asmi

Yea I know - it's just I haven't yet mastered "semi-auto" ascent (using Smart ASS's Surface mode) as good as I did with liquids - 100+ launches in a row, 100% success, all kinds of payloads from <1t (comsats) to ~130t (fuel depot, did only one launch, but THAT was one hell of a rocket) to all kinds of orbits. Ofcourse I use fairings.

I always control my rocket "semi-automatically" (Using Smart ASS's "Surface" mode) and always set pitch 88 and needed launch heading (btw I use 350 for polar orbits) before liftoff, then slowly turn it so by the time I get to 3k I'm at 80 pitch. I always keep TWR low (1.2..1.6), do not even attempt to control the rocket while it's transonic (keep it at whatever P/Y/R it happened to be once it hit 0.85M until about 1.2M), pass through MaxQ at around 1.4M, then throttle down until the staging and keep turning so I'd hit orbit of about -10km by whatever target orbit is (usually 75-80). Also it really helps to NOT have any staging events during initial ascent, so I usually try to avoid using SRBs as they often cause flips (their TWR becomes too high as they burn out, and I can't shut down sustainer as this will leave rocket without any control autority). I use KW Rocketry as main toolchain for building rockets, so I try to build sustainer core so it would last all the way through ascent (to -10x<target_alt>) by ensuring it (and boosters, if any) has about 3000 m/s dV, while still making it off the pad (TWR > 1.2, lower TWRs yields too much gravity losses).

I'm playing with FAR, and I've found it extremely hard to guarantee that I can get every launch to space when using SRBs - every once in a while it flips over. Since I'm on a tight dV budget, I don't have extra dV to compensate for flips (if they didn't cause rocket to fall apart). With liquids though I have total success.

I think we need to create a simple database for all parts and manually assign price to each and every part out there. Because it seems that auto algorithms don't quite work in all cases. For example, currently almost any stock mission is a net loss since cost of just two engines is over the rewards.

To sum this up, there is definetly a problem which needs to be resolved one way or another. If even on my hi-end computer (6 core i7 3930K, 32Gb RAM, dual 680 GTX SLI) KSP drop FPS below comfortable 50 for vessels with 400+ parts, I can only imagine what it looks like on slower systems. There is no other game in existence that could do that to my computer (for example BF3 shows stable 120+ FPS in 1920x1080 all maximum settings).

It's just particulars. The main problem is that it's the libraries that are unique per engine. During my career I had to learn and use a lot (over 20) of different languages, and so learning another syntax is easy. The hard part is learning runtime.

Mono is runtime, C# is language. Libraries built for Mono are completely binary compatible with MS CLR 4.0 (sans some proprietary components like WPF). P.S. I develop using .NET/Mono technologies for living

Unity can use C# (infact KSP seems to be written exclusively using C#).

On topic - I can't wait to see this in action. And especially playing in real Solar system!

It depends. In certain countries it's completely legal to disassemble and modify program in order to adapt it for his(her) own use (without distributing modifications), and, moreover, it's illegal to forbid such an act.

I suppose the main problem is that vast majority for KSP code is written using Unity's scripting engine, and this code will be useless for any other engine. The only useable part would be algorithms, some concepts, which may prove useful for new engine.

No, there were very significant changes both in server side and client side. Well THAT is what changing engine does! Entropia as project continued, it's not a sequel. More importantly, you're proven wrong

Entropia Universe Eve Online

Wrong. I can name few that did right off top of my head.

29. Sort of in the middle

While Unity is good engine, it simply isn't designed for physics-heavy games like KSP. That's why every single simulation game out there uses custom engine specifically designed for it. But I seriously doubt Squad have enough resources and expertise to build cross-platform engine by themselves. And if they opt for Win-only engine (which is waaay easier and might very well be within their abilities), a lot of Mac/Linux players won't like it...

Current version of Soyuz spacecraft is TMA-M (a.k.a. "Digital Soyuz"). It is currently being carried to orbit atop Soyuz-FG rocket, which is basically Soyuz-U with some modifications for man-rating (primarily aimed at reducing max acceleration to 4g, while Soyuz-U is rated up to 6g if my memory serves me well). As for Progress, current version is Progress-M-M, also "digital". Basically "digital" upgrade removed all analogue control loops and replaced them with digital ones, upgrade also included more advanced main computers, which allowed performing fully autonomous burns while in LOS (Loss-of-Signal, so no comm with the MCC). This was required to allow for currently used fast 4-orbit rendezvous profile, that allows spacecraft to reach ISS in less than 6 hours instead of ~2 days-long profile that was used before that.

It bring real-life aerodynamics to KSP - something that I personally miss the most in stock game. So, yes, it is really cool Your Soyuz, Proton and even Buran-Energia flies just fine with FAR if one is careful about piloting it. I'm not saying that you should check it's working with FAR (although I'd certainly be eternally thankful to you for doing so ), I merely ask other players if they have the same problem I do.

The visuals are awesome, as usual. The problem I have is that both Ares-I and V are almost unflyable with FAR installed I only make it to orbit every 5th or so try... Does anyone else have same problem, or there is some issue among my kazillion of mods?

Majiir, are you planning to add support for "static" resource maps (in which case one can specify exact locations of deposits and their parameters, or provide a PNG map, or some other way)? Think of water deposits on MarsDuna - it makes sence to put them under polar caps.

Well at least N1 did manage to get off the pad, unlike SLS

I suppose the biggest advantage in KSP for NASA is that at least here the Congress doesn't get to dictate them what kind of engines to use in their SLS aka Senate Launch System

Nobody is talking about "anything-to-everything" converter, we're talking about stuff like N2 + 2O2 + electricity = N2O4 (multi-input, produces high-enegry oxidizer), or abovementioned 2H20 + electricity = 2H2 + 02(multi-output), so conversion is specific for each instance, not current "Kethane-to-whatever" type of thing.

There is a lot of useful reactions that produce more than one output - prime example is water electrolysis, which produce hydrogen and oxygen, so giving you fuel (H2) and oxidizer(O2), or oxygen can be useful for atmosphere revitalization for life-support system. Infact this very reaction has very good chances to become the first ever ISRU (in-situ resource utilization) to be used in real life.

Give him a break. He's doing amazing job, so he deserves it.