ARS

Basically my standard KSP "unboxing" procedure whenever new version comes up: -install it -play sandbox -see if there's new parts -try it a bit -5 minutes later... Time to go back to my heavily missed orbital base

On the other hand... The boarding sequence on spaceship is based from boarding party from naval warfae in the past (I've already explained this in my previous post about space=ocean). Hell, most of the "standard spaceship battle sequence" in most movies is basically almost similar with age of sail naval tactics: both ships trying to get into each other's broadside range before unleashing barrage against each other and exchanging boarding parties then see who'll last. Rinse and repeat until one of them subverted under the other's control or just plain blown up

HRP (Heat Resistant Parts, already discontinued since 1.0.5), which adds heat resistant version of stock parts, colored in nice "black titanium color scheme" texture, which is amazingly well made, perfect for stealth fighters. The black parts are configured for resisting excessive heat, with a ridiculously high heat tolerance of 100.000.000, perfect for testing maximum speed of a craft when stock parts just burned away by drag heating. Despite already discontinued, it's still mostly usable even in current version of KSP. The only non-usable part is landing gears, which does not function anymore. It's also one of my first manually installed mod

Poles can mess up your camera orientation if you abuse it by standing a kerbal directly on it. Watch @Danny2462's videos. He's perhaps the only KSP player who managed to kill a kerbal by using pole (not a stick, an actual planetary pole) But I agree with you that there should be a navigational reference for poles, but as @The Aziz said, sticking a flag on poles already accomplished that, not to mention being viewable in tracking station and miles away from it's general proximity

Well, it's not even loli, more like highschool. Each school is divided into "themes" based on the composition of their tanks, such as Germans, Soviets, British, Americans, etc. But if you can get past that, the tanks are faithfully recreated. Interiors, appearance, terminology, tactics and even muzzle flash is depicted correctly (except for some "unconventional" tactic they pulled off). The main focus is tanks, not some cliches often seen on love or fanservice animes. The world is based on tanks, as even cafes, painting, and culture is based from tanks. Wait until you see Yukari's room... In fact, it becomes promotional media for World of Tanks in Japan, with the staff even watching it and consulted by anime director for tank reference used in the movie If you like tanks or armored warfare in general, I highly recommend watching it. The battle is fast-paced and full of nerdy stuff for tank enthusiast Oh, and BTW, my favorite tank in GuP is IS-2, KV-2 and Carro Veloce CV33

I prefer seinen series though, my favorite would be Arpeggio of Blue Steel, Girls und Panzer, High School Fleet and Date a Live

I'll just say meh to the challenge system. The charm of KSP is "construction is awesome", not presented with challenge. 3 years playing KSP and I still enjoy doing a lot of stuff with much more sense of achievement than "challenge", which is basically glorified contract. IMO, they should presented it as contract maker tool or better yet, do reverse contract, you ask agencies to do stuff for science, funds or reps (it's not 100 percent successful, to prevent being gamebreaking) I would like to agree with you Integrate many siple, yet extremely useful mods, such as Dv readout, we need that stock We need at least another version of nuke, ion, and hybrid engine. Stock version doesn't seem to offer much, which makes a problem when trying to specialize the ship for specific mission profile, which leads to us resorting to mods. Wolfhound is ridiculously broken The only parts that I appreciated is vostok capsule, nothing more. Since it's very rare yo find KSP mod that contains spherical capsule with IVA. The last that I saw having IVA is HomeGrown Rocket, which has been discontinued You know what I want to see? A type of fuel tank that no one ever thought? Segmented SRB. Basically, separate the SRBs, so it becomes a solid rocket motor and bunch of solid fuel blocks. Makes it easier to build properly-sized SRBs and stacking more solid fuel blocks leads to longer burn time (still being unstoppable once being lit, no thrust control in-flight, and cannot be asparagus-staged)

