monophonic

Umm... Sorry, I don't speak Physics so most of what you say is way beyond my understanding. Was hypothesis too strong a term to describe my idea? Maybe my phrasing was off? I meant that when travelling back in time you could not actually change anything because those changes were already part of the history when you left for your time trip. So all you can do is go and act out things that must happen exactly as they happened. The same fixedness would then likely extend the other way into future as well. This would have big metaphysical implications too, like completely eradicating the concept of free will. But, well, yeah... It is mainly idle thinking, there is no serious theory behind it.

I have a couple of hypothesis of my own on the subject. 1) You can go back in time, and you can do anything and everything you want, and go back. That changes nothing, because the future you came from was already the result of all the (mis)deeds you did in your past. 2) Travel back in time requires a receiving station. Therefore no-one can travel back to earlier than when the first time machine was switched on, and even then travel is limited because the receiver has a limited bandwith.

Since this thread is up now, I'll throw a question out here. So, I play in Linux (64bit, Ubuntu 12.04 right now although I will be migrating to 14.04 soon). I have been looking at the Thrustmaster T-16000M and Logitech Extreme 3D Pro. I cannot find any clear, understandable (to me) information about their compatibility with Linux though. So if you have either and use it with Linux (any flavor) please tell me how hard was it to get work.

Hey I like this one! Have some rep.

Of those, I am... An Administrator. I absolutely will not design a new lifter, unless the existing designs just cannot be made to do the job. Even then, I absolutely will not research a tech node, unless the job just cannot be done with already researched tech. Even then, I absolutely will not upgrade a facility, unless the job just cannot be done with the existing facilities. Even then, I enjoy playing the game!

I fire the orange suits as my very first act into a new career. I wont employ anyone I haven't hired myself, and I really don't need anyone dressing up differently and walking about as if they own the place just because, you know, they own the place!

I agree there is an overabundance of science points in 0.90. They are also an infinite resource as contracts give science as well, which does not match well with the finite science cost of the tech tree. Tech trees are pretty much by definition finite*, so some other kind of science sink is needed. It is just very hard to come up with something that isn't just converting funds costs into science costs. Science can be very much summed up as the process of producing new knowledge. Knowledge is reproduceable** and education is reproducing existing knowledge by imprinting it in more minds, so Kerbal University wont work. At best it could cost science to upgrade, but it wouldn't fit the infinite sink requirement. Newspapers, magazines and other mass media on the other hand are always looking for new stories to sell. Depending on minor details you can give them your "science" and get back "money" or "reputation..." Which is already covered by the policies at the admin facility. I have also thought about spending science to discover some of the planetary bodies in the system. This would still be a finite sink though. Unless this was extended to needing to spend science in order to be able to spot asteroids, and the numbers you spot being dependent on the amount of science you spend. Hmm... There may be potential there. Particularly if the asteroid creation mechanism is extended to stuff like comets and Kuiper belt objects. You would need to use only a small amount of science to spot near Kerbin asteroids, but literally astronomical amounts to spot Kuiper belt objects. Being procedurally generated, these would effectively produce the infinite sink mechanism I am after. Rewards from contracts that involve these objects should also scale with the inaccessibility of the body in question. Just imagine the challenge of landing a 5000 ton KBO from three times the distance of Eeloo at KSC!*** *Procedural tech notwithstanding, but doing that would be a world first to my knowledge. **Through methods such as storytelling, book writing, movie filming and forum posting. ***Completing this contract should also unlock an achievement for being the most unboreable person ever.

Headsail? Spinnaker? Though as more of an upper stage counterpart to the S3 KS-25x4 I guess it should follow the canine theme. Rottweiler? Then I'll be disappointed if S3 KS-25x4 isn't nicknamed the Square Rig.

I just last night saw the same happen with a ship that had three Mk1 crew pods. The RWs of at least one pod (I didn't think to check the others) flashed that message even though there was 120 units of electric charge in the pods' batteries. The situation kept going for as long as I was in the shadow of Kerbin, but once in sunlight the batteries started filling and the message stopped. I have no idea what the actual cause is, but I would like to know as well.

I have always been intrigued about the fact they have somehow managed to identify the fleck of paint as that.

Nothing, basically. I launched my proudest design to date, a direct ascent Minmus lander for three kerbals and with science bays and goos to harvest high, low and surface. It featured my first 2,5m launcher as well. Reached orbit with less dV than I expected, used the rest of the second stage (whichever way you count ) to do most of the plane change, and staged to finish it with the lander-ship's engine. No hum, no flame. What's wrong? No fuel. What, it's got three T200 tanks full. Facepalmed, the tricoupler does not route fuel, at least not that way. Back to drawing board it is. Thankfully The Doctor was on call, and wound back time to before moving the rocket to the launch pad. He left a note on the head engineer's desk about the fuel flow problem too. He is nice like that, The Doctor.

