Tiron

Let's see...the rover goes faster up steep hillsides than it can on a flat, a LOT faster (Like easily overtopping 30 m/s when it normally tops out at about 23 m/s, and even then generally only with a slight downslope), and accelerates much harder too. And the old suspension instability problem is even worse, with entire terrain 'facets' that trigger it...and when you're on one it basically kills thrust from wheels, which knocks the speed down from ~20 m/s to about 1.25 m/s until you get onto a new 'facet'. It wasn't so bad on the flat, but up in the mountains...there's huge facets that do that and you end up crawling to get off them. Edit: Basically, my problem is not editing it to go stock, I could do that easily, because both the carrier aircraft and the rover only have a few mod parts, all of which are easily removed. The problem is that it's using most of them to attach the rover to the carrier aircraft in a way that allows it to get off the ground and doesn't screw up center of drag. In order to attach it to a carrier without the mods, I'd either have to build a plane onto the rover piece by piece, build the rover onto a plane piece by piece, use subassembly loader(which I don't have) to do the same thing only all at once, or hack the craft file to get it into the VAB so I can attach it to a rocket. For a carrier aircraft, given the size of it, it could only be attached either on top (major center of drag issues, it might be bad enough with this thing that top carriage isn't actually possible. It barely was with the DEMV mk5 and it only weighs 1.25 tons. This is 2.19.) Rear carriage would be easier, but I'm not sure if it'd fit well enough for the plane to be able to get off the runway without dragging the sides of the wheels, which would probably wreck the plane. If it wouldn't take so much time to get it to the mountains to test it, I wouldn't have a problem going stock to do it. I just don't want to spend an hour+ figuring out how to get there. Edit2: I suppose I could use hyperedit (which I don't have), to move the stock rover over there, then uninstall hyperedit...that'd be slightly hilarious. I have a sneaking suspicion this is going to make unreported bugs on Eeloo even more of a problem than it is though.

And I don't want to put in hours of unpaid work just to meet their requirements, either. If it were something easy, it'd be one thing, but I'm using KAS and docking struts just to get the rover there, and I only know of two ways to do it without them, neither of which I'm actually at all certain would work, and both would require substantial redesign and some testing before I could actually try it. If I could just go there it'd be one thing, but last I checked, isn't hyperedit a mod?

Having some very interesting problems with a rover, most of which are extensions on problems I'd seen in prior versions, only now greatly worsened. Except I go looking for the bug report forum (which has moved), and I find this in a sticky: Off the top of my head, I can't really think of a way to get a 2-ton rover from the SPH into the mountains 70 km from KSP on a stock installation without spending probably close to an hour either redesigning and testing a carrier aircraft (which was hard enough to do for the much smaller and lighter DEMV mk 5), or 1-2 hours driving cross country, by hand. The one halfway reasonable idea I do have would rather ironically require downloading and installing a mod I don't have prior to going stock in order to pull it off in any kind of reasonable timespan. Given that I'm not being paid for my time, it's simply too much time and effort to go to just to report a problem, even if it is a fairly serious one. Especially since I am about 95% certain that none of the mods I'm using affect the rover wheel system. I understand that you're not in the business of providing support for mods, but at the same time making it harder for people to report an issue is NOT a good idea, unless you like people grumbling about unresolved issues that never got reported.

Oh. Did you say GPU? I Must've missed it... well if you really wanna fix that, that's not hard. Turn Vsync on, it'll limit the framerate to your monitor's refresh rate. Most gamers tend to think of it as a bad thing, but that's only really true if you're in low framerates to start at (because it'll skip some frames it could've rendered because they would come in the middle of a monitor refresh cycle).

I'm pretty sure, yeah. It's not even set up to use PhysX acceleration on normal GPUs, it will literally ONLY use the CPU and ONLY one core. The crap physics engine is the single biggest thing holding KSP back. Unfortunately, there's no other option on Unity. Some guy was working on porting the Bullet engine as a Unity Plugin, but he was doing it by himself, and his last post on the subject is from December.

That's the trick, the smart ones are better able to track if they SHOULD be worried or not. Bob freaks out about just about everything, Bill freaks out when something actually dangerous is going on (like most of the time when he's on an orbit with an underground periapsis and not under a deployed parachute). I can just imagine a KSP meeting going like this: Bob: "Uhh...I...Uhh...think we should add more boosters, and some struts." <General murmurs of agreement from the crowd> Bill: "No, see, we need to take some boosters OFF, we've already got more than enough Delta-V, it's crashing because there's too much thrust and it's flexing the rocket..." <Angry Murmurs starting at 'take boosters off'> Important Upper Manager: "Take boosters OFF? You're so (@%( stupid, Bill."