I love anime. Every 3 months is like a new experience for me

2 Prevalent sci-fi aspects (in space): Artificial gravity: In almost ANY space sci-fi, articial gravity generation is almost always depicted as if it's a generator inside a ship, which "somehow" decided that there's a "down" direction, as if the starship's floor becomes magnetized to just about anything above it (not just metal). In real life, there's a design for artificial gravity ring for spaceships. However, the common mistake is it's often depicted that, as long as it spins, WHOLE ship is affeted, which, in reality, only the outermost ring will have a gravity. Also, a single ring usually does not produce an optimal gravity in regards to the ship's stability. An optimal solution would be a second ring that'll counter-rotate against the first ring to cancel the first ring's torque, which could roll the spaceship and compromising it's stability. Virtually all Sci-Fi space ships have some form of artificial gravity. The technology behind this is never quite explained. In Space Opera, artificial gravity is the last thing that breaks when a ship is damaged. You might have lost shields, weapons, drive systems, and half the hull, but things will still fall when dropped. This makes a certain degree of sense (of plot), as fixing a ship while floating around helplessly would probably take much longer. Artificial gravity is also essential for long-term flights, for if you spend too long in Zero G, then your muscles will become a painful, squishy mush once you get back to regular gravity. One major reason for this in live action is that the only reasonable way to simulate zero gravity without leaving Earth entirely involves something called parabolic flying in cargo aircraft (such as NASA's "Vomit Comet"), which costs a lot of money, only gives you about thirty seconds of zero G at a time, and isn't the world's best thing to build a set in (although that's exactly what they did for the film Apollo 13 and the series Space Odyssey. The biggest obstacle to this technology in Real Life is our sense of motion. Your ears are very good at sensing motion and gravity (it's how you balance) and while you're being centrifuged, you're subject to the Coriolis Effect, and so if you happen to turn your head to look left or right, you'd be so overcome with motion sickness you'd throw up. The benefits of gravity simply didn't justify the extravagant cost that designing a spinning space station would require. Especially considering they'd have to design it to handle emergency situations that would necessitate the station to stop moving; in other words, everything would have to be designed to operate in two modes. This would have made the project several hundreds to several thousands of times more expensive than it already would be. NASA and other space programs simply weren't willing to design what would essentially be a multi-billion dollar failure-prone space puke bucket. According to general relativity, it might be possible to induce, through Einstein's general relativity, a spacetime metric that allows for gravity inside a bounded volume, with little effect outside. Evidence points, however, to it taking a ludicrously large amount of negative energy (similar to the quantities required for wormholes and warp drives, which is several Jupiter masses for most useful purposes). Fortunately there's actually some wiggle room, since the particulars of the relations between gravity and quantum theory are not perfectly understood. A writer can simply say "figuring out how M/Superstring/Hologram/blahblahblah worked, revealed an easier way to get artificial gravity (and warp, since they're related)". We can, however, in a trivial sense, perfectly simulate Earth's gravity with as little as one Earth mass... just look at Earth. This also means that smaller, denser things could have the same gravitational pull as Earth. Compared to the alternative, this is actually more plausible at this time. Some hypothetical designs for interplanetary vessels would use steady acceleration to simulate gravity. Such vessels would rotate 180 degrees halfway through their journey, flipping the engines to decelerate and the floors to correspond with simulated "down". This also has the advantage of allowing relatively rapid interplanetary travel, taking only days or maybe weeks (if you're traveling out to Pluto or someplace really far), instead of years as it does now. The downside is that the power output from the engine would be gargantuan (meaning that if the engine has any sort of heat leakage, it will likely vaporize from the sheer heat). Real-life engines are generally either high-thrust/low-exhaust-velocity (like the Space Shuttle) or low-thrust/high-exhaust-velocity (like with ion drives). Such a ship would need to be high-thrust (in order for there to be a decent sense of acceleration), and high-exhaust-velocity (in order to get to such high speeds. Accelerating at 1 g for a week equals out to about six thousand kilometers per second, which is ridiculous). Large space: In science fiction media, both smaller spacecraft and larger starships or interstellar spacecraft revel in their unnecessary use of on-board space. Passageways will be broad with high ceilings. The bridge will be an expansive multilevel complex paneled with floating viewscreens and control panels. Crew quarters will be as spacious as a suite at the Plaza. Compare this to Real Life military and commercial ships, where efficient use of space is a major engineering priority. Every cubic meter of volume should be dedicated to storing and sustaining as many finite resources and support systems as possible. This will be especially critical in spacecraft, which will be extremely isolated systems, and the only resources available will be those carried on board. The nearest port may be months or years away. Therefore, sustaining a space the size of a gymnasium that's manned by only five people and only stores one day's worth of snacks(!) is a major waste of resources on a military vessel. Airships are a notable exception in that they actually need seemingly large, wasteful interiors in order to facilitate weight distribution to the hull. The original designs for Project Orion were intended to be quite roomy. The nature of the Orion Drive meant that larger vessels were more efficient: a "nuclear pulse drive" operates by detonating two nuclear bombs per second behind the ship. Saving mass and wasted space wasn't really a concern. Saturn by '69! Some of the designers notes even included a list of ways that they could possibly increase the mass of the ship (to better withstand the nuclear shockwaves it would be riding. If the ship's mass is too light, it cannot withstand the explosion behind it and could be destroyed) Some of the ideas were things like "two-ton barber chair" and "arbitrarily large communication system". On the other hand... After two decades of cramped capsules, the Space Shuttle might have seemed like this. Mind you, it wasn't all that roomy: most of the Shuttle's space (hahaha, pun intended) was given over to cargo; the actual crew compartment was, in effect, a very large capsule, one which was very quickly filled to capacity (seven), substantially reducing the roominess (although still much-improved over Apollo and Gemini). Meanwhile... The International Space Station has 837 cubic metres of pressurized volume. Or 139.5 per person, when fully staffed with a crew of 6. Especially when you compare it with everything else launched before: Mir and Skylab for example were each just about a third the size of the ISS. A purely mathematically efficient use of space might have a detrimental effect on the mental health and well-being of the crew (Hello Kerbalism), especially if spaceships are out of port for a very extended period of time. To give a more interesting real life case, the Soviet/Russian Akula/"Typhoon" class submarines (all but one has now retired) had a swimming pool, sports facilities, a sauna and a smoking room, since the subs could spend at least 180 days submerged at a time. Ballistic missile-carrying submarines are noted for their attention to crew comfort. If you want cramped, look at modern hunter/killer submarines or go back to World War II subs (watching Das Boot will give you an idea of how ridiculously claustrophobic these are). The Akula/Typhoon sub mentioned above is actually an exception. It is, in fact, a very inefficient design, nicknamed "water tanker", due to most of its size being just empty space: its outer hull is a thin shell covering an awkward assembly of pressure hulls and capsules, forced by truly enormous size of its missiles. And then its designers thought: "Hey, if we have to make the damn sub so huge anyway, why don't we spend some of this space on crew amenities?". This ended up being perfect for the Typhoon's main mission. It was meant to stay hidden beneath the arctic for weeks or even months in case of a nuclear war. It would surface afterwards, and if the Soviet Union had lost, would launch a retaliatory strike against the U.S.. It was discovered that submarine crew could not handle regular cramped quarters that long and would suffer psychological and physical health problems. It may also be worth noting that in most world navies (including that of the US), nuclear ballistic missile submarines are notable for having the best food in the entire fleet. According to sailors of American Ohio class subs, meals are regularly served that wouldn't seem out of place in gourmet restaurants, prepared by expert chefs from high-quality ingredients (there's a joke that a submarine is the only position in the Armed Forces where one can come back from the battlefield fatter than they'd left). The reason for that is life on a submarine is otherwise so bleak and horrible that if the crew didn't at least get really good food, their morale would plummet...

