Bej Kerman

Oh, I hoped you didn't. The story is sad, but seriously though. He was such a racist man, I feel bad for those he insulted.

Yes

I wasn't specifically talking about KSP 2 tech. I was imaging a hypothetical civilziation in which travelling was across the diameter of their home galaxy if it was roughly the size of the Milky way was relatively easy. Comparable to us travelling across the solar system. But since we can travel across the solar system, does not mean we can reach the next star. That leap is alot greater. But a civilization that could travel across the galaxy, would have a much easier time getting to the next one. Maybe not trivial (like if they could do it in a year, then next galaxy would be 100 years, which may be a tough barrier to overcome on a human time scale), but a much less of a leap, than the initial problem of getting across the galaxy or getting to the next star. Travelling between ends of one galaxy and the other, and travelling to the other galaxies is not fundamentally different except for the time it takes, as far as we know. If we could walk to the Moon, there was breathable air and resources along the way, then yes, getting to the Moon would be a piece of cake on a long enough time scale. If the Earth was only two islands separated by a vast ocean, it would be much harder for the two inhabitants on the island to ever meet. Assuming magic exists, it's a piece of cake to survive re-entry naked. But if we stop being silly, then it becomes quite clear you're kidding yourself to think naked re-entry is survivable. I am, of course, making fun of "If we could walk to the Moon, there was breathable air and resources along the way, then yes, getting to the Moon would be a piece of cake on a long enough time scale". But of course, magic doesn't exist, Humans nor Kerbals have FTL and you're being really silly. Again, 5 and a half trips to the Mun is a massive step from circumnavigating the Earth.

Best you can do with KSP 2 tech is 150,000 years to SagA*. Don't be silly. Look... "Going around the world at 0.3 miles a year was easy, going to the Moon 51/2 times should be a piece of cake because the ratios are slightly less astronomical!"

What's the difference between this and Animated Attachments?

4 miles, the length of the Grand National and easily walkable. 50,000 miles, around the world twice. 2.5 million miles, to the Moon and back five times and then back to the moon a sixth time. Barring some kind of magic faster than light drive or the discovery/creation of wormholes, travelling from one galaxy to another is utterly infeasible and dismissing it as ‘only’ a couple of orders of magnitude further than before missed the (quite literally) astronomical distances involved and the impossibly durable spaceships that would be needed in order to make the journey. Pinging from star to star a few light years at a time is much more practical and there are more than enough in the Milky Way alone to make going anywhere else not worth the effort. With a theoretical top speed of 1< mile a year, such a Kerbal feat would be impossible.

Light takes 4 years to reach Proxima, 50,000 years to reach Sagittarius A* and 2.5 million years to reach Andromeda. Do you really think that's not a big leap?

Asteroids aren't planets, just big parts. As such, you can't add biomes, atmospheres, gravity, etc.

Docking is an integral part of the game. Support for silly double monitor setups are not.

Definitely Then there's a squillion fuel tanks and an unhelpful UI, and you can never find what you need.

I think you are over-thinking this. Is there a specific exploit/technique you wish to use to compete in this challenge that you want to discuss? I wouldn't say I'm otherthinking this.

When you do this: The video doesn't make the line any clearer. It's still a blurry line that could get your submission disapproved.

When does using decouplers, sepratrons and aerodynamics become exploiting them?

Seeing as the developers have already announced no changes to the stock Kerbolar system beyond graphical adjustments, it wouldn't make sense for any additional real-life analogues to show up in KSP 2. The only possibility I can see is perhaps loose interpretations of real-world star systems, perhaps the TRAPPIST-1 or Alpha Centauri systems. Depends on if "Kerbol system hasn't been changed" means "KSP 1 objects are untouched" or "Kerbol system is identical to KSP 1's".

Firstly, thank you for trying to help! 1. It's hard for me to say what is and isn't stock at this point as I've been playing with mods since the end of my first week in KSP. I believe** they are stock. They're the Rockomax X200 series. I had them set to Liquid Hydrogen to accommodate the needs of the nuclear engine. 2. I have never touched the settings of KER. I just looked around at some of the buttons at the top of the window and found that the Body is set to Kerbin and the altitude is set to 0km, so I can only assume that means it's set to sea level. 3. Forgive my ignorance, but isn't that what I did? I am clearly misunderstanding you, though, because you wouldn't have said that if it's what I had done. I first tried the "insert image from URL" button in the bottom right and did just that and each time I hit "accept/OK" it just blinked and nothing happened, so I gave up after a minute of trying it, then just pasted the link into the body of the text. What have I done wrong? Seriously, thanks for taking the time to help. 1. Ok 2. DId you actually check to see if altitude sets the pressure or if it just changes the local gravity? Try clicking the Atmospheric tab. 3. That's not the image URL, that's an Imgur URL. Right click the image and click "Copy Image URL".

1. What mod are you using for the tanks? 2. Did you set KER to simulate sea level, and what do the stock readouts say? 3. Copy link address and paste into the message box as so:

Explain what this has to do with anything concerning this thread.

Except for the fact that it would be so little that no one would notice it. Reasonably modern PCs are over-powered for KSP. KSP2 will need a better graphics card but I doubt if I'd need to run out and buy an upgrade for my present mid range one. Technical debt is bad and it will pile on if useless things are requested instead of bug fixes and useful things.

...What in the actual heck is "vaporware"? 2 answers Long answer: Something being developed that never reaches release. Short answer: Google In this case, your mod will probably be updated to 1.11 and 1.12 then die on the spot. There's probably 150+ planets on that list and most modders could only dream of being able to get to 30. If you want my advice, don't share news on your big goals because you could set yourself and others up for disappointment, something Sean learned the hard way.

Try backing up your saves (using a USB and transferring your save files) and reinstalling.

I'm just making a sarcastic statement about how most users would have to take a performance hit and suffer wasted storage if KSP 2 were to have support for multiple monitors for the "master race". As hinted at by many of the comments here, it probably would be more work than what it's worth.

Mine is the tidy parts list, procedural paint jobs (no more rockets with 50 different seamful variants), flight UI, etc. Just the UI being sorted out in general.

Mark my words, this is going to be vaporware in a couple of versions.

The game is perfectly fine with one monitor, it doesn't need pointless bells and whistles to appease the double-monitor master-race. How many people on the reddit and forum do you see wishing for support for extra monitors? Most images from people showing off their setup and people who have no clue when it comes to taking screenshots show one monitor. Besides... https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/poll-do-you-use-more-than-one-monitor/ Does 85% of users (not counting consoles) need to suffer a performance hit so 2 people don't have to push the M key? In fact, KSP 2 might not even have a map mode in a separate screen - you might just have to scroll out.

Install persistent thrust for the next burn then relaunch the game.