Superfluous J

I hate to say it but I'll likely not play much KSP once KSP2 comes out. I hate to add, I probably won't play much KSP from now until KSP2 comes out, either.

Prepare to like that part of it. You never ever optimize a program before you're done adding features (unless you need to release before all features are in, and in that case ew. That sucks), for much the same reason that you don't move your furniture into your house before you've finished building it. Looking at that footage and saying "It looks choppy and slow" is like looking at the framework of a house and saying "That looks drafty." Any chance we'll see some footage of your conversation?

They should get their own poll. Why should the two be lumped together? Yes. Specifically I tried to word the poll in a way that would matter to someone deciding if it was worth the cost to port to Mac. They don't care how you play, only under what circumstances will you buy it or not.

Then I'd change the poll to: Would you buy KSP2 to play it on a Mac? Yes, but I would buy it and play it on PC first if it was released on PC first, then play it on Mac later when it is released for Mac. Yes, but only when it's released for Mac and not before. Not unless it's released on Mac in tandem with a PC release (The hard line!). No, I'll be playing KSP2 on some other platform instead. No, I will not play KSP2.

To be fair, that depends on how greedy consumers are, and if they stop buying KSP1.

Actually I was making an assumption that I should not have, based on how KSP1 works. I was assuming that you would either buy the PC version or the Mac version, and if you wanted it on both you'd actually have to buy it twice. But KSP1 works on both. I can download the Mac or Linux versions from the store, at least I think I can. No clue how Steam works as I only have it on my Windows machine.

You're likely better off asking in the TAC LS thread. Stock KSP does not use EC when a craft is unloaded. The only powered things that work when a craft is unloaded in the stock game are relays, and they just work for free. ISRU looks like it works unloaded, but actually the game runs a little simulation whenever an ISRU part enters the physics bubble and catches the ISRU craft up to real time. So, if you are depleting energy a mod is doing it, and it seems pretty likely that the mod doing it is TAC LS.

The poll options don't really suit my answer. Of course all things being equal I'd love my Mac brethren to be able to play. But I don't personally have any reason to desire it. A better question is: Would you buy KSP for Mac if it was released? Yes, but only if it was at the same time as PC. Yes, whenever it happens. No. (Any options I'm missing?)

There are a combination of factors I can think of: Holy cow that's a lot of thrust. The faster you go the less stable you are in atmosphere. Also, lots of thrust means parts flex and once they've flexed in one direction, the high thrust tends to make them continue pointing that way. Trilateral symmetry. There are rounding errors in the math that show up when you don't do 2-, 4-, or 8-fold symmetry. Lack of control. Solid boosters and Reliants don't have gimballing, and your fins don't provide any control either. That little reaction wheel can only do so much. SAS tries to hold rotation but doesn't really care about it. It won't correct you back to where you were, just continue to try to keep you where you are now. As soon as the rotational forces caused by the above things overcomes its tiny strength, the ship will just continue to rotate. My suggestions start with: Go down to 2-way symmetry. Or even 1 reliant and 2 side boosters, not 3. Your TWR in the 1st stage is too high, I prefer 1.2 to 1.3. Your TWR in the 2nd stage is ACME-level powerful. It should also be in the 1.2 range. Your 3rd stage (A terrier?) can be about 1.5 to 2x the size. I think you're showing Vacuum dV numbers. 1500-2000m/s is a good target for a booster stage. Especially an upper stage, as that's more efficient. It's easier for a reliant to lift the fuel for an efficient engine than for itself. What does all this have to do with rotation? Smaller rockets with less symmetry and lower TWR are easier to control.

I've done this too, many times. There are caveats: They can still slide off UP the ladder. How they slide on a ladder in 0g is defined by multiple factors, mostly notably which way will be worse for you. You can of course fix this by putting something else above them that will block them from sliding up. You can't time warp at all. Well, you can 4x time warp but that will just make them slide off faster, and good luck getting home from Mun (no less Jool) at only 4x warp. Works to get back to orbit though from the surface but coasting to Ap and then rendezvous can take ANNOYINGLY long. Pretty much anything is better than this, including a command chair and (if dV allows) just using the jet pack.

I can't speak for everyone but I don't watch any. I also don't follow every person who might post something on Twitter. So thank you and @NoMrBond for putting that stuff here. I give credit to YOU both for doing that, not the others.

Actually Fiscal 2020 ends September 30th 2020.

If your rocket bends to the point you can't control it, the "realistic" way for the game to handle it is to destroy your rocket. If you need more than a couple autostruts you did something wrong. Most likely you're trying to thrust too much or you have a ridiculously thin section of your rocket. Or both. So I can't participate in this poll, because "I'd like it just the way it is because I know how to build rockets correctly" isn't on the poll And as an aside, if I was ever served spaghetti with the consistency of the rockets people refer to as "spaghetti" here, I'd send it back because it was obviously undercooked to a ridiculous degree.

I think the Internet is mature (in time, not in actual maturity level) enough to survive people giving bad reviews to things for bad reasons. Half the bad reviews on Amazon are because the item arrived too late or was broken in shipping. As if that's the item's fault.

I basically do what @Geonovast posted. In fact I thought it was one of my pics One trick, mount the two interior satellites facing each other and you save the need for that inner truss, as the middle satellite will be attached to the same truss the top satellite is on, only on the bottom of it. Doesn't save mass, but it does allow for SLIGHTLY longer satellites. You can also slightly rotate the two bottom satellites so they are more "next to" each other than facing off. I think I have a pic around here somewhere I'll try to dig it up and update this post with it. You can also - if you don't want to use fairings and don't mind a draggy front-end on your rocket (hint: you should mind a draggy front-end on your rocket) you can also radially mount the satellites. Back before they made a real atmosphere I frequently sent up 5 satellites at a time, 4 radially and 1 on the front.

Orbiter didn't utilize building craft.

Upload them to a free image service. I use Imgur myself. Then you can get the url to the image and link to that here.

Haha I totally forgot about the 4th company that could have been there. Private Division can be there for any of a number of reasons, though maybe they'll have something.

They who? Squad, Take Two, or... Whatever the new guys are named?

We're us.

While I doubt something like KOS will become stock (and agree that it really shouldn't) I wouldn't be surprised at all if an expanded version of KAL from Breaking Ground was in the game. There's no reason it couldn't have state-based inputs, to trigger events at certain altitudes, speeds, or whatnot. I'm cool with the current stock scanning system but if they did something more akin to Scansat I'd be down with that too.

...assuming the part sizes are even the same. Maybe they'll start at 0.5 instead of 0.625 this time.

I would be very shocked if this was true. Also unhappy, unless they have a great UI and a way to guarantee an orbit is stable forever. I expect that instead they will have some sort of on-rails system that allows for binary planets. I don't know what yet but something akin to Sigma Binaries would work. Hopefully they'll have one that allows for Lagrange points. Even just having L4 and L5 would be enough for me though it'd be cool if you could "nail" a craft at the other points for X period of time using Y units of fuel without any player intervention until time/fuel runs out. We won't know until they tell us or the game is released.

I should be a millionaire, but I'm happy just being able to afford my mortgage payments. "Should" and reality often greatly differ.

Cool you just saved $60