Mr. Scruffy

Actually, that would be an awesome difficulty setting for career-mode: Latitude (or is it longitude ?- i always confuse the two) of the KSC.

solid state drives are the hallmark of the season. Going from ~100MByte/s to ~500MByte during disc-access is notable. 128 GByte should suffice for most people, 256 GByte for almost everyone (keeping non-programs - read:media - on a normal HD).

I had thought about this, too, recently. My thoughts: Seems doable at first, thinking of games like World of Tanks, various racing- or flight sims. BUT there is a major difference to these games: They all have a limited number of entities moving and thus to be recorded. In KSP, you can theoretically have hundreds of ships with tens of thousands of parts flying around at the same time and this makes things difficult: Either you´d record the data for all of them, which would probably theortically result in huge amounts of data and maybe even a slowdown of the game, or you need to filter which vessels´ data be recorded - and that seems such a tricky process (docking, fly-bys, etc.), that i decided to stop thinking about it, right there.

Hmmm... i am pondering these problems right now as well (well i just started pondering them, so...). 2. seems the best option, with the added detail of bringing your station in a high orbit to start with. That will make incliniation adjustments for your lander cheap. If you can spare the fuel or know exactly when to catch your fall, it also makes aiming for your target easier, once your lander has its desired inclination: Since your horizontal v will be rather low, burning it off is easy and then you fall straight down (except for the planet´s rotation). I´d probably go with a (nigh) equatorial orbit for the station, because the landers will be light (and thus correcting their inclination is cheap) compared to the ships coming in and out of the system, which will predominantely be on equatorial courses and rather costly to have their inclinination fixed.

The memory used for caching is not counted in the 1.72 GByte used, as can be deduced from the lines right below the graph, which show only 268MByte as free, when the cache (1987 MB) is being accounted for. At OP: You can try to tell which processes are unneeded by simply doing an internet research on their names. Simply copy and paste the ones you have no idea what they are doing from the task manager´s process tab into your prefered search mask and see what the web has to say.

I fail to imagine how they´d be able to tell...

On the risk of repeating myself: And why not simply disallow disabling the last active probe core? Like in: The button is clicked - > it´s a probe core -> there is no other probe core online on this craft right now -> ignore click.

The real problem is that you disabled the flow on your only control-module, right? How about disabling the button for the last active control-module, then?

I´d make it a tad simpler. One slot for each: - Left hand - Right hand - Gear With the latest possibly adding more slots (gears with intergrated tool-belts / backpacks). The gear would also include the jetpack and its fuel, if applicable. So you can have one item (tool, or hose or whatever) in your left hand, another in your right (but need at least one hand free to climb ladders - also you´d need both hands to use certain items) and, depending on your gear (suit), may store additional items. So the gear is kind of the central, new element, as the kerbels needed to be fitted out with them and a variety should be attainable. Thinking of balancing temperature (and possibly radiation?) tolerance levels, carry-on-items, and jetpack(/-fuel/-power) and of course cost, mostly. Also, we´d need tools in the game and an interface allowing us to choose which tools (and change-gears) to bring. Capsules would need to have a maximum item-count and possibly a new item-container-part would be nice to have, too.

That´s just absurdly unrealistic. Wheeled ground vehicles running on liquid combustion fuel... ?! Seriously: A combustion engine, just like cars have them, seems sort of, uhem, plausible, too (even if that´s not exactly what the OP meant, i suppose), right? For scaling make it modules of just two cylinders each, with little power, but make them freely combinable. It could have the same fuel needs as jet engines, to keep things simple.

So, what is actually suggested is having ´waypoints´, right? How about left-clicking on your trajectory adds a maneuver node (as is, currently), while alt+left clicking adds a waypoint - the thing being suggested here. Both be controlled by the same way we are currently controlling maneuver nodes. Creating a waypoint will always (?) also create a maneuver node (as soon as its off the current course, that is) and any manipulation of the waypoint will also affect its node. In addition to that, i´d like to suggest having 3 pairs of +/- buttons (one pair for each: pro-/retrograde, anti-/normal, anti-/rad) next to the accelration bar (next to the navball), allowing manipulation of the next node (/waypoint) directly from there, without fiddling with the indicators on the mapview.

I did mention it.

Can we have at least one example picture per texture, plus maybe a little descriptive text, next to the corresponding link in the opening post, please? Trying to get my bearings around here and am having a hard time. Thanks for your efforts, btw!

i demand a video! ;D

Station is at 90km. Other crafts park in increments of 2km above or below, depending on their estimated departure burn time: A long burn means it gets parked higher up, and vice versa. Point is to come fairly low, without touching the atmosphere, during exit-burn.

