Qumefox

Unlikely they'd hire him. I don't think they have a huge workload for their modelers right now or else Nova would probably have more to do. And only being the most amateurish of a modeler myself, My only guess is you have an axis off somewhere.

I donno. I've just been hiring the dumbest kerbals that come up on the list regardless of name

All I see are people who want to be told cheating is ok so they can feel good about themselves for avoiding challenges. If the sandbox was being removed, you'd have an argument, but since it's not, you don't. Is this harsh? Yes. Will people agree with me? Not likely considering how many use OP mods. But am I calling it like I see it? Again. Yes.

You didn't answer my question. So, they have two choices of game modes, which they're free to choose which they want to play any time they want. One allows anyone to do anything with no limits or restrictions, the other designed to have restrictions to force people to overcome challenges.. Please explain to me WHY they would choose to turn the challenge into the same thing as the no limits sandbox... instead of just playing the sandbox? I already know the answer.. People want someone to tell them cheating and making things easy is ok and pat them on the back. It's not like career mode is going to remove the sandbox after all. If the career mode challenge was to get part X in orbit using part's Q, Y and Z.. and you just hyperedit part X into orbit instead.. please explain to me what exactly you accomplished?

I'll counter this with.. if they want to do this, what's the point of them even playing in career mode in the first place? Why not just stick with sandbox mode? The 'career mode should be sandbox where nothing matters' argument makes zero sense to me since players who don't want limits can just stick with playing in the sandbox.

You also have to remember that there are STILL aspects of that game that worked before the engine switch, that are still non-functional to this day. and the engine switched happened shortly after I cashed out and quit playing, and that was like... 2005?

Uh. I don't really follow the goings on of intel, but didn't hyperthreading die with the P4's?

It would only cause lag if you were close enough to it for it to be rendered and get physics calculations done.. while it's just an icon on the map and 'on rails', it doesn't take up much in the way of resources. The only downside is it clutters up your map. though since you can turn off viewing debris now, even that doesn't really matter.

The devs call it the sun. It's called the sun in the game. They've stated when asked before that none of the dev staff wants to call it kerbol. Generally only people hung up on naming everything k-names call it kerbol. Wiki's are player edited. Just because some people call it kerbol, doesn't mean it's right, or that it's what everyone calls it. Though honestly.. calling the sun kerbol still sounds significantly less retarded than people using the terms 'apokee' and 'perikee'.

Are you building your ships with 'allow part clipping' turned on? Pretty much the ONLY time I have things randomly fall apart is if I try to use that option and whatever the craft is is very big. It works fine on small things like rovers/probes, it makes all large craft prone to falling apart randomly.

Terrain in KSP is a hard limit in the current software.. So any 'caves', would have to be well.. above ground... to even be possible currently without a full core game rewrite most likely

They're large textures. The higher the resolution they are, the more GPU power and video ram is needed to store/render them.

No game producer that i've ever heard of makes a big media press release about extremely minor patch revisions. Squad is no different. You should know about the new version from KSP telling you there's a new version when you run it. Steam users won't have to deal with it at all since steam would just go ahead and update it anyway.

'Game booster' software is useless. Think of it like this.. Would you solve resource limitations (which is in actuality, what speed problems are.) by installing software that reduces said resource pools even farther? (uses ram, eats CPU cycles) KSP is a highly CPU intensive game. No software is going to change that.

What dead ends? I've landed on every body in the solar system, and returned from most using stock parts. Most people just choose not to deal with design challenges, and just throw OP mod parts at the problem.

I highly suggest reading up on the apollo and LEM guidance computers. They weren't nearly as advanced as you're indicating you think they are. They mostly just controlled the decent profile. The only real input the LEM guidance computer had was knowing 'which way was up' via the inertial gyro's, and altitude via a radar altimeter. All LEM traversing in the horizontal plane was done manually. The astronauts had basic functions equivalent to altitude hold, etc, to control throttle but there was no such thing as reprogramming guidance to 'land over there for me instead' mid flight. Especially considering the guidance computer programming was hard wired... literally.. Since it used rope memory. Most people in this day and age can't fathom that those computers had less processing power than most digital watches now days.

I use hack-gravity etc when testing builds for things like thrust and RCS balance without having to actually put stuff in orbit first as i'm building vehicles/ships. For actual real launches. No debug menu is used, and the only two mods I use are KER and protractor.

I personally haven't been limited by the stock parts yet.. so I haven't had the need to install any mods other than KER and protractor.

This.. People are always quick to forgot there was another guy on that mission.

Take my advice.. learn to actually shoot. If you start relying on ramming, especially in reserve planes, to get kills, you'd better prepare to be disliked by the majority of the playerbase.

I mostly lost interest in WT after the royally F'd the economy and made it a complete grindfest.. Guess not enough people were throwing money at buying premium time, so they made it almost impossible to progress past level 7-8 planes without constant endless matches without it.

There is no 'real' answer.. It's going to entirely depend on your computer. Someone with a new top of the line machine is going to be able to use a lot more parts without lagging than someone say, trying to play on an old P4 machine with integrated intel graphics. About all you can do is post your exact system specs, and hope someone with a similar configuration reads it and tells you what they can usually get away with, part count wise.

IMHO 'Sci-fi' ships lose a lot of their appeal in KSP due to well.. physics.. Most sci-fi movies/shows throw physics right out the window and spacecraft end up flying like planes... That isn't the case in KSP.. .or reality.

AMD Phenom II x4 955 BE, 12gb ram, GTX 570. I got an across the board performance boost with 0.20. And I also apparently don't suffer from the 'kerbin lag' like others do. I've had pretty much zero performance issues with .20 so far. In .19.1 pretty much everything I did caused physics slowdown (mission timer in yellow) and I see very little of it now in .20 dealing with the exact same ships. The only problem i've encountered at all so far is apparently the Mun grew by about 50m.. since my .19.1 munbase, and everything else on Mun, ended up underground and unresponsive in .20.

I put a probe on top of the KSC2 VAB in .19 and it's still there for me, I can see all the buildings. However, everything I had on Mun including an expansive munbase, all ended up 50m underground regardless of terrain detail settings and wouldn't load physics for any of them, so I had to end all those missions