Based on their Behavior. Bill and Bob in particular. Bob's got a reputation (deserved) for being dumb as a box of rocks, and if you watch him in flight he freaks out CONSTANTLY, and looks worried the rest of the time. Bill on the other hand will occasionally grin if nothing even remotely dangerous is going on, and mostly only freaks out if something that's actually somewhat dangerous is going on. Bob's Dumb Stat is 0.1, Bill's is 0.8. This shows up in game as a very low stupidity bar for bob, a high one for bill, which do YOU think is dumb? And yeah, the courage bar is right. I reckon that Kerbals are so dumb they think of being Smart as being Stupid. Because they're less...well Kerbal-y. Or something.

No, it's actually because Unity's old version of PhysX (Version 2), doesn't support multicore systems. It can only run physics calculations on a single core. For that matter, I think the engine ITSELF is singlethreaded as well, and barely uses graphics acceleration at all. Basically what happens is that each part you add requires more physics calculations to determine what it's doing (is the joint breaking, is it flexing, how's the drag affecting things, etc), and when you hit the point where that maxes out the single core the game's able to run on...in comes the physics delta time! And if you push THAT Hard enough, your FPS goes and it's a slideshow. Given your processor, you're pretty much already as good as it gets on that score.

Yeah I thought Minmus was supposed to be like Frozen Methane or some stupid. As for Laythe...there's another thing to keep in mind. Molecular Oxygen is so stupidly reactive that it tends to combine with anything it can in the form of oxides (Which is why Mars for example is Red. Lots, and lots of Iron Oxide (Rust) in the dirt on the surface). So much so that you basically have to have some kind of process constantly replenishing it in order to keep it in the atmosphere, otherwise it all ends up in the rocks (or in the Air as CO2, again like Mars). The only such process we know of that's able to free up oxygen on a large enough scale to result in an oxygenated atmosphere is... Photosynthesis.

Well, if he left the CM below despawn altitude it would've gone the instant he got more than 2km away from it. If the orbit it was on dropped below despawn altitude at some point, it would've despawned when it got to that point unless focused. On Kerbin at least the despawn altitude is 20km, I'm not sure if it's the same everywhere or varies per planet or what. Technically you can have a stable orbit around the mun at 20km (no atmo), so if it's that low for the mun it's kinda dumb. And as for the 'difficulty' thing, they added a setting, intended as a difficulty option (presumably for career mode, where I suspect hiring new kerbalnauts might cost money or something), that makes death permanent. it defaults to off (meaning by default 'dead' kerbals respawn after some time, how long is unknown), and there's no in-game UI yet to change the setting (Presumably because it's for career mode), but you can manually flip it by hacking the persistence file.

If by 'dumbest' you mean 'fullest stupidity bar' you've actually been hiring the smartest ones.

Well for wheels obviously, but I think for Solar Panels too, give me a sec to make sure Edit: I Guess that's a no. I swear you used to be able to repair them...

If all you've done is break the panels, I'm pretty sure kerbals on EVA can repair it. If you've exploded the base of it you're SOL.

So swap the internal tankage out?

If it's a widely-used enough mod, the thread for it will probably have people complaining if it's broken and hasn't been updated. Or with workaround info if it mostly works but needs some minor adjustment first.

Except, gasp, the little light on the Navball still says 'SAS'!!!

Well how do you expect him to get around the space center, walk?!

Retract the ones on the side the ship will be flying past if it has to overshoot to get to the port it's supposed to dock at, otherwise I don't really bother. Also, the stupidity stat is backwards! Ingame, High Stupidity/Dumb means they're smarter... IE: Bill, with 0.8, versus Bob with 0.1

Oh at some point probably someone will figure it out. Until then we get a proliferation of various different theories and not a clue as to which is right, or even if any of them are. The simple fact the CORE tenant of science is having your theories fit real-world, repeatable scenarios. I wouldn't really call it 'philosophy', (though early philosophers DID spent quite a bit of time trying to puzzle out the nature of the universe) as an exercise in advanced mathematics. Just coming up with a theory that works and is consistent is tricky in and of itself. I saw a website once where a guy had an idea to basically brute-force create every possible image. Create every possible combination of pixels for an image of a given size. When I thought about that a bit, I realized you would get literally EVERYTHING in that. Most of it would be garbage static of course, but you'd also get an image of every single thing that has, does, or will ever exist. along with every place at every time. every person. You'd get complete how-to guides for every piece of technology ever. A guide to how to make greek fire. Complete, working schematics for a fusion generator. Every Question that has been or will ever be asked, and every answer that will ever be given. And other less savory things, like the pictures Bill used to blackmail the KSP brass. There's just one problem with all this: For every such correct thing you got, you'd get a virtually infinite number of similar but wrong ones. For every set of fusion reactor schematics, you'd get tremendous numbers of similar but different ones that didn't work. You'd get ones that would immediately blow up in your face. You'd get ones that took more power to run than they produced. There'd be so much of this 'close but not quite' junk that you'd never be able to extract any useful information from it, because you couldn't tell what was real and what was chaff. Some of it you could probably verify through various means, but bits of it (the many, many, many pictures of other solar systems for example), you'd have to actually FIND them to verify it. And a lot of the ones that turn out not to actually exist you'd never be able to prove it. 'String' theory, whatever you want to call it, is in a state similar to that at the moment. There's a LOT of information, but no way to pick out what of it's useful and what's not. Sure, we'll most likely develop the means and the theory to figure it out at some point, but right now it's just a bunch of interesting pictures.

