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.

It does depend a lot on what the second screen is used for. I'd like to see Mission Control on it (Replacing MechJeb), my orbital information, the orbital information of anything targeted, as well as a real-time representation of the Kerbol System. That's while in flight. In the VAB to be able to see the mission plan (from Mission Control), the specs of each stage and its dV so that I can compare the capabilities of my design in relation to the mission parameters. In Mission Control I'd like to be able to see Tracking. In fact, I think a full function Mission Control would be where having two screens would really shine. Especially in designing missions.

Not seeing any names in the poll. Of course, the people who have access to the back-end of the site probably can if they're so inclined. I am seeing, at this time, 5 people saying that they would use this feature even though they presently have only one monitor. Screenshot for clarity: So far, 53% of respondents would use this feature. Of course, that can't be assumed to apply to all who play KSP or even all who would buy KSP2 as not everyone is here commenting on the forum. The majority of players probably don't even come to the forum.

I've been learning to do barrel rolls in mine Doesn't always work

Depends upon how they're doing whole thing. It may even depend upon how they're implementing multi-player. They could run a physics engine in its own thread chewing CPU cycles, effectively a server. Next to that in another thread would be the graphics which takes data from the physics and displays it on screen and gets input from keyboard/mouse/controller and sends that data to the server thread. Doing so should give more consistent, and possibly higher, frame rates. And this is why I say it may depend upon how they implement multi-player because multi-player is going to need a server. World of Warships runs like this as the game is actually played on the companies servers and only the graphics are displayed on the local machine. A server model, which already has built in messaging as you describe, is hypothetically easy to give multiple windows that can be spread across multiple monitors. Now, the reason why I bring this up like this is because over here the lead developer says: Which, to me, implies that they've split the two. Especially when I consider that in KSP1 my GPU, when in close, is running full out while my CPU is barely ticking over. Seems to me that there's a lot of space on the CPU for running the physics simulation and having it much better without having it limited to how often the frames are updated on the monitor.

Built and tested a new rover And then safely landed it on the Mun

I has... Teeth Enough Delta V to land on Minmus and Mun in same flight.

I do have some idea - its similar to the work I did for my degree in CompSci. The UI that you're talking about is the same UI that will be in game for whatever windows (Map, orbit info, tracking data, CommNet, etcetera) are used. I'm not talking about anything more than what's going to be in the game. Just want those windows to be able to un-dock from the main game screen and shifted over to my other monitor.

Delivered some much needed supplies, mainly batteries and power generation, to my Mun station so that it could actually transmit that science that it had.

Misuse of words results in miscommunication - so, yeah, I expect people to use the right words especially when its central to their job.

I look forward to discovering Earth.