Superfluous J

Internally, it could be named Ore1, or Resource_ore, or Flapdoodle. But from a UI perspective it'd be annoying to have two "ore" resources. Of course, the modders could just change the name of the stock Ore to something else. I suggest Karbonite

I assume he wants to have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for ships, but not pay several millions for building upgrades. It's not that strange an idea, actually.

Have you tried instead customizing the "difficulty" (what I call "grind") settings to better match your preference? When doing tests in career mode, I just crank all the good stuff to the max and all the bad stuff to the min and can unlock pretty much everything I want before launching a single vessel. And if not, Just set up a few strategies to get tons of what I want (science->money gets you a lot of cash when your science returns are set to the max setting). I'm not suggesting you put everything to the max, but tweaking them to your exact liking could let you avoid the alt-f12 menu.

A new release! This is the perfect time to ask for a change (or an option to disable it for me). Now that maneuver nodes are persistent in the game (for quite a while, actually) the "Jump to ship and restore maneuver node" is not just redundant, it sometimes (always? I only ever click it by accident these days so haven't tested it fully) puts a 2nd maneuver node on the orbit, which causes weirdness. Is there a reason I am not thinking of that this button needs to remain?

Easily. ANYBODY with an interest in city building games is doing themselves a disservice if they don't get this.

I started a new series on my YouTube channel, if anybody's interested. Sorry about the sound levels, they'll be fixed in episode 2.

Yeah. Much better to launch up a bunch of rocketparts to build a solid 400 part vessel than ship several smaller ones and hook them together with docking ports and whatnot. Stronger connections and the stock struts will work too.

Not exactly. It bothers me more that Kerbals are named after real people, than that we didn't name more as well. I'd rather they keep their own names. That said, I don't care enough to bring it up except as this reply

Again thanks for doing this, OWK. I tuned in when they said they'd start and they were ending, so all I got was the two pics (which is really all I wanted to see anyway) and didn't hear any of the tidbits. I've repped you a couple times - and every modder whose mods I use at least once each - so I'll skip it this week for your sanity - - - Updated - - - I did not and now I'm super intrigued. I am not happy with the way they currently handle what is in that corner. Fine Print snuck a couple in, so it's reasonable to expect another mod to do the same. I was expecting Karbonite as the actually. I'm not too happy with "ore" but whatever, a resource by any other name will convert just as well to LFO.

That's a crazy looking interchange. I've had to go up to level 4 when I got it in my head to not only make my own interchange but also run a train line through the area as well. I need to YouTube this. Or maybe livestream it.

I don't know if I've had over 500 parts but I've had well over 400 and while it was pretty laggy, I could still play. My Jool-5 craft was 400+ parts and was SUPER laggy on launch but it turns out that lots of docking ports really hurts your framerate more than just raw parts does.

I've not touched the taxes, policies, or anything like that and just place stuff to fix problems. I don't even know what the default tax rate is Nobody complains about high taxes or praises me for low taxes, so I figure I'm all good.

"Natural" is another one of those words that is neither good nor bad. Would you rather eat a bag of "Unnatural" Cheetos, or "Natural" hemlock?

Neither. Asking this is like asking if rain is good or bad. If you're trying to grow crops, it's good. If you're trying to vacation on the beach, it's bad. But GMO is not *inherently* bad. We've been breeding things for centuries to have what we want in them and nobody minds that. This is just taking the time and randomness out of it.

I have wanted this for roughly 3 evers.

Many of those questions are history questions, not science ones. ;-) (Not directed at you GregroxMun, but to the thread in general) And I will maintain my stance that laughing at ANYBODY for ANY reason is wrong, elitist, and encourages the target of your spiteful (because there is no other way to make fun of someone) jokes to just ignore you at best, and retaliate at worst. And the excuse "I'm not laughing at the person, I'm laughing at their stupidity" isn't even tenuous. It's ephemeral.

