KerbMav

Should come as a mission then, random disasters that can be averted by "not looking" (untracking the impacter) wouldnt make sense.

Like a teapot in orbit between Duna and Jool? But you are right, I would be sufficiently pleased for the existing easter eggs to get fixed - as I am still relatively fresh to KSP (.20) and didnt have a chance to really visit them all yet.

After working around the launcher bug to keep my beloved fake-fullscreen mode and dabbling a bit in stock .23.5 (where I realised just how much difference FAR really seems to make), I returned to my .23 save to finally give up hopes of landing my Eve probe (oh chris ...) and continued to fly my Duna Explorer back home. For this I docked two modules of my would be space station together to provide the crew a safe haven/new occupation. Today the ship will arrive and .23 will come to a close for me - almost all of my usual mods are updated or certified compatible, so I will copy over my save files and hope for the best.

A clever use of game mechanics by the player, yes. The exploit comes from the fact, that the battery "activates" at just the right moment the probe needs power to do something. A backup battery usually activates as soon as every other power source is lost.

New hardware means more trash, more costs ... whenever hardware is still sufficient for a task and is not severly interfering with work processes or generating costs by being outdated it is preferable to maintain and utilize it. Edit: Somehow I thought this thead was not only all about games but software in general.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/04/nasa-must-immediately-cease-all-contact-with-russia/

Looks like this is still working in 23.5 then, yes?

Those screenshots alone made it worth the effort. Somethings fishy I think. When I doubleclick a tracked asteroid in the observatory it says "Cannot control an object that we do not own" or something along the line - could it be that the asteroids incorporate some new code from the upcoming multiplayer mode already, which makes sure that one player cannot destroy stuff from another?

What is stopping you from copying over your save file into a 23.5 install? (You should always play a copy of your original downloaded KSP.)

Not for me, but I like an electromagnet to look like an electromagnet.

You can actually use the same files you used for universe replacer, you would just have to rename them according to the filenames in the readme.

Have you tried this? http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/55905-0-23-5-7-1-EnvironmentalVisualEnhancements-NEW%21-VolumetricClouds%21

Thank you.

I think ATM just compresses every texture that is being loaded and the mod specific cfg files just add some exceptions?

Anyone tested this one yet?

I added decoupling functionality to my crew pods instead http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/68071-0-23-Self-decoupling-Crew-Pods and this KSPer used the same method to get rid of the LES if no longer needed http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/74634-Tower-jettison

It is most likely from Deadly Reentry, I had it from there - my question a few pages ago got overlooked.

Worse, without updated aerodynamics fairings have a negative impact on TWR, drag, d/v etc. What is wrong with part packs? ProcFairings does not add much memory usage - and even stock parts would use up memory?

A good portion of the energy in a car crash is going into deforming the vehilces, but they do "bounce" depending on speed, rigidity, angle etc and are not perfectly-inelastic collisions. Parts in KSP are not deformed from collisions, they either survive or explode, but if kinetic energy is lost I cannot say. Maybe we could ram a target and see if the relative speed at which the two parts seperate is the same as they approached before the collision? Boy, this game really gets you back into learing science!

Hm, so I was actually quite close. Thank you, I missed this interview until now.

I also do not know, but have a picture in my head where KSP might be headed: If parts are going to cost money, then this money has to come from somewhere. A developer will have to make a choice if the player can ruin himself financially in the game to a point he cannot recover from or if there is a steady trickle of income (unlikely as Squad does not want to introduce time-based progression and the like) or some thinge the player still can do to earn money. Here I am waiting for what they will come up with. And we also still do not know if every part we use in building a rocket will cost something or only unlocking parts in a node first bought with science. As of now I see three ways how money could be earned in KSP: 1. achieving certain goals in the game, orbiting planets, manned missions to planets etc. being rewarded by ... government or whatever 2. selling science by exchanging science points for money (at a reasonable rate) 3. offering missions for money Selling science keeps gathering science points usefull even after unlocking the tech tree. The goal of a mission (satellites) not making any sense for the player does not invalidate it as a possible mission in the game, maybe it is a weather satellite. The OP seems to prefer a sandbox style of game and that is what the sandbox mode is for.

Get it as a gift from steam as often as you like and spread the love.

They did not, not really - if you still like the KW design you can still use them or edit them yourself to be the same.

There is no option to say "I disagree, they are scaled and fit in well". Option 1. only says "I dont care/It is good that they are overpowered", 2. says "I agree with you, Squad has to make changes". As stated by Squad this was a gameplay decision. Although I can agree they could have added a more powerful larger ion engine and left the small one as a satellite thruster.

I am fairly certain you know what I was getting at? They most likely behave like every other part (which is what they are) in KSP that gets bumped by another one and survives the impact.