something

I know there have been similar polls in the past, but I am interested in the current distribution since the console version has been released for a while now and I am not aware of any poll since then. In particular I want to know if the OS distribution has changed in the past year(s)... So, what kind of OS do you use to run KSP? And do you have any reasons for using the one you do use? Kubuntu 14.04 LTS - it's just that I prefer the KDE over Gnome and Unity...also since adding K to every word is one of the loading hints, I assume that KDE is the official DE of KSP?

The DNS consists of a variety of stations scattered around Kerbin. (Have a look at where the green communication lines end in map view). You have full control as long as any station receives a signal. This basically means that planetary rotation for deep space missions is less of an issue on Kerbin. The algorithm will always use the strongest link as the preferred way of signal relay, so you don't have to worry about removing old satellites.

The most stressful moment? Landing a plane (not a seaplane) in the water without breaking it. The final moments of maintaining sink rate and pulling up require some attention the game doesn't really require that often.

Well, regex hit the nail. I do have an i5-4690 (3.5GHz), 16Gb RAM but integrated graphics. The game runs, is stable and never ran out of allocated memory. Big vessels are no problem, as long as they are in interplanetary space - the frame rates are acceptable, even for 400+ part assemblies. Once you get close to terrain, the frame rate drops all the way down to something between slide show and unplayable, depending on the planet to be rendered.

Interesting first act. Looking forward to see more of this...

Do you use integrated graphics or are you using some video card? Because, if you're thinking about buying a graphics card, I'd advise to wait until the Ethereum mining craze is over. GPU prices are really inflated at the moment, but are apparently in the process of stabilizing at least.... Will activating the unsupported legacy shaders help in this case? I guess @regex might know. I had the impression, that I gained a couple of FPS in LKO, after doing so.

First, let's assume there was no atmosphere, as this makes things a bit easier to understand. The oceans of Kerbin rotate with a given speed. So do the mountains of Kerbin. We know from observations, that Kerbin's mountains do not change their positions. (Same goes for any other planet and moon out there). Now the peak of a mountain and the sea level rotate 360 degrees in the same amount of time - they do have the same angular velocity (360degrees/6h). However, since the peak of the mountain is higher up, it needs to go a longer way around the center of the planet, then the sea level needs to go. That means the peak covers a longer way in the same amount of time. It has a faster tangential velocity. If you sent up a rocket from the sea level to the height of the mountain the planet would start to rotate beneath you, as long as you do not cover the difference of the tangential velocities between the sea level and the mountain peak. Now let's switch on the atmosphere and presume it had the same density everywhere. Why does the atmosphere rotate at all? There is friction between the surface of the planet and the lowest layer of air. That lowest layer gets 'pulled' with the planet so both have the same tangential velocities. Now the lowest layer of air interacts with the layer above and so on. Finally your atmosphere would rotate bottom to top but there is nothing pulling it faster than the surface. So the upper layers of air would be rotating with lower angular velocities than the planet. If we consider the exponentially decreasing density of the atmosphere, then there are less air molecules per cubic meter in one layer of air than there are in the layer beneath. So the friction between two layers becomes less and less the higher you go. Likewise, your rocket experiences less drag higher up which is why you do a gravity turn or build a space plane. So what's the conclusion? The atmosphere rotates with the surface speed or lower speeds if you are higher up but does not increase that speed in higher layers. This is why a rocket will not be pulled with the planet. In reality, of course, there are such things as pressure, energy transfer from the sun and wind which will change the simple model presented above to "some extend". If you're really in to that, I propose to read some meteorological books or refer to Wikipedia as a start. Well, read wikipedia or the pages of the NAOO or whatever. There's so much stuff out there for free...

Congrats, that's exactly how my first munar landers looked like. Same tripod architecture with some science stuff in the center and a LVT-30 engine to get back home again. If I am not mistaken, it should be sufficient to go with just 4 of those fuel tanks, if you do leave the materials bay...could be wrong though, long time since I landed that way. Oh, and nice OS there, although I have a bit of a different taste when it comes to the desktop environment (KDE+Ubuntu here)

Maybe it is just me, but I don't get the appeal of historic parts. Basically we are playing in a fictional universe with 600km diameter 1g surface gravity planets. Historic parts as Apollo or Verena just don't fit into this setting imho. If RSS was official, no thing, that'd make a lot of sense, but in the Kerbol system? I just don't know...

