Gargamel

Orbiter doesn't use true N-body calculations, it uses truncated versions of it to allow for ease of simulation. Reworking KSP to include even these 'simplified' systems would basically mean making a new game, from almost scratch. If they were to do it, it would be in KSP2, if ever. As buggy as this game can get at times, Imagine if they tried to work it into the game as is. At times of Jool/Kerbol Conjuction, light weight rovers might start lifting off the ground.......

Isn't the steam controller just a fancy game pad? Why not just get a cheap game pad for use in non steam games?

There's tutorials?? While fixing the bug is an issue that needs addressed, if you have the basics down, go blow something up. Doing is the best way to learn.

Are you making a suggestion or asking a question? The canon answer is to use more struts. Try autostrutting some of your heavier parts. Post a pic of your craft, there may an issue with the design.

And while it is advertised on the KSP site, in the parts you quoted, there is no reference to them working strictly on KSP. With their recent acquisition and KSP not requiring a full development team anymore, they may have been given the greenlight to start work on other projects they have been back burnering for a while...... It's more like expansion rather than replacement....

Very impressive sir. Are the chambers actually under some sort of force (Ie combustion or jets just blowing on them) or what? what drives the engine? I'd really like to see a wki/FAQ/guide on how to use these to create bearing and such....

ANOTHER "cheating" thread? Geesh, cmon people. It's a one player game, you play by the rules you set for yourself. The are no set rules, there are no set objectives. In fact, it's pretty dumb to be calling it a game at all.

MJ doesn't set your orbit per se, you still have to tell it what orbit to take. So if you just tell it to plan an encounter, and after entering the SOI, you just blindly circularize, you can easily end up in a variety of orbits. I usually have to set my inclination, or at least be aware of it, right after entering the SOI. Entering a retrograde orbit is very easy to do with MJ, but it's also very easy to fix.

I have no idea, but if you google search, and add "site:forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com" to your search string, google will only return results from these forums. I usually find the google results more accurate and easier to sift through than default forum engine search results. I know a lot of forums that scrap the built in search engines the software comes with and just use a google search bar with "site:" as a default option.

Of course, there's the opposite of this thread: https://xkcd.com/1504/

Well.... I was going to link http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Akatsuki+Lake But..... This thread and the wiki are the only KSP related results, and the wiki doesn't specify... so it might just be a mystery.... good luck grasshopper.

We pretty much have the same kit for gear, mines just the T5i. I just found a video series on Youtube that I am using to refresh my skills. I used to have my own B&W Film darkroom in my apartment(s), but alas the cost makes it semi prohibitive to shoot film these days, but I took a decade or so off, and needed a refresher. Check out...errr..... Steele Training . It's been pretty good for me, looking to refresh this and that randomly, but I'd think he'd be pretty good for a beginner too. The usual rule of thumb is, (ignoring Image Stabilized lens tech), Take the inverse of your focal length, and that's the slowest you can shoot while hand holding your lens. So if you are shoot at a zoom of 55mm, then you can usually handhold at 1/50 sec. 250mm, 1/250 sec. Other wise it will blur. The IS tech will allow you to handhold about two stops slower though. So 55mm, can be handheld around 1/20 or 1/30. For stopping motion, shoot around 1/400 sec or faster, 1/100 will even work well if you need the stops for dim light, but a bit faster really makes the image crisp. Now like you said, on the cars, you might need to up the shutter speed to really freeze the action, but also consider shooting at 1/60 - 1/100 (or even slower!) when they are at the starting line or doing the burnouts. If they aren't moving that fast, a slow shutter speed will easily freeze the cars them selves, but give the spinning wheels the motion blur you are looking for. Mixed with a shallow depth of field (say f8), should allow the entire car to be in focus, but the background and extreme foreground to be blurred sufficiently to focus the eye only on the cars, turning the snapshot into art. To practice this, find a small river or something with rapids in it. Setup a tripod and shoot at high shutter speeds, and then low. You'll immediately see the difference in implied motion from the blurring that occurs.

