting time with a list that long. Edit: Forgot some. Add "Community Terrain Texture Pack" and "Engine Lighting" to that list. You can see how quickly this gets hard to keep track of, and how quickly the whole thing can be ruined if one or two of these mods ever stop being maintained.

A graphical overhaul would be a nice focal point for the next update, since they're doing a bit of housekeeping lately anyway. There's a lot they could do to add resource-light prettying options for those of us with better hardware, as well as optimisations to let potato players eke a little more spit n' polish out of the low graphics settings. The parts and skybox updates are nice, on average, but the planets themselves that we spend most of our time looking at are really showing their age. Stock volumetric atmospheric effects (clouds and dust storms) that are embedded deep enough into the rendering engine that they run smooth as butter please. It's the one part of EVE I still have to turn down if I want a steady green light, and they look so damn nice. This game can be seriously beautiful, while retaining its signature style, if you give it the chance.