Superfluous J

Because it's a Truth? The very first time I tried to get to Gilly - somewhere around 2.5-3 years ago - I couldn't understand why the "close approach" markers were showing where Gilly was when my ship was some seemingly random place in my orbit, and not what was obviously wanted which is where Gilly will be when my ship is closest to Gilly's orbit. This is so obvious to me it's like wanting rockets to go up when you thrust down. If someone wants something else, they should have to check or uncheck a settings box. EDIT: Sure KSP needs to check for the other closest approach to work under the hood and sure it can show this marker if it wants to, but it's superfluous to my gameplay and at BEST should only be shown in ADDITION to the markers that are actually useful. I mean both of these things, yes. Also, I mean that the markers should be consistent between non-gravitational and gravitational bodies.

I knew there had to be something like this. Minecraft on console limited the only-limited-by-your-hard-drive-space world size, KSP on console limits the only-limited-by-your memory-and-processor ship size. What happens if you launch two 300-part craft and dock them together in orbit? Or on the runway, even? Or just get them near each other?

Thank you for saying this. I've thought it for years.

Engines producing torque over the COM lift the back legs and push down on the front ones, so yes moving the engines so they don't do that will help. I'm not great with planes but I was able to get yours (or a reasonable facsimile of it) up to about 60 m/s before it flipped out and exploded on me. I suspect more wing (and less fuel. I was surprised when I saw the center fuel tank was not a structural fuselage) would help but I hate the Junos so much I stopped playing with the plane In my book, anything less than a Panther isn't worth flying with but as I said, I'm not great with planes

I cannot for the life of me figure out what wing you're using there. Could I get a top view? Without yet making the plane, my first 2 thoughts is that your back gear is too far back, and your COT is off-line with your COM.

Yeah! You all know Buzz was a WASD guy.

They sure didn't for Ingress, don't know if they will for pokemon. Most Ingress players around here have Anker chargers. Some have more than one.

Well no the name on the side of the ship would just change. As for what the actual vessel should be named, you right click any command part and say "name the vessel this name." Naming the vessel would be separate from naming the command pods, and you'd not be able to name the vessel itself outside of picking the command pod whose name you'd use.

Agreed. It's almost MORE annoying that it remembers sometimes (proving it can) but not others. I wish each command pod/module had its own name, and the game decided in a predictable fashion which command pod to use as the vessel's name upon undocking. And maybe have the name written on the pods under the flag, or somewhere else if there is no flag (like on probe cores).

I'm going to assume you don't think these at the same time, but are instead using them to show that no matter a person's position about the game, dV should NOT be in it. I disagree with Argument 1. Figuring out roughly what a rocket with various capabilities looks like is EXACTLY what I used an in-game dV calculator (KER in my personal case) for at the start. When I started playing KSP, I went to the Mun with a dozen orange tanks and mainsails because that's what my gut told me I needed and it worked, and 10 orange tanks didn't cut it. After several HOURS with KER in the VAB fiddling with different things I'd have never tried (because that learning would have taken WEEKS and not produced anything workable, I would have given up long before) I wasn't just guessing what I needed and adding more when I thought that's what was required, I KNEW what I needed because I had LEARNED (well enough to play a video game) how the rocket equation balanced out payload, fuel, and engines. I disagree with Argument 2 as well. The devs have repeatedly and without question stated that this game is about wonder and magic and all that. They do NOT want you to have to learn the rocket equation to play the game (though you are of course welcome to) and I agree with them on that one. There are dozens of "easy outs" in this game from the size of the planets to EVA fuel to Kerbals being massless in capsules to infinite reaction wheels to lack of life support to... you get the point.

It's not only atmospheric flight. It's any time a ship is under a large enough stress. 4x usually works fine with ions and nukes, but your otherwise perfectly fine ship with more standard engines could easily bend, twist, and in many cases explode under 4x warp. And those that CAN handle 4x warp usually require a lot of care. As in, you better not try to turn. As 4x is a LOT worse than 3x, I can only imagine that 8x would be even worse. Likely more than twice as bad, if you were able to quantify "bad" in a meaningful way.

If a dV indicator in KSPEdu precludes having one in KSP, then why do both have other features in common? That argument makes no sense.

@pap1723 I like all of yours (except the flag one as it's not stylized like the rest) but this one in particular is absolutely awesome: Asteroid Recovery

I've not used Procedural Fairings (capitalized to show I'm naming the mod. Note that the stock fairings are also procedural fairings, lowercase letters) since the stock version because to me, they're good enough and I'd rather use stock than a mod if stock is good enough. So, I can't say. One thought, though, do the procedural fairings in the Procedural Fairings mod automatically strut to the payload so it won't wobble outside of them? That's one of my favorite of the newer features in the game.

