TBenz

FFT will be released tomorrow. If FFT is not released tomorrow, please reread this post for an updated timeframe on the release of FFT.

You still need a pretty big battery, but much smaller than you would need without the capacitors. As an example, if you had a battery that holds 9000 ec (enough for 5 minutes) and a capacitor that holds 9000 ec, you could burn through the battery, then dump the ec from the capacitor into the battery. This would weigh a good deal less than a battery with 18000 ec. You can optimize things even more by balancing battery, power use, and capacitors.

It's pretty easy to make your own config file that does this. I whipped the following up in a couple minutes on my phone. Assuming I did get all the syntax right (again, on my phone so I haven't tested it at all), you should be able to use this to do what you want. Just copy this into an empty text file, move that file into the GameData folder that mods are installed in, then change the file extension from '.txt' to '.cfg'. //Increase NR-U1 heat tolerance to 2500k @Part[nflv-cluster-mount-upper-5-1]:AFTER[NearFutureLaunchVehicles] { @maxTemp = 2500 }

AFAIK there is nothing special that covers that protrusion. In general I typically slap a shielded docking port or MK16-XL chute on top. Really any 1.25m part fits up there fine. I've never noticed any major aerodynamic issues with the Pandora, so I don't think that exposed section needs to be covered specially.

Are we trying to give Nertea a heart attack now? Imagine the IVA work...

If there is currently serious research occuring with the goal of establishing the viability of a technology, and that technology would not defy any known physical laws, then I would consider that technology as suitable for KSP2.

Maybe the publisher only cares about "visually impressive", but if the developer wants the game to be a good videogame, they will have to split their attention across multiple priorities: Gameplay, User Interface, Visual Quality, Performance/Stability, and Sound Design. Yes, Intercept has limited resources that they need to assign to various aspects of the game. Some resources spent on this UI feature may mean less resources they can devote to Visual Quality features. However, that is true of any feature not a part of Visual Quality. One of Intercept's jobs is to weigh the pro's and con's of how they assign their resources, and make decisions they believe to best contribute to the player experience. It really should go without saying that any feature will require some amount of resources that then cannot be used on other features. However, that is not a "problem" of the feature itself, it's a fundamental principle of scarcity.

I'd hardly consider that a "problem". So long as multi-monitor isn't required to play the game, the inclusion of it wouldn't negatively impact streamers and their ability to stream.

I'm pretty sure WorldStabilizer is the recommended fix for that issue in OPT. Presumably, it's the same issue here.

The Clamp-O-Tron can be mounted radially, if you want to be able to dock to the sides of station pieces. Or, if you are like me and prefer to only connect modules in a way that makes sense for crew passage, that's what the hub parts are for. I very much doubt Nertea wants to go through the work to remodel these parts just to add dedicated side docking nodes. That's a lot of work for a payoff that many would consider marginal.

So you concede that multiple monitors can be and are useful in the modern world? I'm glad we have that settled.

It's a similar process, but instead of doing the "_disable" step, you change the '@' to a '+' in the part definition and then add a line inside the brackets where you change the name, '@name = some_new_name_here'. The linked document above goes over the process and shows an example in the "Optional: Make Both Available" section at the bottom.

I'm not well versed in Fusion engine principles. Is there a reason that the Impulse has 2 modes, one being both higher ISP and higher thrust than the other? Is there another trade off to that mode, or is that just one of the aforementioned "typos"?

Looks like a H2 tank from Cryo Tanks. It usually just comes bundled with Kerbal Atomics or Cryogenic Engines (the tanks aren't worth much without engines to use their fuel).

From what I can gather, 1.10 made changes to fairings that broke them in all mods, with no easy way for modders to fix the issue. It sounds like Squad hopes to fix this in a future patch (1.10.1?), and so the restock team is waiting for this before they update the mod. If any of this info is wrong, I would appreciate being corrected.

It's about as rational of a response as this thread (or the rotor bashing thing) is.

"Space Program" often refers to a government agency, such as NASA, or Roscosmos. I haven't seen it formally defined one way or another, but an argument could be made that "Space Program" is a distinctly governmental affair, and private space companies are just private space companies. Either way, it's clear that these Kerbals were launched by private companies, seeing as how you get the missions to recover them from the exact same private companies. And whether or not you might refer to these private companies as "space programs", they don't seem like the type of entities that would be racing you to the Mun at great expense for nothing more than bragging rights.

They have said several times that they plan/hope to continue support and development for KSP 2 much the same as what KSP 1 received. And that is really starting to become the norm. "Games as a service" (providing regular updates either as purchasable DLC, or freely in the hopes of driving other micro transactions) is becoming the thing to do these days. I'm hoping that KSP 2 isn't monetized as heavily as some of these other games (reasonably priced expansions with adequate content is perfectly fine). But unless something bad happens and it just tanks at or shortly after launch, I think it's safe to assume that KSP 2 will receive regular free updates and paid expansions.

According to Nate Simpson, they haven't.

Engines aren't defined solely by their vacuum ISP. We need to consider atmospheric performance, thrust weight ratios, fuel availability, tank requirements. While I'm no expert on speculative rocket engines, I'd imagine that NTRs hold a different niche than a metallic hydrogen rocket, and the two aren't simply interchangeable. Also, I'd be very surprised if there weren't a variety of NTRs already planned for KSP 2.

Orbital Dry Dock. ODD [I tried posting this twice before on mobile and nothing appeared to have happened. So, if there end up being three copies of this post, that's why.]

That's a fantastic enough acronym that I can almost forgive it for not being exactly 3 letters long.

Orbital Dry Dock. ODD. There, Star Theory, now make it happen.

I'd definitely rank "you only experience the gravitational pull of one celestial body at a time" higher on the suspension of disbelief list. Apparently gravity in the Kerbal universe is an inherently 2-body problem.

A major departure from the completely non-magical "liquid fuel" we had before that worked efficiently and universally across practically all engines, from bipropellant rockets, to air breathing jet engines, to a nuclear thermal rocket.