Testing indicates "no." I get the message "No other valid parts to attach by in the current selection" I also remembered the messages wrong. They are "Select a set of two or more parts to attach..." for the first click and "Select another part to attach by" for the second. If I have only a single part on the ship, the first click says "Cannot use the Root tool on a single part." You cannot select the original root node as the new root node. I haven't played with symmetry and surface attached parts yet. Don't have time for that right now though, but this mystery is too intriguing to forget for long...

Why wouldn't they just keep the old root and pop up a message saying that part cannot be root? I'm sure there is a clue in the message given for the first click though. It goes something like "select part to attach by" or thereabouts. I just can't figure out what it means.

Yes, that's the one - and in the thread that was linked to before and I did check through! Guess I need to go get my eyesight checked... Thanks OhioBob!

Yeah, the only way to survive a catsplosion... wait, which forum am I on?

I can't find the thread now, but IIRC someone found out by examining the persistence file that landing on Minmus was actually more like 5.75 KXP while planting a flag there was 6.25 or thereabouts. The fact that the numbers are shown rounded everywhere, apparently including the XP bar, is of course a recipe for big time confusion.

I never test. I will manipulate time to undo catastrophic failures though. I find it more realistic than reverting and saying "it was just a test." I dunno... maybe I watch too much Dr Who?

On a less serious note, possibly their space suit tech isn't advanced enough to allow two layers of suit to fit between their fingers? Except between the thumb and index finger of course.

Double extra points for naming it Thistledown.

Kerbal Space Program Yes, I do like minimalism, why do you ask? 1.0 is a very special release, it's the game as envisioned, nothing more, nothing less. It's the very idea which those three words have referred to since the beginning. In my opinion adding a sub label to that specific release would play down the importance of reaching that milestone. Give names to any other releases, but 1.0 is special.

Certainly, given how SAS is specifically intended to keep things from tipping on their own.

Not at all, if you reuse the part. If you can't, the first case is a bigger loss by the value of the part. In the second case you can just use the money towards some other part that you can use. Therein is the challenge I like: How to get continued use, thus value, out of those old, obsolete parts and the cost sunk on them? I know financially it's the exact same thing to just buy the old parts again, but it simply does not feel the same. And I would have (in-role) reason to think more carefully what all I can recover and how. It isn't a big feature, just a small detail that would suit my mentality better.

First, I fully acknowledge this sort of thing has been discussed in the past. Nevertheless, I could not find any posts recent enough to have considered the existence of the difficulty panel and career dynamics as they now (0.90) stand. Also the threads I could find did not propose exactly the model I am about to outline. Oh, I'm not aware of any mods that do this either, so feel free to point me to any that may exists. In short, I would like a difficulty option added to let any parts I recover be added to inventory instead of getting a refund for them. I should still pay the recovery fee, which would be the difference of the buy value and the (distance-from-KSP-determined) recovery value of the part. Then I could use those parts to build new crafts without paying for a new part. This would bring up new choices to be made in ship design. For example, I might have to choose whether to buy a shiny new Mk1-2 pod for the three kerbal Duna mission, or reuse the two Mk1 pods from a previous rescue mission and just buy a third Mk1. I would enjoy making these kinds of decisions, while I do know others would not. That is why I suggest making it an optional feature. It would also add to the difficulty, since you might run into a situation where you cannot afford to recover a craft. Especially from the other side of Kerbin, if you happened to land there. You might also find yourself in a situation, where you cannot do a mission with the parts you have in inventory and cannot afford the parts you would need to buy, but could if you had been refunded the recovered parts instead. Personally I would like to try and figure out these sorts of problems as well, so they are a plus for me. As usual, others will disagree, hence make it optional. Keeping the feature as simple as an inventory count per part would help keep the implementation work simpler and shorter. I would be just happy to wave over any refurbishment issues for the benefit of gameplay, as in stock game the parts are completely failure-free anyway. There would not be any new art to be made, only some texts would need to be changed depending on which recovery mode is in effect. Of course that would mean some work on certain GUI dialogs, which is to be expected. How the inventory is saved in the persistence file would be the other big part of the code side. I don't know how Squad would do it, but I think something new would need to be made. There doesn't seem to be anything like it in the persistence file as of now. So, in closing, I think this would be a smallish feature made with medium effort that would disproportionately increase my enjoyment of the stock game.

I faced a similar bug attack once. After that I set up a cron job to commit my saves to a git repository every 3 minutes. It already saved my save once. I agree KSP could use a period of bug fixing and general polishing up. You know, like a beta phase? ;-)

Jool should have biomes for this. At least the poles and a "stripe" or two. After all those aren't just painted on the clouds, right?