Bej Kerman

Let me rephrase myself, doesn't making metastable MH count as an engineering challenge? [snip] - something that doesn't exist as opposed to metastable MH, something that might exist.

Well, its a rocket using "a material with certain properties exists, which almost definitely does not exist ". The performance specs are intentionally vague. Sounds like something that'd go under engineering challenges.

What is a "pixie dust rocket"?

SAS would really help you fly that thing

@[username]

Try again, you can still go without comms and electrics if you don't need maneuver nodes and if you use engines and/or RCS instead of reaction wheels.

Go to Keostationary orbit, time warp 1,000x, surface camera mode

Yeah, but allowing players to run at different warp is unsolvable. Never mind the re-simulation, you just can't get causality right. If I time-warp to tomorrow and dock with the station, doing the math to simulate it forward a day is pretty straight forward. But if another player who hasn't time-warped then goes to the station, collides with it, and destroys it, they've still done "yesterday" from my game's perspective. So now my game learns that the station has been destroyed after I've already docked to it. Oops. Ask the developer of Dark Multiplayer how to deal with this. I don't know how DMP solves paradoxes (reverts to docked player's instance of the station when attacker unloads station and syncs with docked player?), but it's good enough for KSP.

I mean a la DMP. Rather than a la No Man's Sky. Where any or all players can log off and have a life, and the Kerbals on the way to the mun continue on their journey. I can't understand why you wouldn't mind the game continuously running after you log off. I want to log off and have a life, not pick between my Kerbals either ploughing into the Mun or swinging away, or living my own life and having to set up another mission.

What a ridiculous and obviously false statement Care to explain why? How did you determine this? How can you argue in favor of this statement in a way that wouldn't be equally valid by just replacing "unicorn farts that we can use as rocket fuel" with "metallic hydrogen that is metastable at low pressure"? We've got enough data to tell that there's no fuelling unicorn farts. We haven't got enough data to determine if MH can be MS at LP. Besides, I never said that I know for sure that LPMSMH exists.

Confirmed; the thing causing the issue is Restock. If you are having this issue, remove your restock mods! Cheers! Since transferring your KSP purchase to Steam prevents you from downloading patchers from the website and my modded install is external, looks like I'll be sticking to cargo bays and the procedural fairings mod for a while.

Out of the only green text I managed to decipher against the blazing white background, only the bottom 3 things are unrealistic. Correct me if I'm wrong, this text is really hard to read.

Said image: I am experiencing the same issue too. Might be Restock.

Take the helmet off, or bash it open with a crowbar.

Didn't believe you until I saw the image

Nope. Why would they have to? It wouldn't be too useful, but would still be a fun feature to see as a patch or a mod.

It's not Handwavium because it's an abstraction - it's stats are similar to multiple existing fuels, if not quite the same as any one of them. Therefore instead of having the two dozen or so existing fuels (and associated engines, tanks, etc) in KSP, we have one that is roughly the same as all of them. It's stats are realistic, just not real. No problems are being handwaved away, they're just being simplified for gameplay. MH is explicitly trying to be real, and there's no real-world counterpart. All the problems with it are being handwaved away. Exactly. It isn't handwavium in the sense that it isn't something that can't exist. It's just a generic stand in for existing fuels to make designing rockets less needlessly difficult. Except that we've checked if there's no unicorn farts that can be used as rocket fuel. Spoiler alert, there's no unicorn farts that we can use as rocket fuel. I hope you're not expecting a comedy award for this. Precisely.

Whatever You get my point. Metallic Hydrogen may be impossible, but you can't be certain.

I doubt KSP 2 will have much in the way of Kdrives.

What about Liquid Fuel, Monopropellant, Oxidizer etc? It's called Liquid Fuel, not Grassanium. Liquid Fuel is clearly a stand in for many fuel types that power chemical engines. Metallic Hydrogen is magic in the same way that controlled explosions propelling cylinders to space is magic to people who existed centuries ago.

What would Handwavium be doing in a KSP game? Metallic hydrogen is one thing, made up stuff is another. But KSP isn't just a game.

Then everyone else has to suffer performance drops and storage usage increase.

A game mimicking a space agency... Regardless, you don't need 100 people and giant monitors to control KSP, despite that being the case for a real agency.

I learned that this wasn't true they hard way in Beyond Home, I also learned that the tree hitboxes don't line up perfectly with trees to my Kohm probes demise. Karma

But it is a new game and not just an iteration of KSP 1. It doesn't make sense for KSP 2 to be called version 2.0 despite actually being on version 1.0.