qzgy

The more I think about this the less sense this makes. The current action groups are momentary is youre quick enough and the brakes are also momentary. So the new SAS toggle you propose seems a bit of a waste.

TV slot times, probably.

Just checked my schedule - Its a passing period! So I might be able to steal a peek.... Edit - Oh wait its tuesday. Still do have class. Hopefully can convince teacher to watch it. Maybe.

nuuuu I've got class...

Apparently this has been a very good Superb Owl for Phily-Del Fia. Why is it in Mini-sota though? Why not someplace like.... Philly?

I would also think a double adapter could work, could it?

Curious how much payload this ones supposed to have.

OH you caught me! See you changed your profile again. @Kerbal pancake?

Actually.... you're right about that. @Angel-125, is that a feature of BARIS?

Think I saw something like this in update pics from the weekly. Not sure if its Making History exclsive, but I like your ideas. I do feel though that this can become quickly exploited just by mashing a bunch in a cargo bay, or fairing for launch vehicles making the other tanks kinda pointless. So maybe that may run into balance issues. LOx only tanks would be great though. And more LF only tanks. Mk3/Mk1/Mk2 LF tanks are currently the only options.

But its not a toggle. Its a momentary thing if you're pushing the button... At least I think it is

I would also support this.

Bypass

When I was a mere baby, the space shuttle failed.... for the second time. Not really a cheery thought

If you made it larger to include an ISRU system/fuel cells, and added more batteries, I'm pretty sure you may be able to have a completely self sufficient aircraft for duna. I would just make sure also that you have enough lifting surfaces.

Hmm I'm skeptical. That's a pretty good GPU, but I'm worried about the X4 (Athlon, apparently) processor. Judging by the price, not so sure it would hold up to KSP. Could be wrong about my gut feeling, but if I am, good for you!

I'm just curious why everything is so bright. Is this a side effect of this "Bloo skeye" thing?

I too use stock (parts). But I'm speaking for the many people who do use mods. Saying your new shiny app that complements KSP doesn't support the mods people oh so dearly love would be a huge turnoff and likely limit the actual usefulness/market of the app. Just because you decide "Oh I won't do escape trajectories in my game" doesn't mean that they can't exist. Those things you are trying to drop are a natural consequence of the basic physics of the system. You can't simply say "oh those don't matter". Please, do correct me if I'm wrong. I don't see how you can have a game with gravity but not really with gravity.

You know that's the easy part to model right? All the planets are on rails and the orbital physics is just some equations that don;t even have to be constantly modeled. The hard part is the modeling of the different forces acting on the vessel and subsequent behavior. Like, for a plane in KSP, every frame or so the forces from drag, input, lift, collisions (if any happen) thrust, and so on. Thats cpu intensive, and I don;t think even the most modern mobile devices (phones tablets etc.) will hold a candle to even a decent laptop. Or maybe they will, but then you run into issues like control surfaces and so on. But what if thats what I want to test? I mean, yeah, you can test that it doesn't get krakened, sure, but testing should also include the flight stages which would therefore need everything to be modeled. Thats like saying I'm going vegan, I use a blue pen to do work (no offense to any vegans or people who use pens at work). Mod integration is one of the hallmarks of KSP and some people are heavily invested into mods. How would one "test" on a mobile platform those mods if mod support is not included? Beyond these issues, how would you design the control system? Trying to fit the 100-odd keys and mouse functions onto a gamepad is difficul but apparently doable. For a mobile game though you would need to have the screen and control surface to be the same thing, limiting options.

9. Its offending no one 11. This list isn't in order.

But this would affect the physics... Say I need to make a launcher. And I want to test said launcher to see if it makes it to orbit. How would you simulate that in a box world as you propose. Also, I would think that flying a plane in a box is similar to but not quite like flying a plane on an actual planet. Say I go really fast in a box world. I would just continue straight. However, If i did this in a sphereical world (like a planet) I would exit the atmosphere and get a different profile. Essentially then you end up with KSP mobile edition if you need to correct for this.

Hey @Jack5.exe - where's ike on the list?

That's an interesting idea. Probably special intelligent panels would work best that are a bit heavier and maybe between the gigantor and smaller panel sizes. Also, I've heard whispers that this is part of persistent rotation. I might be wrong, so don't take my word for it, but apparently you can lock orientation to a specific body asking to be focused in one direction or so.

I know it can make it to LKO. Havent tested the "and back" part. Im going to say probably... But its still untested.

When Duna is the red planet you think of first in your head.