razark

Interesting. I wouldn't mind seeing a mechanic like that after a crash/flight failure. (Problem then becomes: What is a crash and how do you detect it as opposed to player's intent?) However, I'm not sure how I like it being attached to reverts. For me, reverts are needed for the bugs/design failures in the program more so than any player based failures. I'm happy to accept my own screw-ups, but I need revert for when KSP acts up.

By capturing it. A puts enough people with guns on the land to keep B's people with guns off of it. Edit: The simple version is: If A can impose their rules on the land, and prevent B from imposing their rules, they've captured the land. What happens after the conflict ends is up to diplomats and the treaties they negotiate. Sometimes A keeps the land. Sometimes B gets it back. Sometimes, other outcomes are possible. It all depends on who is "winning" at the end, and who is willing to give up what in the name of peace. This was generally true until the middle of the 20th century, at which point things seem to have changed quite a bit. Since "until the middle of the 20th century" is over 99% of human history, it's a bit soon to say exactly how things will go in the future, and how well the concept of an International Community sticks.

I love the Final Frontier mod. It makes the Kerbals feel like something more than just an additional, completely interchangeable part. The game is named after them, they should feel more like individuals, not "stage two, fuel tank #5". In addition, I built my own system where I assign them certain individual, semi-randomized (but completely useless) information, track their missions and roles, enforce a crew rotation, and can retire them from active flight status.

Failure can be very interesting and fun. Dealing with potential or actual failures is a very large part of spaceflight that's completely missing from KSP. In game, part of the challenge can be how to make a profit off of a lost mission. Maybe you didn't reach your goal, so ask yourself "What else can I do now?". There's a mod, TestFlight, that causes random failures. It differs from the other failure mods I've seen in that it allows for improvement. Say you launch an engine for the first time, and it's got a 50% chance of failing. The next time you use it, it's been tested and improved, so there's only a 25% chance of failure. Next time, maybe a 5% chance. And so on. Testing and retesting and test flying is what you do to make sure that carefully planned Duna mission is going to go right. Which is an amazing reflection on all the people involved. And while there has been only a single loss of crew event in space, there have been quite a few serious events that were worked around or solved. Every Apollo lunar landing flight had some sort of issue to deal with, some more serious than others. Later flights went better than earlier ones. (Again, there's that interesting mechanic at play.) Quite a few of them could have resulted in the complete failure of the missions, if not the loss of the crew.

True. But that small group is an official NASA group, publishing official NASA papers. I was not addressing the results or the impact, only the source of the paper, as that seemed to be questioned. I'll be the first to admit that I'm in no way qualified to address the results.

Does that qualify for the contest?

It's a "paper by people who work at NASA". It's a paper about the research they're doing at a NASA facility, paid for by NASA, as part of their NASA duties. It's a real NASA paper.

Sounds great! Lots of topical landmarks that could work around here! Oh. Well, it was a nice thought, anyway.

Pull up your birthday on Wikipedia. Look at the list of people born after you. That's enough to make you feel old. For bonus points: Realizing it's not just singers, athletes, and actors anymore.

Mainly, I think being old does it to me.

This is why I've taken to looking at some of the failure mods. Having to work to build in safety makes it more interesting to me. Same for having to figure out if I can salvage a mission and get a decent return on investment when a ship cannot reach its goal after an abort to orbit.

Time needs to matter. I recently added Kerbal Construction Time to my modlist, and it adds a whole new level of planning. However, contract deadlines are so long that it doesn't really seem to affect them much.

How many things can be/are done in KSP that were never done in real life, though? I agree about the lack of usefulness of doing it in reality, but KSP has rarely been about copying the real, and more about asking "Can we do this?" rather than "Should we do this?". Edit: Please, tell me with a straight face that this isn't "Kerbal":

Thank you so much!

Frankly, add on a Launch Failure style "stop checking at X altitude", and I think I could be happy. Although, Dang It allows for repairs, IIRC, so it might be more bearable than this one. And I must say, I'm impressed with the number of mods you've taken on. I hope you don't get burnt out on it all.

Is there any possibility you might look into creating a Unified Failure Mod in the future, bringing together aspects of all three? I like TestFlight's increasing reliability as you increase flight time, but I also like Launch Failure's focus on launch time only, and not having to worry about coming back to find all the fuel has leaked out of my ship, and it's now stuck in orbit. I haven't tried Dang It to see how it plays.

That makes, what, three different failure mods you're working on? I think you just hate Kerbals and want to kill them off faster! While I would be interested, I cannot commit to being a reliable tester for you. Hopefully someone with the time will be able to do so.

What exactly is an "actual" mod, then?

I like the way that you do it with no modding by modifying files. Which is kind of what "modding" means in the first place...

Dang. This is the last piece I'm waiting on to get a new career started.

What? You can make multiple toolbars?

He's saying that there should be an option such that when he places a Mk1 Command Pod, the hatch is facing directly east (or west?), rather than south, and that all parts should be in a similar orientation, exactly 90 degrees from the way they currently are by default, so that he does not need to rotate the entire ship (or each piece as it is placed). This is probably due to the fact that it is a slight annoyance to do it every time, and it is sometimes easy to forget, or to mess up if one needs to rebuild a portion of a ship. Good idea, OP.

Can you explain how I can move the stock toolbar to a different location, and how to customize which buttons appear on which particular screens?

I had only recently found this:

1. Know the limits of your system. Too many mods is a matter of personal taste that you will have to decide for yourself. 2. Know the limits of your system, and what you are willing to live with. 3. Know the limits of your skills. Never do anything on a computer you are not absolutely sure of unless you are willing to deal with the consequences. Backups are good. 4. Know the limits of your system. Most modern systems require electricity. If you try to play without electricity, your graphics quality may suffer. 5. Know the limits of your system. You will find a trade off between parts and performance. Learn where your personal tastes lie. Most of all, make sure you always follow arbitrary guidelines and double check with other users to make sure you are actually enjoying the game. Some players have been known to claim they are having fun, but are simply too dense to know when they are enjoying KSP. (It's always a good idea to ask whether or not certain mods are considered "cheating".)