GoldForest

I'm sorry, but your post makes no sense to me and doesn't seem to respond to anything in my comment.

That's kind of misleading.

No, not threads, cores. Multi-core and multi-thread are two different things. Multi-core means that the game runs on more than one core. IIRC, KSP 1 still runs on a single core or two cores, at most, of your CPU, that's one of the major performance issues. You could have AMD's 32 core CPU and the game would still only use 1 or 2 cores. Multi-thread means basically splitting a core in 2, so 4 cores, 8 threads. Single-core performance is sometimes better than multi-core performance. That's what they're trying to decide. Whether 1 core gaming is better than 2, 4, 6, etc cores.

No mention of it. The only thing we've heard hardware wise is that they are still trying to decide whether to go single-core or multi-core.

It is

Where can I find the latest version? Smd all my other stuff works. Hanger extender, mechjeb, etc

I don't have anything. No toolbar button, no part in the part menu, no GUI.

I'm having trouble getting it to show up as well.

How did you get the ring to look so flush?

Cuphead Rick and Morty VR Ori and the blind Forest Hearthstone They want to make the game optimized for PART COUNT. They've said in multiple times. They want the player to be able to build very large and complex builds. So, they are focusing on gameplay optimization and not graphic optimization. Again, there's nothing wrong with unity. If you pay software developers to give you optimized code, you'll get optimized code.

Unity works really well when OPTIMIZED! That is PRE-ALPHA footage, which means no OPTIMIZATION has been done. Unity is a great engine and can do great things. All the Unity games that are slow or have poor performance are NOT optimized well. Let go of your inhibitions about Unity. Blame the developers for poor performance, not the game engine. Like @The Aziz said, any game can run poorly, whether they are using Unity, Unreal, the Doom engine, or any other engine. It also has to deal with how well built the engine is. Look at Halo, it's engine is literally BROKEN and yet, for some reason, it works.

Unity isn't the problem, it's how you code the game. If they code it well, it will be able to handle thousands of parts.

Rask and Rusk will never collide. I'm talking about having a static model that looks like a planet and another planet or moon are physically colliding. Like I said before, I'd be fine with a static model of just the moon sticking out of the planet with rings around it to simulate debris. No need for N-body. Collide with what? It's a single planet or moon orbiting at high-speeds. Hours to days to weeks. And it wouldn't need N-body, just a simple work around or cheat. Again with the N-body? No. N-body isn't needed, just a workaround or cheat to make it work, like what they are doing with Rask and Rusk. Tidal forces would have a major effect if the water mechanics are changed to allow ships and submarines. A colony would have a lot of buoyancy, all those inflatable modules. So you would have to pick a high spot, or be willing to have your colony subjected to floating if you place it on a beach. Eve =/= thick gaseous. Eve = Thick ATMOPSHERE. There's a difference. I'm talking thick VISIBLE gas, like Venus, to where the gas basically blocks your view. As for Dusty, I'm not talking like wind kicking up dust, I'm talking about perpetual sandstorm conditions, with ranging visibility. I don't think it would be boring, and I don't think a lot of other people will either. It would present a challenge. The ravines would be a great source of science I feel, but getting down inside them to get to the science would be the challenge. Planets under going gravitational stress would be seismically active, so a moon orbiting too close to it's parent planet would put stress on both itself and the parent planet. Quakes knocking over landers would be a challenge that I think quite a lot of people will welcome. I know it's unrealistic, but nothing in KSP really is realistic. It's realistic to a point, yes, but there's plenty of unrealism in KSP, so a donut asteroid isn't out of the question. Not all these suggestions are meant to be on their own planet. I should probably edit the title to say planetary FEATURES as well.

I was talking about Pulsars and their massive EM radiation.

Alien civilizations/artifacts/ruins/etc are semi-confirmed. During the interview, Nate gave a smiling no comment. So, we might want to prepare for the fact that we might find alien artifacts on a varying level, or heck, we might find a whole new species.

They might hit the ground at such a low speed that they might not die and could just jump out. Like I said with the colliding planets, it would be cosmetic really, a static model, no movement from the moon like plunging into the planet. Not true, there are plenty of stable super fast orbits in the universe. Rare and improbable, but not impossible. We'll have to wait and see. Well, we have semi-confirmation about water mechanics getting a major overhaul, possibly to allow true submarines and ships. When asked about underwater relics or artifacts, Nate gave a smiler and a no comment. It is geologically plausible. A planet that is tearing itself apart or being torn apart by outside force would have fissures, cracks, etc from the stresses, would it not? Again, geologically plausible if the planet was under going planetary scaled stress. Rask and Rusk in real life would be causing seismic activity on one another quite badly. I will admit, planets with holes in them aren't very realistic, but asteroids with holes in them are. I would settle for donut asteroid. Alien artifacts are semi-confirmed by Nate as well. When asked about them, he gave a no comment. Other stars would be nice. And since radiation might be in the game, it would make the bigger bad boys a challenge, especially with neutron stars. Super-Earths would be neat even without the neutron star. Black holes would be neat, but quite difficult to implement.

