DStaal

I’m pretty sure I had to sign an NDA at a warehouse job... I won't say you can't write an evil NDA, but most are just 'don't talk about any company secrets, customer data, or unreleased products'.

About the only thing I can think of on that is the depreciation of OpenGL support in favor or Metal. If they were working with low-level graphics code it could be an issue - but if they're using a game framework like Unity it shouldn't be. Other than that - smaller userbase, impression that Macs aren't good for games, that Mac users aren't gamers...

Very common, there's lots of various attempts at fixing it. The issue is that the surface of the ground is computed, not exactly fixed - as are the parts locations. If rounding errors mean they overlap - kaboom. Best fixes are not attaching to the ground, and using something like World Stabilizer which lifts the parts a bit on scene load, or using something like MKS's ground tether/WBI's parking brake to keep things stable.

I actually read that more as 'we don't want to guarantee it, in case there's issues'. Which is why I tried to make my presence as a Mac player more visible to their metrics.

I think in this particular case: Take Two Interactive have a publicly-known policy of wanting to have microtransactions in all their games, and the statement that is being referenced as stating it will not be in the game is very exact lawyer-speak ruling out *only* one type of microtransactions. I'd be more reassured by silence on the question than by the statement I've seen - silence means they haven't answered it. What they've said means they've addressed the issue and specifically did *not* rule *most* microtransactions out.

Exactly how much of the Atomic Rockets site would need to be in that manual?

Agreed. That statement rules out *one* type of microtransation - admittedly the type which is getting the most attention at the moment, but it's only one type. I can think of at least four types of possible in-game purchases which that promise doesn't cover, and loot boxes would be a very poor fit for KSP anyway.

I wishlisted it on Steam just to make sure that they had another Mac user being counted in the wishlist. (Steam will track that if you set your platform preferences in your account.)

@TheOrqwithVagrant's description exactly matches them updating KAS at the same time: The new parts are now flexible links instead of hard links, and the old parts are no longer there, but the connection was left to not break existing saves.

Even if they manage to optimize the physics quite a bit, KSP is always going to be a resource-intensive game if it can model multiple large ships. N-Body physics would add tremendously to that complexity, as it's *not* a solved problem, and you would have to continually compute the influence of every ship and body in the universe with every other ship and body. Patched Conics is enough for 90% of the time, and an O(n) process instead of an O(n!) or worse - well worth the optimization for a game. (Note: I'm guessing on what N-Body would be in Big-O.)

It could well just mean that at this point the graphics aren't finalized, so they can't claim it's actual footage. (It could even just mean that you can't move the camera the way they did in the game.) It could also mean it's completely rendered in some graphics program. Until the game is actually released - or at least we get some actual gameplay footage - it's hard to say.

Depending on the local gravity and atmosphere - they may be able to jump or use their maneuvering pack. But yes, generally to climb tall vertical surfaces you use a ladder.

You might want to check out Airlock Plus - it won't change the IVAs, but it will let you EVA from any part, as long as *some* part has an airlock:

There is no life support directly in this mod - it's all in USI Life Support. (Though there are a few parts in this mod add depth to USI-LS.) So yes, MKS is just the parts and systems to build bases. Though since most users run both MKS and USI-LS, there tends to be some overlap of discussion in the threads.

My favorite is that he updated the mod on SpaceDock - but *didn't* update the version it's for. So unless the current version runs under 1.3, *everything* on the version is wrong on SpaceDock.

Crew Light turns on their headlight - but not the piping lights.

KSP doesn't seem to like my station much - I'm building mostly with EL, and it's tending to crash KSP on finalizing sections around 50% of the time. Not sure about the issue yet... Anyway, stage 1 completed: Starting stage 2 - note that there's a couple of empty resources kontainers docked, I'll be recycling them in time. (Though the recycler doesn't appear to work - I've never been able to get those to work reliably for me.) Stage 1 was EC and resource storage. Stage 2 is docking for both Kerbals and supplies, though I’m also adding quite a bit of Monoprop storage. (I could use Lithium storage on the station as well, but I haven't unlocked the large tanks for that yet...)

Then you just need to make sure you have the MaterialKits to complete the kit in a place where the Engineers can get to them. You don't need KAS or KIS.

Looking forward to the official re-release.

Define 'works'. The parts should all load into the game without issue - however their balance points and lift centers are off, so making a flying shuttle with them is extremely difficult. (And why are you using a different font than normal?)

What do you want to do with the save? Or: What are you looking to add to the game, that you want mods for? Parts? Places to explore? Contracts? etc.

As someone who occasionally leaves a scientist standing on a thin ledge on top of a science rover while the batteries in the rover recharge so I can transmit the science and have the scientist reset the experiments... Walking around randomly will cause *lots* of issues. More variety of idle animations is fine, but they need to be able to stay where I put them.

And the real question in that is: Why are you feeding something you're not planning on burning any part of into the combustion chamber? All that's likely to do is interfere with the combustion - we have enough problems with that on air-breathing engines already, but at least we are planning on burning 20% of the air.

I was thinking there had to be some effect, as most real-world jet engines these days use a high-bypass tubofan design, where most of the thrust comes from the fan/props instead of the direct exhaust. A bit of careful reading leads me to believe it's because they can manipulate the compression ratio easier that way - making the combusting turbine more efficient and more than making up for the mechanical losses. This wouldn't apply to a rocket-turbine as we're discussing, so that is out. The only other reason would be to add remass - but the fan isn't actually needed for that, just some careful ducting as you'll want the remass heated and added to the exhaust flow just after combustion.