Cucco-Master

3-5mins, depending on the need to build the MM cache. I have 106 mods installed (GameData minus the squad folder is pretty much exactly 2gb), roughly 8k MM patches get applied. The mod collection is a pretty even mix of visual enhancers, part packs, gameplay mods and tools/basic framework (a bit of everything, basically). Unmodded installs would only take about 10 seconds to load, but since I don't play unmodded anymore, this is a bit irrelevant. I have an i7 5820k (12core, 3,3GHz by default but overclocked to 4,2GHz), a GTX 980ti, 32gb ram and my KSP is installed on an SSD (don't ask my about the specs of this device)

The trick with the warp drive is to make the warp ship reuseable (which should not be difficult in case of a simple resource freighter). Of course the initial costs are still high, but someone who already has multiple mks bases scattered across the system should be able to afford one of these drives.

The easiest solution would be building yourself a warp ship to make your deliveries not take 44 years. The alcubierre warp drive even comes as a USI mod

Does anyone know if the funds/science/rep from the kolonization bonuses is influenced by admin building strategies (or by the income modifiers from the difficulty settings)?

About 50/50. (For Earth it's about 30% land, 70% water)

Someone really has to say it now: There are mods for that. For 1.: Stock Visual Enhancement, Stock Visual Terrain, Window Shine, Engine Lighting and many more ... For 2.: Principia (I have not used this one myself, but I believe it can do axial tilt as well) For 3.: Real Solar System, various rescales for the stock system and some others If you are on a gaming pc, mods are a valid solution and even if they were not, they would still show that everything you want is possible on the current engine, in the current KSP. No KSP 2 or even a rival game needed for this.

The fact that I stopped playing during the time in 1.1.2, when a bug caused artificial orbital decay, should make my opinion on this topic clear. To be honest, the effect of this bug on orbits was quite a bit more extreme than any realistic orbital decay would be, but I would still say something like this has its place in the realm of hardcore realism mods.

Something like this definitely happened to me when I tried to build my first space plane (well, actually it was a pathetic attempt at a shuttle replica). Reentry heat had been introduced as a stock feature just a short while earlier and so I thought heat shields were somehow mandatory. Like the OP I wondered why there were no radial ones - so I covered the entire bottom of that wannabe-shuttle with radiators instead xD. You can imagine how far I came with that contraption

Have you done a scene change or similar between the gravity turn and the circularization burn? Or have you set up some consecutive maneuver nodes? Mechjeb treats the circularization burn after an ascent like any other circularization which you can manually set up via 'circularize' in the maneuver node editor (as far as I know). That means after a scene reload you will have to click 'execute next node' first, or it will just ignore it.

But what happens when a player exits the game? Time would have to be frozen for them until they return so when they do, they would still be out of sync.

I would like to have a few hundred of these irl

Let's say you are in an orbit around the sun. Your periapsis is about at the height of Kerbin, your apoapsis is as far out as Eeloo. With time passing normally or with regular time-warp, you wouldn't get an intercept with any planet during your next orbit, but of course after many orbits you will end up in the SOI of either Duna, Jool, Eeloo, Kerbin or even Dres. Which planet this will be and after how many orbits it will happen is mathematically predetermined by your orbit and the current alignment of the planets. For some reason you make the calculations and then find out that you don't want to go to that planet. Well, with the non-time time-warp you wouldn't have to. By warping at certain points in time, for certain periods and with certain warp factors, you could change your position in relation to the planets at will. If you want to make an encounter happen, but you wouldn't normally reach the SOI of this body fast enough, you could speed up your ship alongside your orbit to reach the planet in time. If you want to avoid an intercept, you can warp past the body quickly, before its SOI has the chance to intersect with your orbit ... From the sun-orbit I initially described, you could freely decide to go to Duna, Dres, Jool, Eeloo, back to Kerbin, or just orbit the Sun forever - just using non-time time-warp and ... without spending a single drop of fuel! Yes, in empty space, non-time time-warp wouldn't alter your orbit, just speed it up, but in a system populated with other physical bodies, it would change your position and trajectory in relation to said bodies. And this is what completely brakes orbital mechanics. (Hope this made any sense :P)

This is not an issue anymore. In the current version you can mark any KSP version as compatible and then CKAN will let you install each mod compatible with these versions as well.

