Tw1

I disagree. From the twitch thing, it seemed to be lined up with the crew center to ensure there is still a line of sight into the flag. The contracts building is actually Mission Control, and I assume its set up so they can watch launches. There are some flaws, and it is a bit close to where explosions might happen, but it isn't nonsensical. I think they've done a reasonable job. Technically, none of the buildings really need to be close to each other, (unless you're counting the runway and launchpad as buildings). Being close does have the advantage of making KSC easier to explore, makes for interesting plane and rover challenges. But, If I was to set things up, I'd probably move things about a bit.

I always interpreted this to mean that they took him apart, replaced many parts, and put him back together again, having redesigned several components, rather than replacing him with a different engine. That's how it read in the books...

Yes, that's my hypothesis also. That, or some other new glitch drive.

I would like to see Danny have a rematch, from when he attempted to joust with the SPH.

Not bad. Some how, Mortimer's dialogue reminds me of the treasurer of a uni club I help run. I kinda want to fire Linus already, that's a terrible workplace attitude...maybe sacking those Kerbals could be a thing one day.

One particularly notable mistake from my early games happened when I was struggling to doc something to my first space station. It was in a low orbit, I didn't know to dock by the navball yet, and the low orbit curving effect kept throwing me off. So I tried the hack gravity button. After more time trying to dock, the game crashed. Now when the game saved, it didn't record velocity. Just orbital parameters. And when I rebooted the game, gravity was back to normal. My station, now stuck on its gravity hacked trajectory, was now a on a rapid, one way trip to deep space. I bailed most of the Kerbals, and like to think the escape pods made it to safe orbits. But there was no way they had the delta v.

I'm not sure, fun as it would be, there are other precursors that are not coming anytime soon, namely resources. Re the other idea, upgradable KSC, I'm not quite sure about the link between construction and destruction people are seeing. Maybe the same code is needed to switch building models? Not entirely enthusiastic about upgradable KSC, it's another limiting thing like the tech tree, that restricts your play for a while, then it's out of play completely. I'd rather they pursue features that bring new opportunities, and don't have a limited lifespan. But if upgrading the science center will add more detailed and engaging types of science, then I'm all for it.

I have a prototype Eve SSTO which is sort of infiniglidy, but its main source of thrust comes from ladderforce. Someday I'll get around to using it....

Mostly, I have to agree. It seems strange to have set up this feature now. They could have worked on the female kerbal, so one could have done one of the roles in the administration building. The planets need fleshing out. There's not a lot of purposeful things do when you get there, and have clicked off your science and contract parts. They could have worked on adding more biomes, more situations, and more things to do with your instruments, so it's worth spending time at the spots you visit. It is a pity they did/could? not hire him to work on this one two. He designed the originals, he knows them like no other.

I wonder re-building is something you have to deliberately do, or if it's something that happens automatically. Theoretically, the Kerbals put it there because they must need it for something, but. I wonder if that new tower will cause problems for people making massive, p wings planes. If it is cities they are working on, I hope they do a good job. Cities vary a lot, but ksp is limited by RAM. But if KSC is any clue, the are fond of hexagons, and those fit together well, and look good. Perhaps other houses would be spread about like terrain scatter. I hope they keep any thing a fair distance from KSC....

Destructable buildings has been a planned feature for a while. And it is a step to 0.26's feature, which I suspect icould be damageable parts. I think the have a plan. I don't mind if it's not a complete plan, if it gives them room to add more features. It wouldn't be funny, but female kerbals? That's also mostly modelling, Especially if you recall the debate around the new administrator Kerbals all being male.

So, the secret feature was distructible Buildings. With fire. Excellent., this suits my plans perfectly... Hypothesis: 0.26's big feature is semi breakable parts. Concern 1: this sounds like it could use a lot of extra RAM, especially if mods begin integrating it. Hope 64 bit gets stable soon. Concern 2: fast. water vehilces must be constructed with high impact tolerance parts, to survive the fought water physics. The break level is likely to be less than the destruction level, so may effect existing water vehicles, inconvenienat for me, at least. I suspect lithbraking will be even less practical after this. But I am looking forward to it, it brings challenge and possibility. I am a little disappointed new engine effects hasn't happened, but I guess we'll just have to wait. And I'm still holding out for better surface exploration opportunities eventually.

Maybe lithobraking? Save a few hundred m/s by making use of that tough, bouncy lower stage.

