Sid

People really need to understand that dogs are NOT little humans - but then I also think you should probably give your dog a little more training ( I say that in a spirit of friendly advice and not confrontation - it's obvious you care about your dog and have a good attitude ) We own Rhodesian Ridgebacks, and they a large and powerful hunting breed with very independent minds who need to be given firm rules to follow. I expect my dog to return to me with nothing more than a click of my fingers and the word " here " no matter what the situation. Ridgies ( and I expect most other breeds ) respond best to lots of Scooby Snacks and positive reinforcement for good behaviour. Cesar Milans advice on dog training is pretty much on the money in my experience.

President of an outlaw motorcycle club.

I personally don't like Track IR for driving games, I found it disorienting. It is very good for flight sims, I think pretty much everyone agrees on that. There is a cheaper alternative to Track IR, if you don't mind building it yourself - an open source hardware\software project - I can't remember the name but a search should turn it up for you. It's a shame you live in the US and I live in Spain because I'm actually selling my G25 to help fund an attack helicopter simpit...

I've got a Logitech G25 wheel, shifter and pedals and it's lasted for over 5 years.

First ever Mun landing - I walk Jeb into one of the lander legs and knock him out. When he wakes up I do it all over again. And then again... " One small step for a Kerbal, a giant leap for - OUCHHH ! dammmit "

I'm a Christian, but I'm not going to argue with any of that. Well said.

I'm covered in tattoos, being a biker and kind of outlaw type of person. My favourite one is the gothic letters on my stomach which says " F___ The World " - it's a biker thing... But I am a secret geek and I think my next tat will be a Feynman diagram. Do any of you have tattoos, or are you all Bronies ?

I got a bottle of Jack Daniels and some loving from my old lady ( wife\girl in biker speak )

Feliz Navidad

I wouldn't worry about it, your chances of being picked to fly into space are so small it would probably require scientific notation to express them in mathematical terms. I always wanted to join the Hells Angels MC but that didn't happen either. Many are called, but few are chosen

NASSP isn't that difficult in my opinion, but you had better enjoy reconfiguring switches because you'll be doing a lot of it. Just getting the ship ready for launch takes about an hour. Many of the systems of the CSM are modelled in amazing detail, but the LEM is still a WIP. AMSO's 3D models are about the best I think I've seen for Orbiter and I reckon for 95% of people it's probably the best option.

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/index.php I found this website a couple of days ago and have been reading it ever since. It's just brilliant, there is something for everyone - atomic rockets, speculative concepts for space exploration by aerospace manufacturers and NASA, examinations of space hardware as seen in the golden age of hard sc-fi and easy to understand explanations of orbital mechanics and the engineering of spacecraft and propulsion systems. He even uses KSP as a teaching aid at one point. Take a look, I guarantee you'll enjoy it...

They are fine thanks, Kerbal's half grown now and young Stumpy has become his best friend.

This reminds me of the saying " Be careful what you wish for " - realistic aerodynamics will make it impossible to build those crazy " moar struts, moar boosters " asparagus staged monstrosities that so many people like. Well, you'll be able to build them, but they'll disintegrate in flight. That wouldn't bother me personally, because I'm into real world style rockets - but it would remove a lot of the fun for people who like building insane contraptions. And I think everyone would agree that KSP is about fun. Now if it would be possible to switch 'advanced aerodynamics' off, then that would be the best of both worlds. I just don't know if that would be possible for the devs to do in terms of complexity or whatever. I'm no programmer...

Replacing the crew cabin of the FASA Gemini lander with a command seat or two and a probe core would be a good basis for a KSP LESS. I might just have to do that later, thanks to the OP for the inspiration

Fast motorcycles, beer and hot chicks.

I asked my Kerbals and they said it's better than any landing I have ever put them through. Further comments were :- " At least they remembered to put the descent engine on it, unlike you " " They landed the right way up ? I didn't know that was possible, why don't you try it next time ? " " We are all moving to China "

Yes, really - he does. And the man himself writes the posts and answers questions. Well worth a look if you do Facebook. Maybe someone should point him in the direction of KSP

I hope they keep it based on reality. The timeframe is obviously the very near future and interstellar travel is just science fiction.

It was certainly something The scientists and engineers wanted to use their familiar SI units and the astronauts wanted to see their familiar aviation units of feet per second and nautical miles. It could have turned into a real dogs breakfast but the programmers obviously made a great job of the conversion.

I'm interested When you get to the mechanical hardware stage I might be able to help out, at least with advice.

Are you going to display in the original AGC imperial units, or stick with KSP's metric units ?

The interface will be a commercially available USB board designed for people who want to use their own custom hardware with a sim. So if the default mapping is in place it can send a 'W' to command pitch up. Or alternatively map pitch up to a joystick button input provided by the board. No need for a plugin. That part of the design is fixed. What I don't want to do is use an analog joystick axis for thruster commands unless the way KSP deals with joystick inputs has gotten better. I had to unplug my stick because it glitched all the time ( and it's wasn't the fault of the stick ) I'm really asking how people think the controller should work in terms of what I suppose you could call ergonomics. I know how I'd currently like it to work, but I want some other ideas.

The thread on the Apollo AGC has made me think again about something I have been planning to do for a while now - build realistic rotational and translational controllers for KSP which are modelled loosely on the Apollo\Gemini items. By realistic I mean internally as well, kind of ( ever seen inside one of those things ? ). Constructed using titanium, aerospace grade aluminium and built like an item that really was going to be flown on a real spacecraft. How would you have the control system work ? I have given up on using a joystick with KSP because the interface is buggy. Or was, I gave up in about 0.19 and haven't tried again. So I'm thinking switches to provide keypresses rather than potentiometers. How to switch between fine and coarse controls ? - there are two obvious ways, having the controller use a single set of switches and selecting the mode with a seperate switch on the unit. Or more complex have a second set of switches built into the controller - moving the hand control slightly out of the detent fires fine thrusters, further movement fires coarse thrusters. Any ideas from the community ? I'm thinking about making a very limited run of controllers for sale, to defray the costs of the first one. Would anyone be interested ? The units wouldn't be KSP specific, you would be able to use them with any sim. They wouldn't be cheap though, given the amount of machining involved and the materials used. Would be pretty cool to own however...

You might like this link, a functioning replica of the DSKY, which is for sale - http://www.collectionspace.it/dsky.htm No price mentioned, so I expect if you have to ask then you can't afford it