phoenix_ca

Unfortunately not true. The colour altitude map kinda falls apart. That website you linked is interesting, though I wouldn't trust it completely. The best way to test for colour-blindness support is to actually proof the colours with an example image. Photoshop has two proof modes for colour blindness, and there are piles of simulators that can do it. Here's an online simulator you can use: http://www.color-blindness.com/coblis-color-blindness-simulator/

Not really. My brain is mush right now and you pretty much covered it, I think.

I trust in no coin other than hatcoin.

The only thing I have to say is this: It's "Trust-to-Weight Ratio". Not "Ration". We aren't handing out ready-to-eat meals here.

Any thoughts on using a config node for colours? It could make providing colourblind support easy-peasy. (I'm mentioning colourblind support because this is, to my knowledge, the only mod that actually depends on colour differentiation to convey information, which seems to be a special case far in KSP.) That and colour customization. (Or maybe that's not the best solution. Perhaps an XML file? Or straight-up JSON if possible and you're feeling generous. )

More logs, different crash than last time. This one references some GPU shenanigans. https://db.tt/XBF4C6kV And yes, I'm definitely near the memory limits. The whole reason I run LoD is because ATM is inadequate even on the most aggressive settings I could come-up with (my textures looked like solid, mushy colours).

*eyetwitch* That's...four different processes for determining scan area? ... I can't speak for DMagic nor Technogeeky, but I sure wouldn't want to maintain four very different methods of doing what amounts to the same thing. O.o As for Majiir and Kethane, he's said that he was open to suggestions to do background scanning and such. DMagic just kinda...showed him up a little by whipping together a solution in under an hour using SCANsat.

Sub-atomic forces do weird and wonderful things, it's true. (I love the standard model. It's so damn pretty.)

Solar power is not economically viable in areas that are at high latitudes. In some areas where rain is common (e.g. the UK or British Columbia's southern mainland), solar power is patently absurd. Building the power plant a long distance away (e.g. hundreds and hundreds of miles) only makes sense if you can produce absolutely ludicrous amounts of power, or you've got room-temperature superconductors handy. Solar power can't really produce the former with any sort of ease, and the latter doesn't exist (yet). It has niche uses, sure. But there is no getting around the problem that it shuts-down for half the day or more, and is subject to the whims of the weather, just as wind power (unless it's placed at sea). And as for fusion, not really. If you read the paper from the group I linked earlier, you'd see that it really might just be around the corner.

Damn. I guess I'll feed it to the birds or something.

Fusion power still has some hope. Maybe these guys are on to something. Maybe they aren't. But if they are, people would build those reactors. The cost savings on fuel and maintenance would be massive compared to a fission reactor. They are genuinely close to making it work. And a few hundred thousand dollars per reactor isn't a lot to pay for energy independence.

@RESOURCE_DEFINITION[Antimatter] { @flowMode = ALL_VESSEL } Enjoy no more antimatter fuel-routing shenanigans. That's my solution anyway. Don't want to put-up with this nonsense.

Er...none. As far as I know.

See the OP. There are pictures.

This thread is awesome. Methinks I'll take a stab at this.

Tritium decay into He-3 doesn't work unless the ship is focused. The tritium will decay but no He-3 is produced. This makes it effectively a non-feature. It happens, but not in any appreciable amounts.

Awwwwwwwesome.

Yikes. Try to remember that adding more engines doesn't really help as much as it hinders. It reduces delta-v, usually more than what little extra thrust gained helps.

Ooooooooohhhhhh, I see. Yes...that is...unfortunate. I'll make a test image with some swatches later and try to come-up with some colours. There might be a few ideal ones buried in the colour spectrum, though I sincerely doubt it. Finding a solution in there that would work for all cases seems nigh on impossible, if the goal is to communicate which resource you're looking at with colour as well as where it is, especially on the colour height map. What you have going-on with the ore overlay might work, or just relegating it to greyscale-only altitude maps, namely to have better colour-blind support. Edit: A quick test in Photoshop revealed that the colour map actually has terrible support for colour-blindness, and the resource overlay's pink actually completely disappears for protanopia and deuteronopia. It's not a huge problem as a greyscale is readily available but something to be aware of.

Definitely split-up your burn into multiple burns. It's an easy-ish way to get it done.

Heretic! There were always orange tanks! Truth will not dissuade me! Everything is cheating, I say! *Plods off to play with KSPI and B9.*

What sort of overlay are we talking about here? Why exactly do green, yellow, and red not show-up well (exactly why and what ranges of colour matters)? With more information, I could probably offer some suggestions (maybe even proof some colours). I don't think you missed any resources. Not unless MKS defines water differently. (I'm afraid I haven't taken a look at MKS' maps yet. >.< )

NONSENSE! Those aren't real explosions! Real explosions are when you stack a thousand orange tanks and they collapse and explode.

Vagaries of floating-point calculations. Corrections will be necessary.

SEE? Incomplete game = more challenge = more fun. Clearly. I think the next version of KSP should remove all engines entirely, so we can only get to space with huge controlled explosions.