Draco T stand-up guy

The only mod I use ATM is MechJeb and I don't use all of it but the Maneuver Planner is pretty much essential and is one of the tools that should have been in game as standard from the word go. I note that 1.12 has just introduced a limited version of it (I was over-joyed at it finally being done only to find that its so limited that it's almost useless). As far as necessary tools go it pretty much does. A spade is a spade, after all, because it simply cannot be anything else.

Maybe not: GR isn't the end of knowledge. Like Newtonian physics its just a step and is likely incomplete.

I think that it's probably more the lack of tools to do it, specifically, the lack of MechJeb, launch windows, needed dV and an alarm clock (otherwise collectively known as Mission Control). Yes, you can manually play with the maneuver node until your projected path intercepts the target planet but that can have you finding out that you don't have enough dV because you launched at the wrong time and only doing one mission at a time as doing more only results in failed missions due to excessive use of time lapse.

I want to play the game before I start thinking about mods. And that too. I'm hoping that the necessary tools are in game so that I don't need mods.

May not require negative energy for warp drive:

That's why I run the ForScience mod. It really only works when you've got a scientist aboard but, then, that's we're paying them for.

Why would anybody be using a single game to justify buying a PC? The PC does so much more than a console that I've never been able to understand why anyone would buy one as its simply a waste of money. Better off spending the same amount on a PC and be able to do more.

But you do need to for multi-player and, as I said, it looks to me like they're doing it that way to get the better performance on the physics. If they are running a server model then it doesn't matter how many windows are open - the performance will only be affected minimally. It wasn't tech support - just showing that your issues are, pretty much, unique to you. Really, if things were as bad as you say no one would be using multiple monitors. Actually, it isn't. If an app creates a window then creates windows that are children of that first window they, usually, can't leave it. That is often a consequence of the development environment.

As I implied elsewhere - multi-monitor support is pretty much endemic to multi-player and, if I'm reading what the developers said in an article accurately, how they're getting better performance on physics calculations. And yet, in nearly two decades of using multiple monitors I've never had a problem. I presently have a 24", 16:10, 1920x1200 main display and a 22", 16:9, 1920x1080 running perfectly on an AMD Radeon RX550.

Yes, KSP could make much better use of a second screen than pretty much any other game out there.

The really interesting thing about that stat is how many people are indicating that they would go out and get a second monitor so that they could use it.

Orbital mechanics are only accurately projected by relativity. Newton physics simply don't have it in them to really get beyond the solar system. https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-limitations-of-Newtonian-Mechanics?share=1

Well, I see it as having two options: Time skip as we have now or Wormholes. Which would be better for game play? If time skip is used and we have a decent Mission Control that makes progressing multiple missions possible then we could have Kerbin progress while the ship on its interstellar flight doesn't. Even if ships are sent after the first its still going to be lagging thus producing a dynamic between the two. Wormholes would skip that aspect and I can't actually see any benefit except that the irritating time skip would be missed.

And you didn't even link to it?

Yep, that's silly. Can't say that I thought anybody would actually program that in to the software.