Superfluous J

Is there any chance you filtered out everything? At the top of the map (You have to put your cursor up there to make it drop down) is a filter. It's possible to unclick everything.

This is actually one of my favorite parts. I'm going to be happy when I get enough words to actually understand what people are saying on a regular basis, but it's fun right now trying to interpret what the NPC wants me to do. Though I've found they tend to too-liberally sprinkle clues into descriptions, so you almost don't even need ANY words in some cases. I didn't know there were mods, I'll have to look into that. I'd love some QOL improvements in inventory and whatnot.

I've never actually USED the bases, so I don't recall. The last one was actually the entire Grand Tour ship and it was something like 8 of the biggest tanks of fuel (and some orange tanks too), plus 2 I think of the big ore tanks. The ship was totally full when I departed for Moho. And quite empty when I got there If I was to do it again, I'd probably shoot for a rig that could land empty, mine and convert maybe 3 of the 14.4 tanks' worth, plus some RCS and full ore tanks because why not. And whatever engines are needed for that to have a decent TWR, which on Gilly means not that many engines.

More planets maybe, but spaceplanes are squarely in the center of "stuff I don't want to do"

I voted "Yes" though I'm not, really. Ideas, I have aplenty. What I'm running out of is ideas for things I actually want to do.

With us having lots of ways to make ships. How ghastly.

I've mined Gilly 3 times in my KSP career, the first time way back before it was stock and the latest was earlier this year in a failed attempt (though Gilly went okay) at a Grand Tour. The first time, I used KAS (which I believe is named KIS now, though KAS still exists and I've never learned which does what. If I want something I used to be able to do in KAS, I just install them both these days) to nail the craft to the ground. The second time, I installed Ant thrusters aiming upward to give a little push downward to make sure I stay on the ground. The third time, I just landed and drilled. In all 3 cases, everything worked fine. As it's so small, I say the drilling/converting/storage should all be one ship. Go down, fill up, then come back into space to fill up whomever needs it.

I wouldn't call opening every part's config file in a text editor and editing the lines, cross-referencing node names in another file "fairly easy." Straightforward, sure, but MAN. And that's not even considering changing the nodes in the tree around. Maybe your brain can visualize dozes of x,y pairs of 4-digit numbers and know exactly how it'll work (or you looooove graph paper) but I'll pass. And yes I looked into it and even started working on it, before giving up.

That's one of my least favorite things in the game. It's probably #3 on the list after inventory management and the lack of useful (or any in most cases) maps. Actually going back to the small planets thing, I wonder if that's why there's no map. I know from playing Empyrion Galactic Survival, having tiny planet spread out and giving the player a map of it in a sphere creates quite a bit of dissonance.

I don't know what they do, but it works. I suspect they are flattening out the terrain and I also suspect that planets are differently rendered in space, in the air, and on the ground. I have been flying toward something that looks like it's just over the horizon, seen it'll take a minute or two to get there, hopped into space so I could use the faster engines, looked back down at the planet, and was surprised that the thing I was going for was actually further around the planet than it had first appeared. Unless you do that kind of thing, though, it's really very seamless and you don't notice it at all. When you're on the surface, the planet sure looks big, and in a video game walking more than 30 seconds anywhere is going to get old quick.

Very known, and by many (for example me) very hated. It's also very hard to fix. From what I've read about it, I don't think I could fix it.

And with any luck at all, you'll catch yourself a nice tasty kraken!

Technically, we already do that. Most of our unmanned spacecraft harvest energy from the planets to get where they're going. I can't think of a practical way to use that energy here, though, which is I presume what you mean

I call that iterative testing Welcome back!

Not exactly sure what the question here us, but the answer is that they're working on it. I mean that literally. I'm hopeful that next release this years-long-standing bug well be quashed once and for all.

Then your Kerbal will be listed as missing, not dead, and will return in a short time (it seems like a day two is more than enough)

While this works in this simple example, it does not work on actual ships because more often than not - at least for me - those attachment nodes have things on them.

It's important to know WHY @foamyesque was able to do this with a single SRB, while @bewing was not: TWR of less than 1 will KILL you going straight up, but is very doable when most of your thrust is sideways. So, the second craft was able to ditch the high-TWR but low-efficiency SRBs earlier and rely on the super-efficient NERV engine for a lot more of the trip. It wouldn't have been quite so lopsided if the original ship didn't have a NERV engine, and instead had an engine with a higher TWR. It'd still have been worse, just not 3 times worse. Also, using the payload's fuel in the test really muddies the water, making any real analysis difficult at best. That's why most of the time when we discuss launch profiles, we get a payload into LKO without using any of its fuel.