As one who used to shoot a lot of action photos (semi professionally), consider letting your shutter speed float and lock down your F-stop instead. It appears you're shooting at a high speed, yet you still have huge depth of field. Those are great shots, great angle of the light, nice and crisp. Well done. But I find my eye wandering to items in the background. If you use an f-stop of like 8 or so, it'll blur the background some, forcing the viewer to focus on your subject. It will also have the benefit of forcing your shutter to a higher speed, helping stop the action. Letting the ISO float on auto, and manually setting both the f-stop and shutter speed is another way to go. Unless you are hand holding a large telephoto, anything over 1/400th would suffice to freeze the action. They are beautiful photos none the less. Only reason I'm commenting on this is they are almost pro level photos, shortening your depth of field would bring them there. And to the reason I did come into this thread. Wood shavings from a bowl I was turning the other day:

Yup. I can never get them to work just right until I do. Then I end up with 2-3k dv extra on what was supposed to be just a LKO service vehicle. Make a heavy lift cargo plane to recover stages with. Make a science grabber. Something with a few seats in it, carries a bunch of science parts, and has great distance, and you can harvest a bunch of science from a variety of biomes. Grab a couple mods and try a VTOL.

Clocks measure hours, and it will tell you when 1 day ends, they don't usually measure years. That would be a calendar,

The main question aside, why would you want to rescue a rover? Isn't the point of a rover that they are expendable once they have run out of 'life'?. Even in career mode, wouldn't it be cheaper, and easier to launch another rover to where you want it to go, this time carrying the proper equipment so it won't run out of power?

That's a nifty design. I like that. Can't answer your question though.....

Duh, thanks.

Just because something has always been, doesn't mean it should stay that way. I'm not really opposed to the idea, I just like it the way it is lol. I'd rather see the devs work on other issues first, but as far as reasonable suggestions go, I can't argue (too hard) for this one not ending up on the to do list.

Yup, I'd rather sit for a test, than do a weekly or daily homework assignment. Bigger projects I don't mind, but If I know a topic, don't make me do a stupid crossword or something daily, just give me a test. One study method that has always worked well for me, in particular learning the 100 or so drugs I had to know for my Flight medic cert, is to use flash cards. And not just flashcards but how you use them. Write down all the concepts or questions you are trying to study on a set of flash cards. That first writing will alone help cement them in your brain. Then go through them and try to answer them. Anything you get right goes in one pile, wrong in another. The next day, go through the wrong pile again, promote any right answers to the other pile. After 3 days of this, go through both stacks. Anything you get wrong from the right pile gets demoted to the every day pile. Anything correct from the 3 day pile gets promoted to the week pile. Then at the end of the week, do the whole thing again, this time not adding another pile. So hopefully, your every day pile will diminish quickly, and you won't too take long to do a bit of studying every day, it will get spaced out to longer periods, proving the retention is there.

If you're weird like me, and enjoy taking tests, the apparent difficulty of a test is not in line with normal people. Would it matter? Usually most places, like an employer, don't care what the score is, they just care if you passed. Is there a reason, other than college admissions, to try and up your score?

AGU?

This. I know there is support for this, and maybe if a dev in the future gets bored, but I think it should remain in the realm of a mod. Historically, this is the way it has been, and I hope forever shall be. What once was on the devs to do list, kept getting pushed back and back, so it became part of the games lore. There are whole theories on the origins of the Kerbals that require them to be genetic clones of each other, and other such stuff. One of the appeals of the game is that aside from the starting 4, the rest are identical, and therefore, basically expendable. It would just hurt even more if you are playing a perma-death game, and you happened to get attached to one of your explosion fodder guinea pigs test pilots, and they don't survive a mission.

This I did not know. thank you for posting. Gives me a reason to do more space walks!

@ZooNamedGames, well, I stand corrected, I guess there are users who would find the RAT useful. Of course, the argument of a glider with a RAT comes up. (Let's minimize derailing this thread though, this was meant as a one off comment).