Well the little lobes that extend towards the planet are important too. In particular, there's a spot in the south atlantic where the inner belt gets REALLY close in and causes all kinds of problems.

Well, it's not quite as good at that as the protractor, since you can't really tell how long it is until the next transfer opportunity...the hell of it is, last time I tried to use the protractor to get the timing right and mechjeb to do the actual transfer, it apparently disagreed with the protractor's assessment! You can kinda sorta a bit achieve the same effect if you just create the node and don't execute it...problem is, if it's a long time away, then what the heck do you do...revert to launch and try to time it out? Ugh.

I was thinking more along the lines of the 'Luminous Aether', where everyone's like 'oh, light acts like a wave, so there must be a medium to carry it!' and then along comes Michelson and Morley, and it's like 'uhh, we got nothing' (Very clever device they came up with too). And then later it's like 'oh wait, it's a PARTICLE too...wait what?' Not so much a placeholder as just a 'I don't know well...uh...yeah' kind of wild-speculation that eventually turns out not to be the case at all, because there was some new thing sitting out there completely undiscovered, or we just didn't understand part of the equation quite right. Given all the problems we're having figuring out gravity, I don't find it at all unlikely. String theory is all well and good but, well... Until someone figures out a way to experimentally verify or refute it, it's just a bunch of mostly-useless (but quite elegant, I hear) speculation.

Actually, not really. The stars we see are only the stars IN OUR GALAXY, which is definitely finite. Everything else is so far away we can't see it with the naked eye. But what happens when the Hubble Space Telescope starts looking at really, really high magnifications at a very small part of the sky? You get the Hubble Deep Field. Do it again, in a different spot? You get the Hubble Deep Field South Do it again in a third spot, only this time look at an even smaller part of the sky even more closely? The Hubble Ultra Deep Field Take part of the Ultra-deep field, and refine it to go even DEEPER? The Hubble Extreme Deep Field. Notice anything? No matter how closely it looks and where, it looks almost exactly the same. Thousands and Thousands of entire Galaxies that can't even close to be seen with the naked eye. Apparently in every direction. Some models of the universe allow for a sort of 'horizon', at which point objects on the other side of it are effectively moving away from your position faster than the speed of light (Some trick with the expansion of the universe, I think, and I think it's more complicated than that but I'm really bad on advanced physics, never having taken a class in it). Basically, we couldn't see anything that was the on the other side of that 'horizon'. We wouldn't be able to tell what was past it, if anything, making it impossible to determine the size of the universe. It's part of the reason why you hear serious astronomers talking about 'the Observable Universe' when most people would just say 'the Universe', they're allowing for things existing that we can't observe. Like Dark Matter and the theoretical Dark Energy (although 'Dark Energy' always seemed to me like it's probably one of those kludges that's been thrown in because there's some missing bit of the puzzle we haven't figured out yet. They seem to periodically pop up in physics).

Yeah, that's the new mod install procedure as of 0.20. Throwing it into the 'plugins' and 'parts' folders in the root KSP folder is the old procedure. Basically, in 0.19 and earlier, that's exactly how it was done. Gamedata thing only got added in 0.20. Just make sure you update hilo.dat, or your oceans on kerbin will be mostly black, and the mun will be mostly white on your maps

There's no pause button on real life. I absolutely agree about docking wasting RCS, I've always done that manually, although I do let mechjeb help with the rendezvous sometimes...mostly in the form of the tgt+ and rvel- functions on the SmartASS. I also really cannot strongly enough suggest not using the spaceplane autoland. The spaceplane guidance itself is somewhat dangerous, becuase it's abysmal at holding an altitude: It porpoises above and below it, which if you're not careful it's real easy to end up with a flameout, even with the flameout protection (which is NOT perfect, it can only really handle very slow, gradual intakeair decreases). The autoland doesn't do throttle control at all, just attitude, which I find is actually harder to land with than just doing it manually (which is saying something for me). After that time it put me on the runway backwards, and turned a great mission into a crash...no thanks. The ascent autopilot is a godsend. I've flown enough ascents it bores the crap out of me now. The landing AP too, because it's far better and more accurate than I am. and the maneuver planner, for that matter, also much more accurate than I am. The aerobraking prediction is also just absolutely wonderful. All my missions to Duna and my one mission so far to Eve used it to pull a single-orbit aerocapture with almost perfect accuracy.