I´ll start with a sidenote: KSP-forums must be one of the most frustrating places in the webs - people seem to write a lot, but hardly ever seem to read... so this post, as so many others here, will consists of little more than repeatitions of what as already been said, in this very same thread: - Excessive time-warp to reach another star with sub-lightspeed is out of the question due to the need to keep consistency with the kerbol system and the player run operations there. - Kerbol being part of a binary/tertiary system is no solution to the problem, but merely an attempt to avoid it altogether. - Thus we need excessive speeds for interstellar travel, even when with KSPs shrinked distances, to get anywhere in a timely fashion. - To not ruin intra-stellar travel by having an FTL-drive avaiable, said FTL-drive may only be engaged when no gravity affects it - e.g. outside of any body´s (including stars) SoI. This is btw also the method i read the devs would be contemplating (no, i am not going to search for the source, now - after all logic pretty much dictates this methos, as shown). - Of course any FTL-drive is science fiction. As such, the devs need not adhere to any RL-examples of theortical drives but are totally free to make one up on their own. IMHO, they should stay well away of the utilization of any ´popular´ name, since those are rooted in our world. E.g. to name any propulsion method a ´v.-Braun-drive´ would do little more than break immersion. I´d probably call it in spoofy popular sf-fashion ; maybe the ´cringe drive´ - cause it makes spacetime, physical laws and professional physicians cringe (not warp).

I think, the revert button taking him to where he re-entered the ship, is exactly what the OP requests. As in: Treating switch of craft exactly like a new launch, when it comes to the reverting feature. Makes sense, imho.

I hope for R&D to be a bit vague. What i mean is this: In most games with a tech-tree you know exactly what the tech you choose will give you and how long it will take to research it and the exact cost of researching it. That´s like Oppenheimer stating in 1942 that by summer 45 3 bombs will be ready for use and each will have a yield of xx kT, a weight of y and... you get the idea. It´s quite unrealistic and imho also kind of boring gameplay wise. I´d prefer to have general fields. Say, for examples, ´nuclear physics´ and ´electronics´. A certain level of one or more of these fields could then open up prototype research for the actual parts. So, say, you got nuclear physics level 3, but no electronics, yet. This may allow you to research some sort of nuclear solid booster thingie (not throttlable nuclear thruster). You can invest into researching that, or skip it, get into electronics instead, and when you reached a certain level there the prototype-research for the actual nerva (throttable) becomes avaiable. The cost for each new level in any field, as well as for the prototypes, should only be given as a vague string. As in: high, medium, low, etc. The same for the progress made: Developing basics, Conceptualizing blueprints, conducting test-row, etc. In short: The fewer numbers i see when looking at the cost and progress of the research, the happier i will be. I mean, ask the guys at Apple, how far away they are from the next iPhone: Their reply most likely wont be ´95.8%´ or ´it´ll be done by oct, 8th, exactly´.

yeah, the recover-button should be avaiable on the ESC-menu during flight when landed on Kerbin and standing still, as said - but that´s really it. Nothing wrong with the ´revert-flight´ mechanics per se. Another thing that could help this problem is to allow time-warp when not controlling any ship at all, e.g. from the space center and the tracking station.

you can - go to the ´whats-itcalledagain?´ where you pick which of the current missions to fly, select the craft and hit the recover button. The only thing they missed really, is to add a recover button to the esc-menu while the craft is landed on kerbin.

While we are at it: Add the same for temperatures. So it would be a single 3-way-toggle button on the GUI: ´Overlay: None / Stress / Temperature´. Maybe a fouth state: Stages, colorcoding the parts according to which stage they belong.

And you cannot figure out a way around this? You know, like warping the time, or at least the major portion of it, in another craft, then switch to the VAB and get going? Dont get me wrong: I know exactly what you mean. Sometimes, i wait for a launch window for a flight and occupy myself with something else, meanwhile. Only, when i keep screwing up and reverting on that other occupation, i can wait forever for the launch window for the first craft... but i´d rather humbly put that down to me not playing the game ´right´ than as a design-flaw, because the more i think about it, the more sense it makes to me, the way it is currently implemented. Esp. for career-mode as PrivateFlip nicely demonstrated in post#30.

The revert flight option, in career-mode, would just save you the clicks to save and load the game prior to launch and after failure. It´s just neat, that the game takes care of that automatically. That being said, with the loading times of KSP, it might make sense to give hardcore career players an ´ironman´-mode, restricting save/load options and the revert-function with it, in one way or the other.

It had the whole milkyway (millions and millions of planetary systems - of course, at the time, all exo-planets where hypothetical - none was found back then IRL, yet) on a 880KByte disc (Amiga version). It had seamless landing and procedural planet surfaces (on a 16-bit machine, running at 7.16 Mhz - Amiga, again). It had newtonian physics, with planets actually rotaing around their parent star. What can i say? It still is the godfather of all space-games, and playing KSP often reminds of it (like when switching SOIs - it was just the same in Elite II/III). Looking at Elite II/III these days feels like cyberpunk: like looking at a fully functional computer with typewriter keyboard in a wodden case, powered by an attached coal-power plant or something - like a joint-venture by da Vinci and Jules Verne. After two decades, it is still impressive and still unique.

That´s what i was thinking. And imho, if you dont have skyhigh expectations and dont really need an SSD in your rig, a laptop for 650$ can be fine for gaming. Got an 17" Acer as well in january, with I5 CPU, 120GB SSD, 750GB HD, 2GByte NVidia graphics and 8Gbyte of RAM. I am totally pleased with its performance (KSP & World of Tanks, being the most demanding stuff i play on it) and, really, it was just the SSD that pushed the price from under 700€ to over 800€. Sure, if you really want the best, and care not about marginal costs, you can easily spent 1300+ $ on a laptop -- but you will be able to play most any game on a laptop half the price (albeit maybe not in maxed out settings), if you choose well.