Rocket In My Pocket

Yes, definitely, if you are only going to have one; I'm assuming it would be really powerful. I'd stack dozens of relays on it if needed, if you factor in the cost savings of not building several smaller satellites I'd wager you could justify quite a budget for the one "mega sat" Still I think you'd end up with more frequent coverage gaps/loss than with the original 4 sat concept.

Absolutely, I think it's a pretty good idea! I was just positing on the possibility of a super minimal version of it. (Since I'm kind of lazy when it comes to satellites lol.) Like, the highest eccentric orbit you can get relative to the system plane so it spends most of it's time "above" the planets looking down at them, kind of the same way a high vantage point gives you clear LOS in a shooter.

Considering the planets mostly reside on similar planes, you could prolly even just do one very eccentric satellite going straight "up and down" relative to the system's plane.

Your vote is biased and unfair. There is no option on the 3rd answer for someone who doesn't think the game's price needs to change. Which basically doesn't allow someone to vote unless they say yes. If you think you'll convince people by trying to trick them into agreeing with you, you're wrong. Nice try, but that's not how a vote works. Now you've lost a significant amount of the sympathy I had for your viewpoint. My vote since the poll is flawed: 1. No. 2. No. 3. No, it shouldn't. Please fix your poll so I can officially vote no on all three answers?

Well, let's be honest with ourselves; the game is getting on in years and I'm sure the cash flow from sales isn't what it used to be. Some of this comes down to money, I'm sure. Squad has never been the best with QA prior to launches, but at least they are getting better at hotfixing things in a shorter time frame. I try to temper my expectations with the reality that this game by all rights should have died years ago, lol.

This is the only spec that matters with KSP. Xeon or 7700k? Totally different CPU's and KSP hates Xeon as it has too many cores and KSP is heavily single core performance bound as with any physics heavy game. Also your description of your problem causing rocket is a bit lacking, 6,000 fuel doesn't matter at all, how many parts is it and what FPS do you get while it's active?

A semi-steerable atmo lander is a pretty rare use case to be fair. Not something I would typically employ. Anyways, I was more warning against their use in the most common use cases for control surfaces like planes, or ascending rockets.

It was hot fixed literally 2 days later, that's pretty darn good in my book. I feel the exact opposite, my experience with the game has only improved since 1.3 days. I have encountered very few bugs in my many, many hours playing the game, and even fewer serious ones. Yes, they exist, all games have them, all games will always have them, till the end of time. I have seen very few people "shouting" for bug fixes, so that's a really generic and sweeping statement with no facts to back it up. (Tbh I see more people shouting for multiplayer than anything else, lol.) Does KSP have more bugs than the average run of the mill cookie-cutter 1st person shooter? Of course, it's more complicated and ambitious. Similarly to games like Skyrim/Fallout, whom I would say have just as many bugs if not more, and still manage to be great games. I'm sure he has better things to do than come in here and say "Yup there are bugs, and yup, we are working on them as best we can."

Anyways, so this isn't a bunch of off topic discussion; here's my entry. I took the instructions somewhat literally so it was more challenging for me, and only allowed myself to use one Terrier engine and no other actual engines, besides boosters. She absolutely struggles to break orbit due to low TWR but she eventually pulls through. I went to the Mun, landed, and promptly tipped it over on it's side like a complete newb lol. Given that I still had 2-3k Dv at that point though, I'm quite confident she'd make the return to Kerbin.

Fair enough, the challenge certainly could be a lot better. (From a veteran players standpoint anyways.) We could take his instructions super literally and only use Terriers? No other engines/boosters allowed Lol.

The first post was you expressing your opinion on the challenge, which I have no problem with. The second post however, I can't see any purpose for except being mean? I mean what if @Meteor Plays never comes back to the forums, because his first attempt at a challenge got ridiculed? Wouldn't that make you feel bad? (To be fair he hasn't been back since Oct 7th which was before you posted, but still, just saying.)

A lot more than the two of you have landed at Tylo lol. Did you just pop back in here to belittle his challenge a second time? I'm not sure that your "not-so-humble brag" helps him. Of course a basic Mun landing is pretty simple for most of the veteran players around here, but it's not unthinkable on his part that some newbies would want to get in on this challenge. We should be encouraging new or less experienced players, not looking down or noses at them and trying to make them feel bad. I'm pretty surprised you'd come back and post a second time, a week later, after already getting a jab in at his expense. Just let the thread die peacefully if nothing else.

Why fold them at all? Just carry them up in a drag neutral position and then re-dock with them in space in a lift friendly position. If you really gotta have them fold for that "wow" factor, you can do that in stock too!

If you're using it to decrease your speed and increase surface area, you aren't using it as a control surface, but a brake; which is what it is designed for. As far as spending fuel, I'm not sure what you mean? My point more-so is that it turns you by applying A LOT of drag which will slow you down, unlike the regular control surfaces which hardly slow you down at all. I realize there may be some edge case uses for slowing down and turning at the same time, but it's sub-optimal for the majority of uses compared to traditional control surfaces. That said, I don't see any harm in letting people reverse them, and it should be easy enough to add.

I personally don't recommend using no reverts, or "ironman" mode. The first time you lose a mission, ship, or Kerbal to a bug/glitch you are going to regret it.

I used to use and love this mod, but I swore off it long, long ago (and all part adding mods) when I borked a save file by trying to load it sans camera parts and it deleted half my vessels. My fault I know, was a long time ago and I wasn't keeping back ups. Wouldn't even be an issue now that I know better. Still, I swore I'd never do it again....but every now and then I come check back in on this thread, gaze longingly at all the cool pics of people using the cameras and I'm like...

And a Portal gun while you're at it. Chop, chop; I need it by Tuesday.

It would be more efficient to do them both at once, killing horizontal then vertical speed is like walking two sides of a large field instead of crossing it diagonally. Just lock retro in Surface mode and burn at the last (reasonably) possible moment.

Umm....not much. Maybe a slight bump for AMD users assuming it's actually implemented. Using the GPU to process physics has the same limitations as using another CPU core. It's hard to multi core physics on a single vessel, that hasn't changed. I doubt KSP will see any benefit from this at all, assuming it even uses the latest version of PhysX which I also doubt.

Welcome to the forums, as explained earlier it's still available on plenty of 3rd party download sites.

Which Is why I quoted him, hopefully that was clear to @Rover 6428 whom I have no particular issues with.

Mostly on topic here: A rather curious thing is that I can't see any difference between the brakes group and the other two UI toggle groups in the .cfg, yet for some reason the brakes group needs to be held down when using the keyboard. LANDING_GEAR { primary = G secondary = JoystickButton9 group = 0 modeMask = -1 modeMaskSec = -1 } HEADLIGHT_TOGGLE { primary = U secondary = None group = 0 modeMask = -1 modeMaskSec = -1 } BRAKES { primary = B secondary = Mouse3 group = 0 modeMask = -1 modeMaskSec = -1 I wonder if there is any way to get it to work as a toggle on the keyboard via "B" by mucking with this?

There are 10 custom action groups, more with mods; I'm sure you can spare one of those for the brakes *if* having a keyboard toggle is so important to you. If it isn't, just use the UI button provided. Well, yeah; it could be better of course, most things could lol. It is an available stock solution to the OP's problem though. He asked for a keyboard toggle for brakes, and I gave him one! Please though, hold your applause and remember to tip your waitress!

Attach your decoupler, rotate it, and translate it where you want.