Unless you play on a console, you should really try out the Outer Planets Mod. The innermost planet it adds (which is probably just where you want your second gas giant to be) is a gas giant with a moon that has a thick atmosphere and water oceans - so this one could be considered "Laythe-like". They are not called Poseidon and Amazonia (their names are Sarnus and Tekto), but this part shouldn't be a deal-breaker

Damn ... I've been hoping for a way to procedurally generate a fresh Kerbol system for each new playthrough, but this here is ... a few sizes bigger. Awesome job in creating this, now I need to find some more spare time ... a lot more spare time

I've just run into the same error. Is it possible that the outer stock system data is simply not compatible with OPM? After all, both mods modify the same region of space and OPM adds its own asteroids there.

I assume the planets will be real-scale by default?

Just imagine what had happened, if the "moon" had actually hit the car and the poor guy/gal had to describe the incident to their insurance: "I was totally not drunk, but my car got crushed by the moon!"

Crashes usually only happen to me when I'm alt-tabbed out. They happen often enough to stop me from alt-tabbing out and make me browse the web from my smartphone instead, while KSP is running. Some of them might be mod-related, because once it crashed right after a KAC-alarm. Yesterday, when I clicked on the "Space Center" button while from my active ship, my game windows just disappeared without producing any crash logs or error messages. I use timewarp very "economically" and always have about 5-10 missions going simultaneously and I tend to switch ships quite often. There are dozens of satellites in orbits within the Kerbin SOI and also some bases on various bodies. Ships don't tend to leave the VAB with less than 150 parts. I'm very careless about dropping debris and I don't deorbit or terminate it either, so there is quite a lot of junk up there. I also have ~150 persistent asteroids visible from my tracking station (don't ask me what I need those for, I can't really tell you). Before launching new missions I usually spend about 1-2 hours in the VAB/SPH, because I tend to design individual vehicles from scratch for all but the most generic missions. I normally don't play around constructing ships if I don't intend to launch those afterwards (so I spend most of my time outside of KSC buildings). My main (career) save is still from 0.90 (I generally put a lot of playtime into a single save and don't restart very often). Currently, I only have 14 mods installed. My system is fairly decent, with 32GB ram, a water-cooled 12-core i7 @3,3GHz (not overclocked) and a GTX 980ti. I play KSP on Windows 10.

Why is "Kerbol" not an option? You do know, that stranding Kerbals in eccentric, inclined Kerbol orbits is actually a thing, don't you?

A workmate told me about the game (I think it was on the day when there was a partial eclipse in germany and we were naturally talking about astronomic stuff). My first thought was something like "Omg, finally a space game that's just about peaceful exploration/science/technology instead of being focussed on PvP-combat like all the other space games out there! I've been looking for something like this for years!" Back then it was only 20€ (because still 0.90), so there was not really anything I could have done wrong with the purchase, so I bought it instantly - and did not regret it (actually the playtime I got out of the game thus far, for that price, makes the purchase feel a bit like theft )

Well, I don't have too many mods installed (yet ...), only like 10-15, but my KSP takes about 20 seconds to load from the SSD, so I'd say an SSD definitely helps with loading times.

Small Landing Gear has received major changes in 1.1 (new model + mechanics overhaul). Apparently the new version is not downward-compatible with 1.0.5, but if you just use your regular version on your ships now and then install 1.1, it should update the gear correctly. (No refunds )

1700m already? Good to know, whenever I use my leftover LF to slow down with LV-Ns during atmospheric reentry, I always worry that they might become too inefficient until I need them. Apparently I don't really need to worry about that anymore ^^ Yes, I have used LV-Ns on a spaceplane myself, but at ~25km+ I didn't really feel like I would have needed gimbal capability up there (my spaceplanes keep failing for various other reasons, though ). Well, different players play differently I was taking about the poster above me. Well, it is "master", not "mistress"

Honestly, thrust vectoring on LV-Ns is pretty unnecessary. Engine gimbal is mainly needed in situations where your ships needs a lot of turning torque (to keep it stable in an atmosphere at high speeds, especially while performing a gravity turn, etc.). LV-Ns are intended as orbital transfer engines with low acceleration. Due to their pathecially low efficiency in an atmosphere, you will only use them, when there is no drag to counteract with your ship's torque, so basic reaction wheels will suffice (those will also have sufficient electric power while some LV-Ns are running). LV-Ns also don't have a very high thrust, so they won't put a lot of stress on your ship that could make it unstable, so again, you won't need thrust vectoring to hold your direction while only LV-Ns are running.