MR L A

You should probably add that the vehicle needs to be touching the runway... as soon as you said "it can fly or whatever" I was thinking, okay, I'll fly straight up with a reusable rocket stage (designed to go to orbit) and land right at the end of the runway. It'd take some very precise flying, but it isn't impossible. OR A better rule change would be quickest time from one end to the other (obviously flying up and landing again will take a lot longer than the above ideas). Just my thoughts! Like the challenge though

huh... can't believe I never chased that one up! Thanks

No. haha. Action group 1 = parts A,B,C Action group 3 (what happened to 2?) = parts A, D, E I'm not sure what trigger "All action group" means. Is there a specific button for triggering ALL action groups? if so, err why? Anyway, assuming you trigger both action groups simultaneously, parts A,B,C,D and E will be triggered. Part A, depending on what you have set in each group, may end up doing nothing at all. I'm not sure if you're explaining yourself properly or not, but i regularly use a single part in multiple action groups with other parts which are also in other action groups... I'm not overly sure if any of what you have said is a specific problem with adjusting limiters through action groups either. Colour me confused!!

How new??

WHAT!? Why the hell did I not know about this?!

did you mean to say multiple parts per action group? Otherwise I'm not really sure what you're on about. Also, I don't see a problem with this anyway, action groups already allow for multiple parts and the choice of a specific action for each one under the same command key. I can't see that selecting one component's slide control (or numeric value) posing a great deal of difficulty

100% in favour of this. Really P's me off when I spend about 5 mins trying to get an exact figure rather that .5 either side of it. Also, has anyone noticed that adjustment in flight appears to be easier than in the VAB? It might just be me, but I always manage to adjust to the exact figure I want pretty much first time during a flight whereas I struggle in VAB. Anyone? No? Owh

I was thinking about this the other day... they really need to add a north/south facing runway at the KSP. If it could intersect with the existing one would be nice. Would be great for using any winged craft for those polar orbit missions in career!

Well... it is actually a really difficult challenge for me... I don't have my gaming rig for the next two weeks I miss KSP and Stellaris damn it! :'(

Thanks for the responses guys, cleared things up a little bit for me! I was attempting to ask (I guess) if incremental Unity updates were somehow automatically included in KSP (and all games running Unity), but you've cleared up for me how that works exactly I'm a bit unsure what the second part means... what would a "runtime" upgrade mean for the game (and what even is a runtime?)? and what is Unity 2017.1? Another, better version of Unity? Thanks everyone!

What mods are you using there? I love the gold... things. I want some!

Hi everyone Firstly, I'd like to apologise if this should be posted somewhere else, I don't often (ever) make new threads and I'm not good at finding old ones. Anyway, Unity 5.6 has been released touting "Improved graphics performance with GPU Instancing and Compute Shaders for Metal..." and, more importantly (possibly) "Vulkan support for increased speed while reducing driver overhead and CPU workload" (http://www.eteknix.com/unity-5-6-released-improved-performance-vulkan-api-support/) *I was wondering how and moreover IF these improvements to the Unity Engine would translate to anything at all in KSP. I'm completely unfamiliar with the relationship between the development of game engines and games in which they are used... Is it a similar relationship to GPUs and GPU drivers? i.e. driver update = better performance (game engine update = better game performance) or would these engine improvements have to be specifically implemented by SQUAD?* Game performance is a huge thing for me (I would say issue but that's a very serious-sounding word) and any performance increase for KSP is a huge boon... particularly as I'm running the game on an AMD A10-7870K.. housed inside a DIY cardboard box "case" (I'm poor, feel free to send sympathy via PayPal ). So, yeah, if anyone could clarify the relationship for me, that would be great

Yeah, I realise all this. The point of the craft is nothing beyond fun and a sort of nostalgia from my early design days. If I wanted it to be a full SSTO... well I'd just use one of my SSTO designs haha

Sort of... I really need to upload pictures, but the spaceplane itself isn't disposable, it just jettisons the Whiplash + liquid tank + intake assembly once the air is too thin (an aerospike kicks in before this). The idea came from the point in my KSP engineering skills where I was to crappy to build a proper SSTO... I've kept the design around purely because it looks cool and is fun to fly

Gonna disagree, the system I have keeps part count low, provides the perfect amount of fuel for 4 whiplashes and keeps the ship aesthetic i.e. not cluttered with a dozen ugly intakes ruining aero profile. Using air intake graphs (found somewhere on the forums) the only intake better is the shock cone which is definitely too expensive. The rest simply don't allow the engines to function well enough. The system I use isn't that expensive anyway... one Ramp intake, one Nacelle (fuel adjusted and cheap) and one Whiplash. Works like a treat. But like I said, it's mostly about being fun to fly than practical (I'd just use a rocket otherwise), though it does get to orbit pretty damned quickly. Also, I didn't mention gravity turns? This is a plane with a rocket on the back, not a rocket with jets.

