Andersenman

Kinda how AOL generated login names for their internet trials back in the days.

Just because you said the same thing three times doesn't mean I have to disprove the same thing three times. Which by the way I did, come to think of it. What if? Well, I'm fairly sure IF there was enough matter present and available to increase the weight of said bodies at the required rate, I'm fairly sure both their presence and their effects would be very, very much noticeable.

Far-fetched LOng-Winded conTrived tecHnIcal Name for a thinG, cannibalised to have ENough letters for ShoehorniNg into a cool Acronym, and ending in a REDundantlY descriptive Noun like "SysTem", "dEvice", or "ApParatus". FLOWTHING ENSNARE DYNSTEP

Note that it says "any type of propellant", not "anything as propellant". It still has to be a viable propellant somehow, I don't think they mean to include stuff like wood chippings, empty beer cans or vacuum cleaner's dustbag contents.

I love that shot!

EVA Resource Transfer - v2.0 - Oh, this is sweet, a small mod to avoid installing a huge mod. Thanks! Except ... umm, it is very ... colourful.

Oh, those are very cute, and I like how the descriptions ring in the tone of the stock game!

You're funny. With this curious but overall inconsequential blip in carbon chemistry called life in one hand and the very foundation of existence in the other ... I'd rather have a place where something doesn't exist over a place where nothing at all CAN exist. Except they aren't. Effectively. It's proven and explained that the Moon's orbit is widening centimetres each year, so whatever mass Sun, Earth and Moon are accumulating from interplanetary matter, it's not enough to compensate or even reverse the effect mentioned. Saying something about the existence of influences is one thing, failing to provide magnitudes is another. This article mentions estimations of 37-78 kilotons (metric, imperial, short, long ... doesn't matter) of material collected by Earth per year. Here is cited that Earth loses hydrogen and helium at a rate of (calculated and rounded) 96 kilotons per year. (Calculating the effective change in gravitational pull and the resulting change in orbit parameters shall be left as an exercise to the reader.) So unless those estimations are massively wrong and/or I forgot/missed/do not know about any other significant mechanisms of mass transfer from/to Earth, there is no such thing as our gravity wells becoming stronger. Including the Sun's.

Except that now you have 2 rockets to lug around instead of one.

I've missed this one!

No amount of intakes will help you anymore, that's a thing of the past. The Wheesley doesn't lose thrust because it has not enough IntakeAir, the Wheesley loses thrust because it's defined to do so.

Thank you very much for updating!

Kindly requesting disinterration of this topic for official autopsy so we can finally lay this case, answered, to rest.

You know, this thread is REALLY hard to find! The plugin seems to be not available through CKAN, there is no link to the thread in the readme, neither on the bitbucket site which I found only by peeking into files with weird extensions from an older install, the forum search is helpless with the mod name ... eventually I was lucky that your bitbucket name is the same as your KSP forum name ... Please stop making your awesome plugin so hard to find! Thank you. Best, A.

NathanKell wrote an excellent explanation on this here: [iNFO] KSP floatCurves and you - the magic of tangents.

Congratulations, dtobi and Firov!

tl;dr dl'd.

It's finally here! Scott Manley has already started playing through the game and put on his YouTube channel. Now I'm sitting at work and mustn't watch it because I want to see it in-game for myself. Torture!!Yeah, I'm happy it's back.

Apologies for bringing this up only after 15 pages of posts since: I would like to point out that this is because the exhausted hydrogen is burning, not because of being used as NTR working gas. It is torched by an external source of fire. A longer version of the video explains that this is done to prevent an explosion hazard.

Again, agreed, a gameplay menu. Agreed, cosmetic. Again, illogical and silly, with "protection from early accident" a far-fetched excuse that, for me, just breaks suspension of disbelief.

Disliking the micro-management of jobs in .90. It's hard for me to stay interested in the game past Minmus due to long transit times and I find it unsatisfactory to send Kerbin into a >>>>>>>>> stasis just to do the Hohmann dance for that one mission to another planet. Sending Kerbals off in an exploration plane just to find that my science boffin cannot change a bloody wheel will certainly not make me jump with joy.

Thank you for moving, Vanamonde, I forgot about that section. Yes, it is a purely cosmetic bother with me. I suppose Squad needed to make a cut for .90 and decided upgrading the buildings (and a few ground textures) is enough feature for now instead of also including different-sized ground patches with roadways that either match every possible configuration, or can be upgraded separately, or whatnot, an adaptive initial camera that always keeps the whole KSP in a reasonable frame regardless of upgrade status, complete with all the coding and testing that would have entailed. Still. It looks silly.

I realise that designing and coding levels of improvement for the various buildings is one thing and designing and coding SimCity-like game mechanics for arranging them is another, but at the beginnings of my space programme I wouldn't bulldoze and lay down asphalt and other infrastructure suitable for an area the size of Cape Canaveral TODAY for the humble sheds I'm starting with just to satisfy the weird notion that I can keep the geometric centre of my future buildings always in the same locations. That just looks silly. If I had a little garden or farm in the middle of nowhere, I wouldn't put my outhouse a 20-minute tight-thighed Riverdance away just so that I could build it into a fully-fledged sewage treatment centre in the off chance my little patch of potatos and cabbage turns into a huge acricultural site complete with 5k-occupancy town to work, live and develop from it. Would you?

Apologies for taking this on a tangent here, but what is "ten times easier, ten times less grindy, reduced tenfold"? The more I try to quantify it, the less I can make sense of multiplying a relational term when your base isn't a relation to begin with ... How is that even calculated? If something is a little bit easier, and something else is "ten times" that, would that be like originial * 10^(1-easier)? Or original*10^easier? Maybe even original*easier^10, or original * (easier/10)? And where is "easier" even defined? Is it 0.9? 0.5? 0.1? Honestly, I don't get it.

What are you even trying to do? Do you want to extend the body to the rear? Or do you want to attach the thing on the side? If it's the former, just use WASDQE to make the part be in line with the body, then turn the cam to face the side, then aim with the part's node, NOT the mouse pointer. As soon as the node balls meet, the part will snap in place.