It's a dormant volcano. Go to Rask or Rusk if you want to sacrifice your Kerbal virg… er… I mean, Kerbal Volunteers. You need lava to make a sacrifice after all. Unless you enjoy watching them go splat after a few thousand feet drop... oh gosh... volcano with micro gravity, your sacrifice would take hours to die.

1) Like I said, it depends on the fix they have for binary systems. As for the collosion, I was thinking it's more in permanent stasis, just a moon sticking out of the planet. 2) Days? I was thinking hours. 3) We'll have to wait and see their 'fix' for binary and up systems. 4) Dynamic weather, yes, but tides are not weather. They are water. And they have semi-confirmed water is a big feature in the game. Also, it's not that hard to make changing tides, just make the water sphere grow or shrink in size. Or, make the water model oval instead of spherical with the planet, then put it on a synchronous spin with the moon to where the edges are keeping speed with said moon. 5) 6) 7) KIS style ropes, or if nothing like that, then makeshift landing legs using the 'claw' part. 8) True, I do know this. But this is KSP we're talking about. Do you really care if impossible planets are in the game? 9) Landing in them will be fun. 10) Yeah, but sphere would be more gravitationally stable than millions of plates running across each other. Each plate would have it's own gravity and thus add wonky physics. A sphere would just have 3 gravity zones. The outside of the shell, the inside of the shell, and the star.

What are some of your planetary, planetary features, solar system or solar system features ideas you'd like to see in game? Here are a few of mine: 1) Colliding planets. - We have Rask and Rusk, and if KSP had real gravity and physics, those two may well collide with each other, so why not make a planet system that is colliding? Maybe not two full sized planets. Maybe a moon colliding with a planet that created a debris field in orbit. Of course, this is dependent on the "fix" they have in place for binary planets and/or bodies. 2) A super fast orbiting body - whether around a star or a moon that is just grazing the atmosphere of its parent planet, this would give a unique challenge for sure. Would also make orbiting the planetary parent interesting as you would have to either maintain a high orbit or get into a synchronous orbit with the moon. Not to mention the havoc it would cause for gravity when you land on the planet. Low gravity when the moon is over head, high gravity when it's on the opposite side if the planet. Though, you would get a helping hand if you launched in the low grav effect the moon caused. 3) Binary or Trinary star systems - Why not? Tatooine anyone? How about that planet from Riddick Pitch Black? 4) A water world with changing tides - I know this might be hard to do in game, but having to build a colony to withstand tidal forces would be a fun challenge I feel. 5) A planet with a thick gaseous/dusty atmosphere - Think Venus, or Mars during its planet wide dust storm. Low visibility, large rocks scattered around the landing site. Would be an interesting challenge. Not only landing, but taking off as well, thick atmosphere means lots of drag. 6) A planet that has ravines everywhere - and I'm talking ravines ranging in all sizes, from a few dozen meters to Grand Canyon deep, but not necessarily as wide. A ravine a few miles deep with just enough clearance for a landing rocket... you're going to scratch the paint alright, but the rewards might be worth it. 7) Seismically active planet - Rask and Rusk might have this, but it's to be expect. I mean a non lava world that is just earthquakes, or planet quakes if you prefer, every so often ranging from a simple shakey action, lander might move an inch or two, to massive quakes that will bounce or tip your lander over. Better bring some weights or grapple lines to tie down the lander. 8) A planet or dwarf planet that had its core ripped out, leaving a giant hole straight through the planet - basically... donut world. Oh come on, you want the challenge of having to fall into the hole and then have enough power to break out of the gravity well... you don't? Why not? It's and interesting challenge and it would be funny to get your vessel trapped in the center of a hollow world, and then have to rescue them... some how. 9) A world with a dormant composite volcano - basically I want a funnel that I can land in. Think Mohole, but with an area to land in at the bottom. Try not to scratch the paint on the way down... or up. 10) Dyson Sphere - gravity would be weird, yes, but that's the challenge. Having to deal with going from landing on the outside the planet surface to the inside of the planet's surface. Just, don't forget the barf bag.

So 3 to 4 month of no activity doesn't count?

How long until it's considered a necro?

Original Poster and yes, the maintainer of the mod.

I'm assuming that's sarcasm... can't really tell.

No, not fly with the nav ball horizontal. No, fly the rocket parallel with the ground horizontal.

Although, they could add some special condition to where all thrust above a a certain AoA is cancelled, forcing planes. I doubt they would do that, but it would be interesting to have to fly at no greater than 45 degree nose up. Inb4 someone says they'll launch a rocket horizontal...