I have two TSTO disposable whiplash launchers! One of them (J.A.M.S - Jet Assisted Micro Shuttle) is a drone... I wouldn't really call it practical tbh.. it can take a tiny payload to LEO, but I've never actually used it on preference to my 1.25m rockets which can lift more for less. The other design is a crew transport which is insanely fun to fly! Take it up to a space station, change crew and then return, much more fun than a rocket! This second design (J.A.R.O.D.S - Jet Assisted Rapid Orbital Deployment Shuttle) is one that I actually use, though launch timing is pretty essential. As far as I can tell both designs have 3 flaws: 1) "disposable" whiplash systems are less cost effective than traditional rockets (though I guess this only matters in Career mode) 2) I use ram intakes rather than shockcones, so that sees a reduction in performance. Cost trade off (see above) 3) both are fairly small designs and end up with not a lot of fuel to play with once in orbit On the other hand they are SOOO0o0o0o cool. I'll upload some photos tonight if I remember

By "faster" the OP isn't referring to Mhz, but speed in an architectural sense i.e. a modern CPU at 3.2Ghz will make a CPU from 2009 at the same 3.2Ghz look slow...

No mention of it for the second dev update running... call me pessimistic but I think whatever it was has been dropped already

I have a shuttle series (Delta series) with a similar name. "Delta - Genesis" is the first available shuttle unlocked in career mode. The description reads ~"After a lengthy legal battle with Phil Collins and The Holy Bible, 'Genesis' is the first fully operational shuttle of the Delta family". Oh, and my current space station is named "Wilelyn Station". Wilelyn was the Kerbal aboard the very first module launched, though sadly, the launch went wrong and, during the abort procedure (mashing stage - abort tower not unlocked at this stage), his pod was destroyed by an SRB. The first, and currently only, Kerbal I have lost in my current play through... with all "reverts" turned off.

I KNEW there was something I'd forgotten about! Yes, stock electric props! I'd love to have a probe that could fly around Duna or Eve. Disagree with your "feature" vs "system" argument though, pretty sure they described the comms network as a "feature" rather than anything else. Squad seems to tease all of their vague plans as "features" and they always seem to be coming "soon" (trademark). I agree with everyone above who has said a feature like life support would need to be toggleable, don't see why it wouldn't be though, the comms network is. Speaking of which, It would be nice if we had a way to have very basic "programming" for probes when they don't have a connection. Just basic stuff like, if you lose control of an Eve lander, auto-deploying parachutes, or, more importantly auto deploying large antenna. This last one I will explain further. I made a very small Duna probe lander (it didn't even have landing legs), but it had the big dish antenna (the one that used to be in asteroid day). Unfortunately, I had to unfold that antenna before it landed or completely lose control of it, so it was deployed during atmobraking. It didn't break, just looked silly. It'd be nice if there was a feature that told such antenna to deploy "when safe" or when landed.

I very much disagree with the PC spec argument you bring up. My rig is currently an APU inside a cardboard box. It runs KSP reasonably well, surprisingly it is still playable with Scatterer too, BUT the GPU component is vastly underutilised in the base game. Pretty much everything you see is CPU based. The game COULD have MUCH better graphics with no hit to frame rate if it was capable of gpu processing to a much larger extent that it can now. My rig runs Skyrim Remastered, a much more graphically demanding game than KSP even with pretty mods, better than it does KSP. Your point about computer specs is just a non-starter really. It isn't our PC specs that are limiting how good KSP looks, it is the game/engine itself.

Something they've been teasing for a while now, but I noticed it wasn't mentioned at all in the last dev blog. I would really love them to have implemented PorkJet's RPO properly. I've been using the mod version since it was released, I can't stand to use the original 1.25m tanks anymore, they're hideous by comparison. Also, the engines looked great, perfect amount of realism whilst still remaining distinctly kerbal. The upgrade ability for career was cool too! I realise it won't likely be this though, they said in a dev post a while back they considered this project "shelved" for the time being. Honestly, some life support system would be nice, would make my yearly crew changeover missions to my space station more essential (I know there's a mod for this but I'm just not a fan of mods.. I only use Chatterer, KAC, KER all of which should be stock, oh, and Scatterer though my system doesn't like it too much). A stock FuelSwitch would be nice... seems pointless having so many different shapes of tank that we can't chuck whatever fuel we want in. I'd love to be able to put rocket fuel into the roundified monopropellant tank. The ability to build parts in space maybe? Like instead of launching a prebuilt custom ring (those spinning ones for artificial g) in the most unwieldy craft ever, just take up raw materials (metal, ore or whatever) and forge the parts in space over a long period of time (with multiple materials launches). A reason to stay on a celestial body longer than about a minute would be nice too... Currently I do science with the lander's instrumentation, EVA, collect surface sample, plant flag, get back in, leave. I mean, they spend a lot longer than 60 seconds on the moon, and a Mars (Duna) surface mission irl would last a bare minimum of 6 months I remember hearing years ago, realistically probably a fair bit longer. No idea what this reason would be btw, can anyone think of one?

I was about to send a risky text to a girl IIRC, so I thought "ooh, better quicksave... wait what?". I tried to quicksave IRL. I remember being slightly confused about how one actually does that BEFORE I remembered that F5 is for games, not reality.. awww bless you

Let me know if you make one so I can steal it too please? haha Personally, I prefer stock parts (I have Porkjet's RPO, but does that count?) with mods like KER, Chatterer, KAC... I think that's it. I'm well over 1200 hours into the game so I enjoy the challenge of having to make do with stock only parts (for the longest time, I wanted a MK2 aerospike, but I didn't get on with the modpack it came with)... but then again, I'm also *that guy* that plays career mode with revert flight turned OFF. As a side, I also like the idea that when I eventually share my craft files, anyone can use them without looking for mods that may or may not be updated.

Does the explanation of KSPs drag model still hold true? i.e. more parts = more drag regardless of placement?