Bej Kerman

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.

Still at 10%. Meanwhile on another thread made more than half a year later, someone casually writes theoretical code for a blade noise in a message. This is ridiculous

Let's not ramp up tech debt for a small subset of users.

Any luck yet?

Complete release.

They shouldn't spasm. As far as the game is concerned, the parts aren't touching each other (assuming same vessel interaction is off) and the attachment nodes are a distance away. Have you tried autostrut, Kerbal Joint Reinforcement or just lots of struts? Edit: Did you try it without clipping? Correlation =/= cause

Literally Unlaunchable. Added a booster, that booster was the difference between a new probe and a bankrupt space center.

I beg to differ. 'Higher quality' is subjective but in this case I think that if a feature is more nicely integrated into the game and is at least as nice to use then it's higher quality. To cite a few examples, in no particular order: - Delta-v readouts/orbital information - rather than being scattered around the screen in floating windows like they are for KER, this information is smoothly integrated into the UI, making it look and feel nicer than the mod alternative. "They look shiny" =/= better The update rate is very slow and information is limited, not only that but the stock readouts frequently freeze and won't show Delta-V until the editor is reloaded. That's an exception, even if all Squad did was clone a button. Less buggy? Btw, 0.5t magnetoboom Really depends on the aesthetic you want. Irrelevant, modders can often implement things better and smoother than the devs. Case in point, Mk2 parts.

Yes. As I said, still a blurry line.

That hasn't been true since 1.6. Most things before 1.4 weren't done by mods before (Docking ports, fuel transfer, science experiments), were better versions of mods (Asteroids and Re-entry FX) or, like with the Mk2 parts, mods sent straight into the vanilla release. Now everything since 1.6 is something done by a mod, but better by the mod, from suit customisation, decals, science experiments, etc. to the part retexturing and Hyperedit. I guarantee you, open source KSP would be the best thing since leaves started being put into boiling water.

Depends on the speed and how you've set your landing gear.If you come in with a very low vertical speed, you can touch down with wheels and brake.

The clipping is irrelevant. What is relevant is what part of the atmosphere and at what speed you're detaching.

If it was ever considered feasible in real life, even if not ultimately used, then I think most would consider that to be a "conventional" rocket, but if you still don't feel comfortable with the challenge then I would politely suggest it may be preferable to avoid it rather than aggressively questioning a newer member of the community. Still a blurry line. That describes basically 99% of all rockets. Not sure anyone has ever attempted a fastest to orbit challenge without control.

Well it's clearly not. That would be a much simpler rule than a vague word that has no grasp in a world where the Space Shuttle existed and had about 50 variations designed before construction, like the one where a booster carried a disk and another with a hammerhead fairing on top of the big red tank.

Yes, as has been discussed quite a lot already in this thread, KSP1 doesn't really have any time management gameplay and doesn't have game-time costs for anything. And that's for the better.

Metallic hydrogen is not magic. Its also not metastable, and won't stay metallic when pressure drops below something like 415 GPa according to latest experimental results. No theoretical prediction since the 1970's suggests metastability of MH. This relates to an inherent property of the material, don't tell me future tech will solve that, unless you're willing to tell me that future tech will allow pure fresh water to exist in liquid form in a vacuum. Therefore you can't make a rocket using metallic hydrogen as the propulsion unless: 1) your tank mass fraction is ridiculous (containing a layer of diamond wrapped in carbon nanotubes), giving performance orders of magnitude worse than chemical rockets, also all your thrust comes in one explosive decompression (not what they showed) or 2) you cast purple space magic to make a tank with a magically high strength to weight ratio(orders of magntiude more than needed for a space elevator on Earth) to keep the hydrogen compressed, that somehow doesn't apply to other parts in the game, also all your thrust comes in one explosive decompression (not what they showed) or 3) you cast purple space magic to put a magic force field around the metallic hydrogen so that it can flow into the engine to provide continuos thrust, and its stored in a normal container that is not obscenely strong and orders of magnitude stronger than what is needed to make a space elevator on Earth. - This seems to be what they've done. Then on top of that, they have their ridiculous PSM^2 vacuum engine. They cast a different shade of purple space magic to allow them to magnetically confine the exhaust by doping it with Cesium, despite the fact that if the hydrogen were bonded to the cesium, the MW would be horrible and its Isp would be worse than the non-vacuum version that mixes the exhaust with water. Metallic hydrogen undergoing decompression and phase change would not get hot enough to ionize the hydrogen. So the PSM^2 vacuum engine must first cast a purple space magic spell to make metallic hydrogen metastable, then cast a different shade of purple space magic to magically magnetically confine the hydrogen exhaust. This last one is particularly eggregious, since they could get a high Isp "vacuum version" without adding another layer of space magic: just dilute the exhaust with liquid hydrogen instead of water, TWR is lower, but Isp is higher. Why do they need to add yet another layer of space magic on to the engine? I don't have a phobia of the future, which is why I am only objecting to the PSM and PSM^2 engines, since we know they won't work. I'm all for Orion engines, gas core/nuclear lightbulb engines, starwisps, various types of fusion engines, etc. Those other engines (which happen to be the interstellar ones) are just difficult engineering problems, but the science says they should work (but how well, and how small can you make them- scale being particularly important for the fusion engines)... the PSM engines on the other hand, science indicates that these are a no-go. All that and no citation.

You're still not drawing a line. Can you actually define what you want? Because there is no such thing as a "conventional rocket", no matter how many blurry lines you draw.