Kehrmann is a not so common but not uncommon family name in Germany. So I looked up the white pages and guess what? There is at least one "Kerman" in Germany. (Not linking the entry here for obvious reasons).

So far I came up with two interplanetary transfer vehicles, as I tend to call them. The first one was designed to go to Duna and/or Eve, so solar panels were sufficient to operate long term missions. The aft section comes with 4 docking ports in order to transport rovers and base parts to wherever you need them. The docked ISRU unit allows to refill the vessel in orbit from a moon or whatever. The vessel successfully went to Duna and back to Kerbin. Since then it has received some upgrades (a usable antenna dish on the front section) and some additional docking ports at the orange fuel tanks. The cargo bay allows to carry some satellites with the vessel, which might come quite handy now that antennae and the Com Network have been implemented into the game. And this one is the "nuclear wessel" with a couple of dozen RTGs in the links. The vessel will act as a carrier and in addition - thanks to some aerospike engines on the ventral side - it is able to VTOL on low gravity moons. Probably going to add 4 more aerospikes so it will be able to VTOL on Vall.

Yes, I think it is in the terms and conditions of youtube, that a British accent is required. That's also the reason why youtube algorithms delete so many films on youtube: Too much use of American accents.

'Fly safe' is commonly used in games that feature stuff that flies. I used to encounter it in ogame (an old-style browser game about space-ships) a couple of years ago. Might have been ported there from EVE as well, I don't know.

So, I found myself to still use KSP 1.2.2, although 1.3.0 has been released a couple of weeks ago. There just weren't enough features to appeal to me, to justify the process of getting my mods to work again. Honestly, the terrain seems are annoying, but the lack of all important mods is game breaking to me. So what version do you use, and why?

I am happy you do like the vessel design. Took me some minutes to assemble it in a way that should work partially... Well that vessel does indeed have an ISRU unit on board. Landing on Minmus worked pretty well. It does have some aerospikes on the ventral side which make it kinda VTOL in low gravity...you just need enough fuel to soft land it. The rest is done by ISRU. Efficient take off is another story, though.

Well, actually they explode quite often for Earth standards...

No problem, happens all the time - especially if there are no question marks to indicate a question Yeah, honestly, it was a quick and dirty screenshot which has this common behind-a-planet-sunlight-problem...probably should have written, they're attached to fuel tanks... Well, judging from the screenshot I posted before, you can't really know it but I never really had a heat shield on my mind...

Guess you gotta make implicit questions explicit to receive an answer? So, is it ok or not ok?

It's nit a simulation program for scientists, but a degree in (astro)physics does help a lot...

Was just assuming he went to automotive, 'cause jobs there usually are like get paid for x hours, work 1.6x hours. Oh and by the way your vacation in 10 days is cancelled, you are going to Japan, so go get a visa, good luck.

Ah ok, missed the part where it read that he now got a job in automotive....

Haven't seen any updates for an entire month now...so story suspended?

So the rules state that clipping functional parts into each other is a no go but clipping structural parts is go. Now, while these are theoretically engine parts that do clip, it is pretty obvious it's just the structural polygons of the engines that do clip, while the functional polygons do not clip. Furthermore, clipping isn't used in this case to save space in order to put this vessel into a cargo bay (show the cargo bay to me, that contains this vessel) or to gain an otherwise undesired advantage - it's just for the better looks of the aft section. Oh and just for the records: The boosters used for the launch of this vessel didn't need to be detached. So this theoretically might be launched as an SSTO ....

I have my backups. I will further backup them, make sure that a coordinated nuclear strike cannot take them out and....well did I mention that I still enjoy the original 1999 Homeworld?

Early January 2016, I think. Must have been version 1.0.5, if I am not mistaken.