I'm in the 50/50 crowd. If I need a third (non-SRB) stage my ship's usually really weird and not really worth trying to categorize - and probably doesn't work anyway. But usually I try to have 3000-3300m/s, roughly evenly split between the two stages, and SRBs for a bit of an early kick off the pad pushing the total dV up to about 3500 (vacuum) dV between those stages. Sometimes I shoot for about 3000 total dV (including SRBs) and get to orbit with some of the payload's fuel, but that's only in cases where the payload is small and I'm bringing extra fuel because I just can't make the ship any smaller and get any real gain. It's easier to add 500 m/s of dV to a tiny probe than its launcher. But that's another of those edge cases where its just best to do it and not think about it much. Addendum: One common >2 stager I still use to this day sometimes is asparagus staging. The nice thing about that is you keep a relatively consistent TWR all the way up, but it can be expensive (in Funds) especially on those first few stages where you get only a couple hundred m/s and then drop 2 really expensive engines. But if your payload requires it, hey it's an option.

There is a setting in the debug menu (Alt-F12) for "Dead Kerbals respawn" or something similar. Make sure that's checked. It's not really a "cheat" as you could have set that when you started the game. Edit: And here have some rep. I hate seeing people with no rep

I swear I tried those, but I suppose it's possible I only tried Q and E. I know that I had endless trouble with Just Cause 2 and 3, jumping out of my helicopter or plane over and over when trying to roll.

I've played it for 4-5 hours on PC so far and here are my first impressions: If you liked the resource collecting, crafting, and exploring of Minecraft but found yourself not enjoying the building, this could be the game for you. If you can handle KSP's bugginess and UI quirks, No Man's Sky's are at - at worst - similar and - in my opinion - not as bad. Would I rather they're different? Of course. Is the game unplayably terrible because of them? Not really. I made a scant few graphical changes in line with common suggestions (turned off Vsync, went to windowed mode. That may have been it but I may be forgetting something) and kept FPS at 30 (I'm not one of those "Anything less than 120fps is a child's toy" people) and other than pop-in, I've been very happy with both the visual quality and the performance in general. Flying a ship in atmosphere with a mouse and keyboard can be frustrating as all get out. As far as I can tell, "Roll" isn't a thing in this game and if your ship's upside down, well it's just going to be that way until you turn enough in the correct direction (which is likely not the way you want to go) to get it upright. I spent a lot of time upside-down, and a similar amount of time with my ship flying happily along at a 45 degree angle. There is not one single decent map function, and many things are totally lacking maps. There is no map of planets you can refer to and mark waypoints. There is similarly no map of the system you are in. The little map of things around you in the ship's cockpit is - as far as I can tell - completely useless except to show you were planets are (which isn't that important as most of them can fill the field of view). The only map that serves any purpose at all is the star map and it's so frustrating to control that I find myself just jumping to the first star I manage to highlight that it tells me I can reach. Following the story, I had to plot a course to a specific star that was not marked (it was between me and the destination) and I managed it, but it was not enjoyable to do so at all. I seem to have broken the storyline, or am missing something. I suspect the game told me something that I didn't notice and now I can find no record of in-game text, and no list of current goals (though that does exist in the very early game). I have a space station marked on my HUD but I can find nothing there to interact with, that I've not interacted with already. I'm on the verge of Googling my way through the mission. If you're curious, I'm in that aforementioned system, one jump from an Atlas waypoint star, with no hyperdrive fuel and no way (that I've found) to buy or make it. tl;dr, I like the game. If it was $30 I'd say it was an insta-buy. For $60 you have to really like the genre and feel (as I do) that multiplayer is not just "not a big deal" but actually undesirable. I'm glad I bought it, but might - knowing what I know now - have held off.

That map assumes you burn all the way from LKO to Duna intercept in a single burn. You are likely burning out of Kerbin's SOI in one burn, then to Duna in a second burn. That is much more expensive.

Now that you mention it, I'm pretty proud of my Why God Why ship. It lifts 7 14.4 tanks (the largest in the stock game) to LKO, though one of then is only half full so it's more like 6.5 tanks. Still, it's quite an achievement IMO.

I own No Man's Sky on PC but have not played it in spite of downloading it at 1:03pm on Friday. I've just not had time. Hopefully I will have a good chunk of time tomorrow. After seeing the poor reviews, I think I'm going to give myself 90 minutes on it before deciding if I'm going to get a refund (You get 2 hours on Steam). Wow. So they managed to make an interface that would annoy me on EITHER system, because on BOTH it seems that it was made primarily for the other. That in and of itself is an achievement! Well KSP requires this as well, at least it did last time I tried it. Also KSP required me to add a switch to the commad-line running of the ksp executable. I'd call this a step up. No that's them being silly. It makes far more sense if you're on a PS4 and you see a circle with an X in it, because that's how ever game on the console prompts you to continue.