Yes, but for some reason, the first time I saw the picture it instantly reminds me of the island of Tristan Da Cunha (which is also an isolated island, just like Pitcairn)

Let me guess... Too remote or nothing of strategic importance around?

And the first bystander that passes nearby are forced to play...

I'm seeing a pattern in movies now... It's just like most AAA games today Game: [graphic+DLC] > [story+gameplay] Movie: [CG+plot] > [sensibility+scientific accuracy] Exploding cars is actually quite rare in real life car accidents, the fuel tank rarely leaks in traffic collision (since it's usually placed behind the car, the least likely place to be hit). Sadly, many people treat the "car collision leads to explosion" as if it's serious (thanks to Hollywood) and there's quite a lot traffic collision that ends with the passengers dead because they didn't wear any seatbelt (fearing that seatbelts may hinder them getting out quickly from the car if there's an accident). Race cars DOES have a higher probability to explode when involved in traffic collision since they are usually very light (to maximize speed), fragile and filled to the brim with high performance fuel, but then again, race car drivers are protected by safety systems (rollcage, reinforced driver seat, fireproof race suit, helmet) that's not present on regular cars on the road

1. There's a minimum yield for nuclear device, and the smallest nuclear warhead ever manufactured is Davy Crockett tac nuke. Aside from uranium or plutonium, which has a minimum yield far too large for a grenade-sized device, in theory there are transuranic elements that's theoretically can be used for nuclear grenade, but it'll be ridiculously unreliable since there's a lot of pre-ignition issue and lingering radioactive fallout (the reason why uranium or plutonium used is because they are NOT that radioactive). So yeah, unless the movie takes place where the setting is advanced enough (emphasis on "enough" to make tactical nuclear weapon that fits in your pocket), I find the idea of nuclear grenade is ridiculous 2. Kinda strange, but that's Hollywood science for you. Don't even ask how that's supposed to work, I've seen in a more ridiculous example that apparently drinking vodka makes you resistant enough to radioactive fallout, so much that you can basically strolling around inside Chernobyl nuclear power plant without radiation suit 3. Smoking is bad for health (though I feel that even when you replace cigarette with radiation suit, it doesn't seem to affect the plot at all) 4. When you can make a tiny SSTO to be reliable enough to make the idea of escape pod viable (they're not, and probably never in real life. Space is so dang large and empty, an escape pod gives you a survival scenario so horrible that being instantly vaporized when your ship blew up seems to be a more appealing choice), you can make an orbital missile reliable enough to hit the enemy in space

It's OVER NYAN THOUSAND!!!

