what-the

No it isn't... Yeah it's tidally locked.

How much Delta-v does the EVA pack have? Using it in the calculations for total delta-v could save a lot of weight if you don't mind the risk of losing your Kerbal.

Cartwheel.

A scroll bar was added in 0.16. Funny, so many people request features already in the game.

Is that a shadow facing the wrong way?

The names seem good. Easy to remember and should cause little confusion when talked about. Also I have updated my picture of the solar system. New blog link to solar system.

Those planets mentioned by Nova aren't the actual planets and moons in the next update. If you looked at my blog you would of seen all the info currently released on the planets.

Much cheaper why don't you conduct and experiment. Take a rocket to high altitude in a balloon and try to see if it's possible to hit something in space.

press the tab key. You will get back to your craft eventually.

Those polar regions look quite interesting. What are the new parts for this update? Any chance of better wheels for rovers?

Just made a quick edit of the Liquid engine to simulate Eves gravity. You still have to add the small ladders to create the drag but this is still quite useful for simulation. (Hey maybe this kind of simulation will make it into the career mode). http://www.sendspace.com/file/rbs7md Click this on the page "Click here to start download from sendspace". Also look inside the en....

Lift and drag use basically the same formula. They will both be 5 times greater (force) in a 5 times denser atmosphere. The overall result will be more lift at lower velocities. Think of Kerbin when your close the ground.You go very slow but you can fly. But higher up you need to go much faster to get the same lift. Let Kerbin density = 1 and Eve = 5 If you went 100m/s on Kerbin you would only need to go 45m/s on Eve to get the same lift. Taking into account the heavier gravity on Eve (x1.7) we need %170 of the lift to counter gravity and need to go 59m/s We are only changing the density and velocity variables (the aircraft is assumed to be the same) so the formula is Lift Force = density * velocity ^ 2. So when we leave the atmosphere we will be going much slower (depending on how quickly the atmosphere thins out) and thus would need a rocket transported to high altitudes via plane for even a good chance of making orbit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_(force)#Lift_coefficient http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)#Drag_at_high_velocity

I said 1.7x weight. My mistake on lift and drag which is 5 times greater (used the lift equation and halved Eves twice.

Eve's current gravity is 1.7g.

Flying challenges are great. I have lots of simulated experience flying planes through crazy near impossible storms landing only with GPS and the ground proximity warning but this game might only have altitude . I'll try to make a space-plane to get into orbit simulating the current Eve. Edit: Okay. Drag and lift is 2.5 times that of Kerbins. So I'll create a plane that can get into orbit then add 1.7 x weight and 2.5 x lift and drag.

Eve looks like quite the challenge. Maybe we need to look into space-planes to take advantage of the potential lift?

Any changes to the planets Nova or perhaps some information on the lavaless planet like size relative to kerbin? If anyone's seen my Kerbol Solar System pic knows that the lavaless planet is just an x were it's meant to be.

Having Fun in a Space Plane. This one is really easy to fly. The atmospheric engines separate from the plane once they stop working. Also The Eve Concept.

Rockets look good but do they account for Eve's higher gravity (I think it was 110% of Kerbin's) and the denser atmosphere (500% of Kerbin's)? Add up all the mass and drag of the eve orbitor and add dead weight to account for differences. This rocket is just capable of orbiting Kerbin with added dead weight to simulate Eve's gravity and drag.

Have a look at this benchmark website. It lists the top performing cards in this benchmark program with there score and price. I would look at cards that scored 2000+ which starts at around $110 USD. http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

Awesome. Is there a way to raise and lower the camera when landing like in FSX?

The only thing wrong is the fact that the ailerons are moving which the shouldn't if your trying to change the attack angle (The elevators are fine). Also when flying make sure you use q & e to turn and not a & d (rudder).

That's a nice lens flare. It appears to be less obvious which is good because in the past I've had problems looking around with the lens flare in the way.

I play on i3 with Intel HD graphics 3000 on minimum settings and with a 30 piece rocket frame rate is playable at 15. I had a desktop with a HD7770 and that only got 47 on medium high (had an old CPU though). As long as you don't go overboard with your rockets most laptops in from the past 2 years should run but 50fps would be unlikely on a decent setting from anything but a desktop.

Not posting a rocket but here are some tips of how I build rockets which can land. I'll start with one man lander. Lander must be small with one or 1&1/2 fuel tanks with 4 legs. The purpose of a light lander is to make it easy to maneuver and it significantly reduces the previous stages sizes if it's light. Orbit + transfer stage should use a powerful engine and have 2 fuel tanks. Accent stage needs lots of thrust and should get you to the upper atmosphere at at least 1100m/s. I would use two large fuel tanks and a large engine. Finally add lost of boosters to get your accent stage out off the thick atmosphere.