DStaal

That would be what I meant by emulation. There's a bit of performance hit however - so I typically wait until the performance hit isn't noticeable.

Either way, it's an indication of *interest* in the game. That interest may not translate to sales directly - but I bet Valve can give you a decent estimate of the average ratio. Also, there's more stats behind that wishlist - I've read someplace that if you set your platform, developers can see how many people are interested in your game on different platforms. (So I've set my platform to Mac, and have wishlisted several Windows-only games - if they ever decide to port to Mac, I'll probably get them. Otherwise, if they're still for sale in five-six years, I may try playing them in emulation if there's a good sale.)

True - but I actually don't recommend it for the Karibou. Basic issue is that the Karibou engines are single engines (as far as KSP is concerned) - so you typically have one engine forward and one engine rearward for a Mun landing. TCA controls the ship entirely by throttling the different engines (hence the name...) - and two engines worth of throttle isn't enough to control a ship. TCA can't create roll authority on a standard Karibou build, and that means that it has trouble running it's standard programs. Balance it well, and make sure you have a control point pointing up as well as the cockpit pointing forward, and it's pretty easy to fly even without TCA. I did my first couple of Mun landings in one.

There's a small lip in the side of one of the craters on Mun near the memorial - it's not quite flat enough in the current game for me to build a house on, but Jeb's been wanting one since he first saw the view.

Use the center-of-mass and center-of-thrust tools while building in the SPH/VAB to make sure the thrust is under the mass. Make sure the fuel tanks are equal distance from the center of mass, so that it won't change as they get depleted. Be willing to ship partial containers of Supplies/Ore/MaterialKits/etc in order to help balance. I personally find having the engines away from the center of mass is helpful. TCA can also help, although with the way the Karibou engines are set up they don't work very well with TCA. Also, note that the engines generate monoprop when in use - so you can use RCS quite liberally without running out of monoprop.

Yes. Note that the catch-up applies in 6-hour max chunks - if you're both producing and consuming, you'll want that much buffer space.

Yeah, but I could easily see it being you can only keep it metastable at some reasonable pressure up to say 100 degrees K, and if you let it get past that you're going to have a very short bad day.

Sorry - we've seen a couple of people get pretty vehement that they should get KSP 2 for free and that it was a rip-off because they paid whatever back when KSP 1 was in initial funding, etc., etc., etc. He was just giving the reasons we'd had to list out painfully over several pages in a couple of threads so far.

I don't think that's something that can be eliminated from KSP's design - at least not without changing some very fundamental things about what a rocket is in KSP, which would have *lots* of other effects. That said, I'm sure it can be optimized quite a bit over what KSP1 has so that practical limits are quite a bit higher than they are.

Actually, even science analysis follows the same rule: Nothing exists in KSP that isn't within 2km of your current vessel. (Not quite sure what the Breaking Ground experiments did to get around that...) They just quickly pretend they have always been there when you show up. Practically for science analysis it makes no difference - when you show up, it'll do a quick compute for the time you were gone, and then give you control - so by the time you get control all the science will be there. Life support is one of the few times were the illusion can get pierced, as it's one of the few places where you track anything other than the location of the vessel when it's not within the current physics bubble.

Far more realistic would be physical tanks that need to be kept cryogenic. (Hmm. The screenshot of the one one confirmed metallic hydrogen engine has quite a few radiators on the tank...)

The point I was trying to make is that you don't actually have to add EC storage - Kerbals don't get killed or go into hibernation or anything while off-focus. So if you have solar generation, and only switch back to the ship during the day, you can let them sit in the red on the USI-LS list forever if you want. They'll be fine when you actually go visit them.

The effects of power generation are not taken into account while off-focus. If your only problem is that you're out of EC, you have ample solar cells, and you switch back during daylight you'll be fine. (Last I checked - even if you didn't have enough EC storage to last the night you'd still be fine as long as you only checked in on it during the day...)

It's just in case, and it should happily co-exist, at least in theory. But you only need one copy of MM, whichever's the most recent for your version of KSP.

Space Platform, Engineering & Construction - SPEC

That's been my read since the initial announcement and FAQ replies.

From the little bits they've said and the impressions people have had, here's what I think they're thinking: Life support in the sense of 'you need to do this on all your ships to keep your Kerbals alive' won't be a thing. However, there will be a colony sustainability/growth mechanic that's life-support like - To have a working colony you will need to have food storage areas, farms, recyclers, etc. Kerbals themselves may be workers in that system, and may have some effect on the system - but the point of the system is really to map colony stages and growth, in a 'you need X level of complexity for a stage Y colony, which has Z abilities' sort of way. (Again, this is my synthesis impression of comments I’ve seen - nothing specific, just overall impression.)

Blocker features: Not being released to Mac. There's probably some others, but that's the big one.

As far as this discussion is concerned - this engine has been confirmed to be a metallic hydrogen engine at this time. (The engine on the left.) Whether that's a good thing or not that's another discussion. The point of this thread is to identify what engines are in the game, not speculate on what engines *should* be in the game.

I'll admit, the more I work in Python, the less I like it. But what do I know? I'm a Perl fan.

Python and nearly all others were designed as fully stand-alone programming languages. Lua was designed as a language for embedded add-ons - not something you write the whole game in, but something you could bolt in quickly and let users work in. There aren't many languages written for that niche. (And to reply to Nuke's comment: In that niche, repositories would be fairly useless - you're not supposed to be writing large segments of code in it, and you should be writing code working against specific other applications' APIs, so large libraries of code aren't really going to be helpful for what it's designed for.)

Are these USI inflatable parts? If so, it's a known limitation - since the parts don't have seats at launch, they don't have any seat inventory. It's best to give them a toolbox someplace have your Kerbals stow their tools.

Just wanted to say thanks for doing this, and I look forward to whatever answers you can get.

As a follow-up to this: How about science mode? (I could see it being career and sandbox only, even though I typically play science mode.)