Personally, I'm on the border between yes or no. I agree that airplane parts is very lacking compared for rocket parts, which is understandable, considering KSP is a space-themed game. But in order to keep the theme between aircraft and rockets consistent with space, is giving more options for spaceplanes. Currently, spaceplane-specific parts is even more limited than airplane parts. We only have spaceplane parts based from space shuttle. It would be great if there's more spaceplane parts, especially the one based from Buran spacecraft (previously, KSP (in rocket and spaceplane category) has US-based parts, before finally giving Soviet-based parts in making history (just in rocket category) it would be nice to complement it with Soviet-based spaceplane parts

The main issue of multiplayer is, unlike regular multiplayer game, which confines several players in a small world, KSP's world is A LOT larger than most games, and planetary transfer can take days, months or even years. To prevent the game from astronomically boring (pun intended), people just timewarp their way to the desired destination, saving them a lot of time. Just imagine when you implement an "actual" multiplayer timeflow, you've finished a transfer burn to outermost planet and it takes 1 year to reach the destination. Now have fun doing nothing for 1 year waiting for it (which, in real life space program, the long time between planetary transfer is indeed, spent doing... Nothing). As pointed above, people who join for "science" by blowing things up can cause issues (and indeed, since the only available target in stock game is KSC itself, multiplayer presents them with "target rich environment"), but the other problem is people who create ships with insane part count. Not all people have high spec gaming rig for 1500 part ship, a lot of us just use potato computer and running KSP stock purely for fun. When you just want to fly your small jet aircraft, and suddenly your friend flies beside you with 2000 part monster, the sudden lag can cause the game to crash when your potato computer isn't strong enough to handle high part count (game crashing due to high part count is very common problem)

It's not ubernerdism or nitpicking, we understand that some scientific accuracy had to be sacrificed for the sake of the plot, but when the movie treat it's "Hollywood science" as if it's "Legitimate science", then that's what tipped us, since usually, the public's general knowledge about science is from watching TV's, and this could lead to misunderstanding Think this thread like "Everything wrong with...", but from scientific point of view, and sometimes, aside from pointing the inaccuracies (or sins), we provide the reason and/ or explanation about it

They did that?

You're not alone mate, I've seen someone tied a kerbal to an AMRAAM missile, or better yet, tie 2 missiles side by side, launch them, and watch it with laugh

By pitching while inside the atmosphere, you expose more surface area of your craft into atmospheric drag, slowing your craft further, however, it also makes your reentry angle steeper. On the other hand, controlling how much surface area of your craft being exposed with atmospheric drag is crucial in determining whether you can pull off successful aerobrake or your craft getting spinning out of control. Exposing too small surface area would result overshooting your landing site, and exposing too large surface area would result your craft stalling

If you want to know about mods before trying it, you can watch @Kottabos's videos on YouTube to get an in-depth about what's inside the mod (there's a ton of them, literally almost all KSP mods that ever existed is reviewed). Also, you don't have to be online to play KSP, if you're worried about hacker, bitcoin mining, etc, just disconnect your connection, open KSP directory and play from KSP.exe, this way, you can play with mods in offline mode. KSP mod creators usually ask for donation instead of forcing you to pay or use scamming method

Aerobrake several times. Don't commence reentry directly from orbit if you cannot slow your craft enough for precision landing. Aerobrake (lowest point in orbit is inside atmosphere but not getting into the ground) allows you to slow your craft down for a more controlled landing. If you want an extra help, installing Trajectories mod helps a lot since it gives you in-atmosphere rough trajectory estimation where you touchdown

Nice quote about Ghostbusters there

"Making History" yeah, definitely historic. Since in real historic spaceflight, there's no "revert to VAB" But I agree with you, KSP is a game, so at least there should be a feature to load savegame, even a checkpoint autosave is okay, just in case if something goes wrong. Being the 1st DLC of KSP, this lack of feature might put off new players