Pokemon gyms are tied to (some) Ingress portals (They just reused the database they'd built up in Ingress), and you'd be surprised how many headstones make it in. The largest cemetery in my city has almost 300 Ingress portals in it, and I'd not be surprised to find that some if not many of them are Pokemon gyms.

I think it's because if you mention Pokemon to the general populace, they at least know it's this game where you have little monsters or something called pokey-mans. If you ask them about Ingress, they'll say they think they saw that movie, it was about dreams or something right?

109. Answering a list of "what mods would you suggest for this specific thing" with the same old list of mods you use for everything, regardless of if they are actually useful for the specific thing requested.

I voted clamshell because I figured "Symmetrical" was something from some mod. I tend to do Clamshell in 4 segments. More and it doesn't look right, less and I get this: Also, I love the term "shatter fairings" and think I may start using it from now on. It doesn't have the negative connotations of "potato chip" and even "confetti" (what I preferred up to this point because it sounded LESS negative, but still a bit negative).

Or maybe it's so small but is so massive (read: dense) that it retains the atmosphere in spite of being ridiculously tiny. Like, I'm talking 600 km in radius or something crazy like that. ...

Hm. I really can't say what would have caused it. The differences between 0.5 and 0.4 are quite small, and are all contained within if() statements in the science code. I can't see how it would work in 0.4 and not in 0.5. My only guess is if some mod you have modifies how science parts work in a very specific way. Like, removing the fact that experiments can be deployed or not. I don't know if or even why any mods would do that. As you can't even click the parts, I can't even think of a way to test or debug it. All of my code is contained within the right click menu of the parts. I'll put up a link to 0.4, and maybe all previous versions, in the original post next time I've got free Internet Time.

Push your COL back a bit. Your COM needs to be in FRONT of the COL, not in the same location. Think of an arrow or a dart. There's a reason the heavy metal tip is at the front. Also, the elevons gets confused near the COM. If they're all behind it (which they should be if your wings are far enough back for the above to be true) then they'll work correctly. Any that go in front of the COM will reverse themselves.

If someone can break "how do you actually add a button to a toolbar, such that clicking that button does stuff" down into captain dummy speak for me, I would love to write this. I've looked through source code. I've found an undocumented piece of code that - if I knew anything about how to use it - could possibly make Blizzy's toolbar easy to implement. I've found the KSP ApplicationLauncher wiki page and several forum posts about it. Not one of these things has given me any idea how this whole thing works. I am not a stupid man. But I feel like one right now. I feel like I want to hammer a nail and need to take a course in thermodynamics to understand how heat will transfer between the two before I swing it.

Fixed in v0.5 which is up on Spaceport now and should be on CKAN whenever that stuff happens. Bonus: Now you don't get the warning anymore about experiments that already exist. AYA just ignores those. It seems that the "Deployed" variable is present for all experiments, but gets automatically reset for those expeirments that you don't have to reset manually. By checking the variable and skipping those that are "deployed," AYA now skips all non-reset experiments, regardless of if they need reset manually or not.

Maybe I'm old and lazy but I don't think this is a problem. Time and fuel are both infinite in this game and you'll get it eventually, so go ahead and let this "cheat" happen. And if you're modding your game so time and/or resources aren't infinite, then it's up to you to enforce your other rules too.

This. You could even be able to turn on (or off) filters for 1/2 size and 1/4 size tanks of each radius showing up in the part list, so for the user it looks exactly the same as it does now so long as you don't take advantage of all the new procedural features. And when resizing tanks, the game could (if you've enabled the option) snap the texture to look like it does now. Some of the models have slight greebling (Like the FL-T100) but even that could be enabled. If the tank is between 0 and 1/2 size, use the model FL-T100 model, stretched. If it's between 1/2 size and 1 size (including being equal to 1/2 size) use the FL-T200 model, stretched. If it's size 1 or more, use he FL-T400 model. Same for the other radii options. Then those of us who want ease of use can have ONE FUEL TANK in the part list, and easily turn that tank in the editor into an FL-T200. And then copy and paste it and whatnot. And when we realize we actually need an FL-T400 in that center of our asparagus-staged stack, we don't have to dismantle our entire vessel to change that one part. We just drag it up to the next size. But don't worry, one-part-per-size people, you'll still be able to uncheck that option and force yourself to rebuild your ship to change one fuel tank. As far as "removing a challenge" I don't buy it. If you really want that challenge (in your forum challenge thread), just say no fuel tanks greater than the largest snap-to size of each tank. Or even specify that you have to use the snap-to sizes of each tank if you think someone using what would effectively be an FL-T600 is getting a massive advantage over you.