Jonfliesgoats

Gaarst, that was awesome! With regard to it being a game, this is one of the ways in which one has fun with a game. So my young system idea is all wrong. Is it safe to say Kerbin is closer to the center of their galaxy (I hereby dub the galaxy "The Gooey Way")? Also, we have dense planets, but not dense stars?

Fly north or south along the terminator (which will require a northwest or southwest ground track. As soon as you cross the pole you have gone from riding dawn to riding dusk. This is more difficult than simply making an endurance flight, but more interesting. I have done this in stock with a panther powered plane cruising high at about eight hundred meters per second. You make natural course corrections to compensate for coriolis effects by simply riding the terminator.

i used RCS ports and wings attached to AGUs to get flapping. I have not been able to maintain altitude through flapping yet. Once I get any kind of warping of surfaces to generate forward thrust, my craft becomes too inefficient and slowly loses altitude. I then figured my RCS thrusters were fighting me by vectoring a wee bit of thrust against me as the wings warped. now, back at square one, I still can't get adequate flapping. I hear in 1.2 landing gear can act upon its own craft again. That would make things much easier when it comes to consoles.

1.). We can see a gassy cloud roughly aligned with the equatorial plane of the Kerbol system. Initially I thought this was the light of countless stars like our own Milky Way. However, its uniform distribution around the equatorial plane makes me think we are actually seeing the remnants of the accretion disc which gave birth to our fake star system. 2.) Celestial bodies are dense. They are one tenth the size of RSS bodies with similar gravities. This means that Kerbol is likely you Gr and faster burning than our sun. It is possible that this means the outer portion of the accretion disc is not finished coalescing. 3.) it seems there are many unknown objects large enough and radar reflective enough to be tracked by the tracking station in KSP. Kerbin may have only recently ended its heavy bombardment period. This would also explain the large impact craters whic have not eroded away. This also supports a young star system theory. 4.). A young, dense hot burning star would emit lots of radiation. This explains why it's feasible for Kerbals to be autotrophs, tolerate radiation in space for extended periods of time, etc. They evolved in a young, energy-rich star system. I cant explain why Kerbol, as a young, dense, fast burning star does not make the planets of Kerbol orders of magnitude hotter than they are. Also, galaxies are visible without any magnification. This would affect Kerbals in their view of themselves, their position within the universe etc. Not to mention that proximity to so many other galaxies means we have not had time for the Kerbal universe to expand to the vast scales we see IRL. So the Kerbal universe itself may be young.

What about a massless fake planet at those Lagrange points? 0g would exist all radii from the SOI com. Those fake Lagrange points could move on rails, like other planets. The problem with this can be observed in the Jool system. Imagine how you would have to manipulate Lagrange points around the many moons of Jool! The idea of having Lagrange points in Kerbin but not in the Jool system isn't acceptable since the Lagrange points in Jool would be fantastically useful for developing Joolian infrastructure. Having exploitable lagrange points in one system and not the other wood feel strange. Having fixed Lagrange points in Jool where nearby moons magically don't perturb your orbit would feel strange too. If KSP 2.0 ever gave physics to celestials, then we'd have good Lagrange points. Current computers would turn into puffs of purple smoke, though.

I don't think the PC a community gets better attention by will. There is less money to be gained in the PC market than in consoles, so a decision to deliberately forego tending to to consoles would be very silly. I think the disparity in attention is really a function of corporate history at Squad and ease of access. Devs all learn to work on PCs. When was the last time you saw a kid working directly on Xbox code? So the disparity in attention is organic to the product rather than a silly decision to neglect a lucrative market(s). That said, I think we answer our own questions. The worst thing Squad or FT could do is dribble a stream of marginal updates and patches, having a buggy game retain its bugs like they did in the pre release process on PC. The console market would be shot! They are flirting with lawn-darting their console business already. Any team with decent management would announce they are working on the problem and stay mum until a functional repair is definitely ready. Considering that the new version of KSP has not made it to consoles yet, I suspect the effort to fix bugs is integrated into making sure they provide a really good port and release to consoles rather than patch up an older version.

I haven't been able to do mods since .90. Now I am on console. That said I googled the mods you guys were suggesting, and I have to say I am kind of impressed.

Very laggy after a certain point.

Yup. Consoles here. Not as good as PC, but this what I have now.

The problem with direct reference to particular programs is that you can't stop. India, China are good suggestions. What about Iran or Japan? What about SpaceX, Blue Origin, ULA, ESA, USAF, Stratolaunch, Lockheed, Boeing, McDonnel Douglas, Consilidated Vultee, Scaled Composites, Bigelow, etc? I started a thread asking for soviet parts a while back, but I appreciate the difficulties faced by Squad in trying to keep all happy with these references. Perhaps has DLC?

There is clearly a demand for sharing craft ideas and designs. Look at KerbalX! In a multiplayer online version of KSP, I could envision well-funded, but lower tech players saving enough funds to buy vehicles with improved tech that are sold by other players. This would be similar to COTS efforts by NASA. This also allows players to buy lifters to get payloads into orbit. The ability to do so is a nice middle ground between contracting other players to lift your payloads and launching all payloads yourself with lifters that are available to you. Craft purchased from other players could not be modified in the VAB/SPH except for action groups/staging.

I want these too.

Cooler than a ROSCOSMOS flag: Korolev Kerman could be an advisor in the VAB. Sure it's a last name as a first name, but people would get the reference. He could be the Kerbal UI to get detailed engineering data regarding your craft (DV per stage, drag coefficients, etc.). Korolev Kerman for an engineeri UI in the VAB and Kelly Kerman (male Kelly) in the SPH as a nod to Kelly Johnson. That would put people into nerd-rapture.

It's an old video. I haven't been able to do it in Xbox yet. Has anyone else had luck? I am on console, to answer your questions. I thought we could attach things to wheels again in 1.2?

Says a few remaining, geriatric Americans. Seriously, though, all these programs have things to be proud of.

I've asked for it before, but a Wind Tunnel mode which provides all kinds of data would be nice.

Active volcanism or cryovolcanism! Also the ability to get science from digging below the surface of a body.

Performance aside, weather would be a decent addition to the game. Rain would add a small, but noticeable amount of weight to vehicles. Temperature variation would affect engine efficiency for jets, rockets and props. Wind on a large rocket would require more work from reaction wheels or even RCS to maintain a trajectory below the troposphere. This all adds some common sense elements of consideration for vehicles that can just get into LKO with single-digit reserves of DV.

I like the idea of investing in recovery infrastructure, maritime or otherwise. I think it should actually replace recovery transponders nun the admin building.

It would save me so much trouble to be able to export data from a flight recorder directly to excel!

Super nerds, rejoice! We can compare our in flight performance to formulae and get super accurate reentry vehicles or even projectile intercepts! Here is Tauber's excellent work: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19880010028.pdf

I like the ability to recover for full funds at different space centers. While you have to transport a craft from, say, Muroch Dry Lake to Cape Canaveral, it's not like you have to figure out how to helicopter wreckage out of some forest in Siberia. Going beyond crew, I think an exponential increase in recovery cost and time should occur with vessel mass. Plucking a Mk1 capsule out of the wilderness is no big deal. Recovering 20 tons of orbiter that has descended to Kerbin under a jelly-fish-nightmare of parachutes should be much more expensive and time consuming, proportionate to part cost. Anything that increases the incentive to land accurately is good.

Funds to recover is a good idea.

I landed probes on Duna. I haven't been elsewhere in the Kerbol System since I played on PC. Props for putting a plane on Duna. Was it a glider, or did you use rocket power with it?

I found an answer to my question.