Uocjat

blasphemy! the original was called "X-Com: UFO Defense" and/or "UFO: Enemy Unknown" (hence why they named the new "remake" "X-Com: Enemy Unknown") but I totally agree original X-Com for the win and possibly terror from the deep

my dutch is a bit rusty but the first title says something to the effect of "review // build your own rocket" followed by a general overview of what KSP is and the second title something like "half a game can also be a fun game"

someone needs to make a rail/tram mod so that we can take this and upscale it to a full size kerbal amusement park

no it is actually transferring fuel to the part I've used this a fair few times with a backwards tri-coupler (3 into 1 instead of 1 into 3) since they only transfer fuel from the top node to the 3 bottom nodes but you can get around that by adding fuel lines from the fuel tanks to the tri-coupler but you don't need one to the engine

Kerbals on EVA can do a couple of handy things I know at least that they can also repack parachutes (useful if you have a plane that can take off from the water but needs parachutes to land on it intact - or if you're just a derp like me who accidently turn on the engines while dropping with chutes )

clearly what is happening here is that the fuel line being connected to a non-storage part has nowhere to pump the fuel causing it to simply spill out over the part after which the kerbal engineered nano-bot (which consist mostly of duct tape and crazy glue and is a whole 0.1% recyclable) that make up 90% of the actual fuel crawl along the surface until they find either a place to deposit the fuel or a place where it can be stored - however should this prove impossible the nano-bots are pre programmed to backtrack and crawl back into the original fuel tank

failure depends entirely on the consistency of the jello - nailing it to a tree is entirely possible

then we just need a weather system and we can have all out kerbal snowball fights woo

i'm not entirely sure but from the looks of it struts are very low on polygon count (somewhere around 30-40 for a strut connected at both ends and that's if the middle part isn't just some sort of sprite) so as far as graphics go they do count towards memory usage but it's very little per strut (if I remember correctly medium fuel tanks are something like 200-250 polys each) as for physics calculations i'm not so sure as that depends entirely on how the game handles them but at least as far as mass and collision goes there's nothing there how exactly they hold stuff together though is another matter - if they did something like removing a part's "wobble/break"-factor they might actually make for less memory usage but I think it's more something to the effect of adding their own strength factor to that of the existing part so that would mean that it's slightly more in the sense of memory usage though still not a whole lot so unless you're running a very low end PC/laptop struts shouldn't anything to massive worry about unless you have eleventy million of them of cause

as far as I know this bug has to do with unity seeing more then 1 core and then getting confused about how much ram it can use making it gobble up more then the max 2gb that 32 bit systems allow per application causing out of memory crashes (you can get around this for some parts by enabling the 3gb switch but keep in mind that it will most likely make your system run more unstable in general) or that might be a different memory issue that unity has (though i'm pretty sure that the 2gb thing for 32 bit systems also to some degree includes video ram) at any rate after I build a new rig with a 64 bit system I've had 0 crashes in KSP (game crashes that is - had plenty of rockets crash to the ground )

So I was bored and couldn't do my usual half-arsed Kerbal Fail Program videos because my neighbors are making swiss cheese out their concrete walls with power tools which ended up with me just doing a video on some of the "totally working as intended"-bits of KSP

Queen - Don't Stop Me Now that and having the Space Core's dialog from portal on repeat

sorry but all I could think when I saw the first photo was *KITTEH!* (I love cats deal with it ) and then I saw the look on jeb's face and partly suspected the same thing

I think this might be based on a slight misunderstanding and second-hand information parts are still sorted by function which needs to be defined in the part.cfg file (or rather there's a "category" line in the Part.cfg file that defines where the part pops up in game) how ever the stock parts are now sorted by type inside the installation sub folder Gamedata/Squad/Parts/"Part type" (command, structural and so on) rather then being jumbled up in one big folder called Parts like they were before (the in game sorting still seems to be based on the Part.cfg file though so it's purely cosmetic from what can tell) beyond that there's a second parts folder in the base game directory for custom parts (or so I assume since I current haven't tried installing mods in post 0.20)

one main problem i'm seeing with this is that you as far as I remember can't leave a plane and go back to the space center while you're still in the atmosphere though there might be a way around that by dropping something like a fule tank and then switching to that and ending it's flight but I haven't tried i'm not sure about mechjeb but i'd imagine that it wouldn't work unless your other ship/plane was within physics range (2km ?) but if you were to manage to build something that just hovers by the power of SAS/RCS then it should be able to stay there beyond that it's just going to be pretty damn hard to get lined up right and come in slow enough that you dock rather then just smash through your refueling station

Had a random quite massive failure the other day where I was setting up my orbit around kerbin before heading out to minmus and for some reason the front of my side went like "nope screw this im not going further and YOU cant make me *pout*" which of cause meant that the rest of the ship rammed into it with quite a spectacular explosion of cause I was recording at the time so might have been that the added stress to my computer caused some glitch with the physics - that and it wasn't exactly a well deisgned craft in the first place but later on it flew just fine

depending on how its currently done adding collision mesh doesn't have to mean the game will require more power to run since they aren't actually rendered - as in the only added thing from a collision mesh is telling parts that they can't pass through it which again depending on how its currently done could mean as little as 10 or 20 extra physics models at any given time if we were to go the way of only activating physics models for any ground clutter object within lets say a 10m radius (which should be possible given that they're static so you only really need them when you bump into them - if we want them to move around as well then yes it would require a heck of a lot more power to calculate everything) really we'd only need the actual collision models (as files sitting in the game folder waiting to be used), a bunch of nodes tell the game where a boulder is (which is really already there since there's visual model already that we could use) and then some form of range coding to trigger visual boulders into physical ones if they're in range of the currently controlled pod (maybe the physics activator for ship that already exists could be used for that?) that's my theory anyway i'm not 100% on how unity does things or how flexible it is with this sort of thing

I haven't tried messing around with it too much in 0.20 so I don't know if there's been any changes in that department but back in 0.19.1 Kerbals were pretty darn sturdy if they landed correctly never quite figured it out exactly but landing on your feet going at a >45 degrees angel relative to the surface tends to have the highest survival rate I managed to make Jeb deorbit and "land safely" from a 100km orbit around Kerbin using only his EVA suit while I was just mocking about gathering footage of random silliness I don't know about Eve but a denser atmosphere would mean that you slow down much faster but then higher gravity means your impact is amplified but unless its massively changed in 0.20 I think it might just be doable