Yes. No. Kind of See below. When you're making minor adjustments, yes. But not when you're making major changes of inclination which is specifically what I'm dealing with when I want this tool. Note: I'm not asking to replace the current maneuver node, but enhance it. My imagined use of this tool does not need me to know the magnitude or direction of the burn. Here's what I want (maybe I should update the first post with this): You want to align with Gilly. Your orbit after your aerobrake at Eve is nowhere near Gilly's. Tilted about 45 degrees (hey at least you're not retrograde) and quite a ways around Eve. You're lucky (or you planned it this way) though that you've got an ascending node out near your apoapsis, so the burn will be relatively cheap to align. And while you're out there, you could also with the same burn (to save fuel) bring up your periapsis to encounter Gilly on a tangent so you can actually plan the encounter part of your mission. I would consider the above to be a typical experience for me. Now, with the normal maneuver node editor, the SECOND part of this (the burn at your closest point) is a breeze while the first is a nightmare. With my proposed node, both are easy. My proposed node would drop a rotation gizmo on the orbit. What this gizmo says is that you want to leave it at the same speed you were going when you went in TO START WITH, at the direction vector you were going when you went in ALSO TO START. You rotate it around (it could even have a snap to the plane of the target button) and then drag it so your direction vector is now coplanar with Gilly. Likely, the speed you're going isn't correct so then you can drag the speed vector arrow (that is not on the VAB's rotation gizmo, this would be an addition). Now you have told the game what direction and speed you want to be going AFTER THE BURN. The game, then, kindly figures out what that burn should be and tells you where to burn. In short, you're not using the gizmo to tell the game where you want to BURN, you're telling it where you want to go AFTER the burn. For the slowdown or speedup to meet Gilly in the second node, you can use that speed arrow to just slow down or speed up. It's the same as the prograde/retrograde markers so long as you don't rotate the gizmo at all. Again, that's why I specified that this should be an option in addition to the current node. I do not deny that this proposal is a very fundamental change in the way maneuver nodes work. Currently, you are telling the game how you want to burn and it's telling you what will happen. With my proposal, you tell the game what you want to happen and it tells you how to make the burn. I agree here, I'd like this too. Either make the tuggy nodes do what they look like they'll do while they're moving, or leave them there relative to the orbit. I'd prefer the latter (like you would) but would still like my proposed tool as an addition to this.

I was actually wondering if TweakableEverything had (or there was a way to make it have) a button to disable staging on launch clamps, like it has one to enable staging on docking ports.

But the short of it is: Quit looking at how dumb everybody else is that they don't know things that you know. That's a terrible outlook on life. Being smart is not knowing facts, it's the ability to learn. And one of the ways you learn is you stick your neck out and ask things that "everybody knows." Because, oddly, "everybody" doesn't "know" anything until they ask, and are told.

"Why don't we just toss all that nuclear waste into the Sun?" I said that. On more than one occasion. And I even had an answer: If the ship blew up it'd rain nuclear fire down on us. I didn't know the REAL (or at least the OTHER) reason until I played KSP: It's actually really hard to hit the Sun.

Haha I never thought to use launch clamps on a "ground" base. I'm about to build my Gilly base, and I think it's going to all be on launch clamps. I hope nobody removes the "DO NOT PUSH" post-it from the spacebar on THAT base.

I think my suggestion would fix that problem, because it's decoupling "where you want to go" with the whole prograde/normal/radial paradigm of the maneuver node. Really, those don't matter because all you want is the vector.

Yeah it's like when a couple Teslas had engine fires (which were minor and detected by the car before the driver even knew there was a problem) and prople were all like "OMG electric cars are scary" as if GASOLINE didn't also have a tendency to ignite.

I was trying to do a fairly complicated maneuver node the other day, where I was going significantly normal, AND retrograde, with a little radial sprinkled in. As anybody who has tried to do this knows, it can be frustrating because at a certain point, adjusting the "normal" markers affects prograde more than normal, and vice versa. Eventually it seems impossible to the the result you want with those little tuggy nodes on the Maneuver Node. Frustrated with this, I said to myself, "Agh! I wish this was a rotation gizmo. I'd have nailed this in SECONDS." And now I want this really bad. I don't even know if it's easy (or possible) to allow the user to use a rotation-like gizmo to set up a maneuver node and then have the game figure out what the burn should be like, but if it is, I want it baaaaaaaad.

I started with the demo. I don't know how advanced it was but the Mun was in it. I told myself that once I landed on Mun and got home, I'd know if I wanted to play the game. I successfully landed and got home that same weekend (mostly thanks to learning about quicksave) and bought the game. My first real game was in sandbox (that's all we had back then) and I futzed around with massive ships that ended up taking full organe tanks (that were intended as the launch stage) all the way to Mun. I somehow successfully orbited Moho (couldn't land or get back) and then realized that... there would not have been anything to do there once I got there, that I hadn't already done on Mun. Then I realized that about every other planet. Then I quit playing. About 2 weeks later Career Mode (Science Mode) came out, and I figured I'd try it. I LOVED it. I also started playing with mods, and realizing (with the help of KER) what I'd been doing wrong all along with my rockets. I also discovered Kethane and Extraplanetary Launchpads. I loaded up that old career, set up a Karbonite operation on Minmus, sent a rescue ship to Moho and brought those guys home. Then I deleted that save and started my first YouTube series, which back then was just "KSP" but is now called "Bases." I learned a lot making that series, both about YouTube (and video production) AND playing KSP, so my next series (Kerpollo) was much more successful from both fronts. Now almost a year and several other series later, I consider myself an advanced player, able to gravity assist in most situations where it'll actually help, pinpoint a landing onto a docking port landed on an airless world, and run with margins so thin that I miss a Gilly landing by less than 100 m/s (oops). Hey, just because I know how doesn't mean I'll actually succeed.