This is actually quite clever, and could work with KSP's one-SOI-at-a-time model. You could orbit one planet, do figure 8 orbits, orbit the common center at a distance, but not have the problem of getting close to a singularity, as its effects would not be active. This sounds like it could possibly work. Planets are 'on rails' after all. I don't know if KSP's SOIs work that way though, it might just be determined by a distance. I think overlapping SOIs could work, as it seems to be that SOI change is triggered when you enter an SOI, even if you are already in one. However, odd things could happen near the boundary between three SOIs. PLus, SOI transition errors could add up, leading to problems... Plus, unless the two bodies where very close in mass, it would not be convincing. This seems to a bit of a flaw with the way the Devs have been going about things. The game seems limited by its initial premise- build rockets, and fly rockets. Most of the game activity revolves around these two activities. A third type has recently began to take shape-managing your space program, answering the 'tycoon style' part of the premise. However, management, building and flight are really just a means to an end. They haven't made the logical jump of making the game also about exploration. This is the main reason I was quite disappointed with what they added as 'science'. I was hoping one day, we'd be able to get close and personal with the planets, dig out detailed data while thumping along on a rover, hunt for past life and water, investigate geological features, trying to find, map, measure. Instead, we get a broad strokes, in and out, click and collect system. I'd rather have to earn the science, and have a full space explorer experience in the process. I also think experiments which take some time makes sense- it would be a lot more immersive, and a lot of time will pass in game anyway. Timewarp mostly negates the inconvenience of real time waiting. Plus, checking an exposed experiment at different times could yield different data points. It seems odd to me to land, and only take one measurement. Sure, this may be fine for a small, short lived probe, but not an expensive manned expedition. Improving exploration, and adding it as something to work through makes sense- you'll get so much more fun out of each planet. I thought the crater I was going to land near had interesting while tops. But it all changed to a muted gray when I got close. But the terrain was full of undulations, rather than a mix of craggy hills and gentle paints like the Mun. Plus, even full sunlight was fairly dim, giving the place a far-flung feel. I didn't mind Dres.

Due to not inordinate effort, unfortunately our sleeping is urgent, but we were able to apply the process, this will be 9:30, and the activities of education will be occupy. As such, reportage is critical not essential knowing what it is guaranteed.

I once made an infiniglider that managed to go for about a night or so on its own.

That would be cool. I also think lighting buildings on fire could be a cool feature.

That isn't very creepy. Definitely not....

Nicely done. Nice use of the monopropellant engine on that last stage.

I believe the reason they haven't had much variation until now is development effort has been being put into things which have more functional impacts on the game. Until relatively recently, there hasn't really been any reason to hurry to broaden kerbal variation. However, as more kerbals with specific roles are being added, many feel that there would be merit in speeding this up. The main impact of having them all look the same in game-as they are already- is mainly that it's really easy to confuse one kerbal with another. This can be a small impact if you like to roleplay, are planning around eva fuel levels, or have one eva'd kerbal carrying all the science, but it's not that inconvenient. It's not hard to check their name, and generally one kerbal is as good as another. If kerbals were all had identical body structures, that could also affect their ability to identify each other. To be distinctive, a kerbal would have to modify their clothes, or their hair, etc, to stand out. If this was all there is too it, it would be easy for one kerbal to impersonate another. This could have varying effects depending on kerbal psyche. It is possible that kerbals would develop powerful identification technology, and/or become very attentive to details to avoid confusion and crime. There are other ways to identify different beings. Sound of voice, smell/pheromones, body language, speech patterns/vocabulary...If kerbals are physically identical, they could likely rely on behavioral cues to distinguish each other. Being physically identical would have some benefits. It would be very easy to size all clothes, products, buildings, etc, to fit the adult kerbal. (With some variation to cope with children, and disabled kerbals hopefully.) It could make identification of diseases, and physical developmental problems quite easy. However, there could be social consequences for these differing individuals- this could be positive or negative, again depending on kerbal psychology. It would also level out the playing field when it comes to things like sport, modelling, and dancing, where the body you start with is a big factor in pursuing those areas. However, I'm not convinced it would really be possible for them all to be exactly the same. Some kerbals would vary due to health, fitness, etc, unless kerbal physiology is set up so the body can't change beyond a certain template. Having one/no gender would make for a very different society to what we experience. A lot of the difference would depend on the nature of kerbal reproduction, if they seek partners, etc.

What I was trying to say in the rep comment thing was: Nice job! I even like the sound effects.

They will only not load if the new parts all have different part names. As many of the parts are equivalent to the existing set, I imagine they use the same name. If not, a find and replace can be done in the persistance file, swaping all old parts for the new equivanent.

There used to be a boat specific propeller, but the mod is no longer hosted anywhere. Another important thing to take into account with boats, is anything that will be exposed to water, especially moving water must have a high impact tolerance. I like to pick things that have at least a tolerance of 40 for boats. Aeroplane cockpits and structural panels are best. As mentioned early, parts become draggy when in water. So unless you need them for buoyancy, or can't place them anywhere else, keep things above the water. Also, basic things like making sure your vessel is balanced apply.

Show your KSP Art done in photoshop? Well, GIMP in my case... I don't mind if I do... Which is an odd expresion... Yes, I think that's a good selection.

But that would be gender discrimination.... Then again, it's hard to think of any more roles without being able to read Squad's collective mind. I wonder if Linus is named for Linus Pauling?