Kerbart

Flightstick Pro by CH Products. They look clunky but are very well made and rock solid. Your dad's might be one of them but they're USB now. One of the cool things is that it comes with controller software; you can hook up multiple controllers and turn them into a single "virtual" controller for your game, and use different configuration for different games. You might want to have your throttle quadrant behave differently for Sturmovik than for FSX. Or even have different setups for 4-engined aircraft versus 2-engined aircraft, and whatnot.

If you care I can list all the threads in which there are complaints about how excessive massive the Mk3 cockpit is. While I'm not sure to what extend that extra mass translates to heat capacity (it should though) it certainly means that you cannot compare the lightweight Mk1 with the much heavier Mk3

Rest assured, it will be heralded as Worst Release Ever, Absolutely Broken and Why Did It Take So Long? The rest of us will be quite happy with it, I'm sure.

Oh boy, this warrants its own thread. I might start one I can only imagine the horrors of Microsoft Space Program™: Clippy: It appears you're trying to launch a rocket. Would you like me to trigger the first stage for you? Twelve times per day a popup: You're still using MSP 1.0.5 Click 'OK' to upgrade to 1.1.2 [OK] (note the lack of a "cancel" button) EVA's are only possible in Microsoft Space Program Professional, Enterprise Editition

No. this is why: The KAC entry is for your convenience, as the vessel needs to be active if the flight computer is to execute the node RT stops warping by itself. Once the direction maneuver is completed you can timewarp safely to the burn, so no need to wait minutes in the first place The consequence of a too short time slot for rotation is potentially losing the vessel. That's a big price to pay because "someone doesn't want to timewarp twice" With that in mind I'd rather see the 2-3min buffer remain. Just warp again for the burn.

That might be a whole library of multimedia files for tutorials and such, which you can easily delete after installation. From what I recall a stock install should be a few gigabytes at most (at least FS2004, I don't think FSX was that much bigger). Of course, KSP pretty much pales in comparison to MSF when it comes to mods. There are hundreds of planes, instrument panels, airports, and even terrain (I have a set of 7 DVD's with terrain data). That will add up quickly. But it's all optional. Flightsim.com and Avsim.com are great places to find freeware planes, although if you really get into it, the payware addons are usually well worth the money. I've paid a magnitude more for my collection of planes and scenery than for FS itself, and felt it was more than worth it. That's why I'm personally not against the commercialization of mods on KSP (not that it will ever happen I think); think of the best mods you can think of right now, and then think "10× better." Because it works the other way around as well; if you're going to sell a mod for, say, $20, you'll have to make sure it's going to be worth it or nobody will buy.

It's an add-on for FSX or Prepar3D (which is FSX but taken over by Lockheed Martin). If your computer can run FSX, it can run the RealAir aircraft. I'm not sure how low-ball that 1.3GHz AMD with Radeon card is, but if it's desktop with a dedicated graphics card then it can most certainly run FSX. The Citabria/Decathlon/Scout package (all closely related piper-cub style aircraft) are fairly cheap but ridiculous fun to fly; I find them to have a perfect balance between enough complexity to be realistic, and simple enough (probably due to the character of the plane) to no cause headaches when you're seeing the world through a keyboard and computer screen. And if you fly them around the Seattle area then the landscape has enough variation for hours of mindless fun flying. Edit: if you really have a low-spec PC, try getting FS 2004 (and the 2004 versions of the RealAir aircraft). That will run on practically anything with all sliders to the max.

The RealAir airplanes are expensive, but are absolutely stunning and a joy to fly.

It's bad PR. Animal rights organizations would not stop complaining.

I came for the obligatory black rectangle, and I was not disappointed.

I don't get why some people don't put up a real picture of themselves... It's not mandatory to post here after all.

On the other hand, I'm experiencing bugs in commercial software that I've paid 4 digits for. Bugs that, by KSP forum standards, “break the software” (*cough*). And that were listed in said software’s userforum over five years and many releases ago. Or hardware that stopped working after five minutes. Really stopped working. That's true “broken,” not the “the game is completely broken because I can't taxi my plane at 150 m/s through rough terrain without the wheels exploding” kind of “totally broken”. The vendor’s “solution” was a full reinstall of Windows,which I passed on. Eventually I found out that a simple change in energy savings settings in the driver would solve the problem. There are certainly issues with the way Squad is presenting their 0.27 version (as 1.1) to the public. At the same time, they are working very hard to fight the bugs that are under their control. What happens inside Unity, or when you've installed dozens of mods, is not. Expecting that a random crash in the VAB (that not too many players are experiencing) within two weeks, without providing any info on what triggers the crash, is optimistic to the point where it would be beneficial to manage one's expectations.

From what I understood from Ignition! is that hydrazine is considered relative benign compared to the additives that are usually used and that make it really nasty.

It's known that they hit one million, after that it was removed from Steam Spy (perhaps a minimum threshold for that). That was over a year ago. Add additional channels (the Squad webstore, GOG, others) and “one year later” and it's reasonable to estimate 1.5M, perhaps even 2M

Damn did I open the thread on page 1 again? I thought I had finally kicked that habi... oh wait, I did not. Nice twist!

A much bigger disadvantage would be that, at that point, it's no longer an Imperial Deathstar. Kinda takes the fun out of it, don't you think?

Criticism comes easy Without showing what's better It remains empty words Congratulations on turning boredom into a creative endeavor. If it's not according to the rules, get strength from the thought that you still outdid all the guys who were just sitting there going over the fantasy football team.

I was going to say... it must infuriate Roskosmos. But you've beaten me to it!

Unless I misunderstand you, what you're saying is that there are no games that match KSP when it comes to the mix of complexity in regards to physics, right? Universe Sandbox has pretty good orbital mechanics but it's limited to planets, not space ships Prepar3d has a great flight model but is limited to atmospheric flight and pre-built aircraft (mods are available) each with their own complex physical model Space Engineer offers good performance, much more freedom when building craft, but has a reality-defying physical model And so on. So yes, I agree with you, it's hard to fault KSP given the mix of complexity it offers. That's what you meant, right? Because it's a bit unclear; I think some ill-willing people might also bend it into an interpretation that says the reverse. That there are tons of games out there that do all that what KSP is doing, but are much much better implemented. But if you meant to say that, surely you would have included a list of all those games. And you didn't. QED.

My office is right next to the Jets training facility (the kind of “we can see them train” next). At the end of the summer they have this open house thing where fans can watch them train. It involves loud music all day long (of which we only here the bass). GO GIANTS!!

If you're Dutch you can remember it with the acronym "GRAS": Groen Rechts Aan Stuurboord. If you're not Dutch... well, I feel sorry for you

So what determines when you get only purple markers? Or one and a half set of markers (one showing an intersect, and then a "dangling position of target" marker? With the target apparently at two spots simultaneously, is the fabled Schrödinger rendez-vous?

They'll have to rush it though. Other revolutionary technology was announced a couple of years ago that did the same thing - flat optics at mass-produced cost that would make existing optics obsolete. Come to think of it... haven't heard about it lately. I'm wondering if this one will fare better.

A praiseworthy endeavor, but with little return on the investment: Most viewers are likely not lunar conspiracists Those that are, will have counter-arguments against yours. Most certainly wrong counter-arguments but that’s what they’ll think when watching the video: “ZooNamedGames is wrong! You CAN xyz and abc for jkl...” In the rare cases where LC’s will not have a counter-argument ready they will simply conclude that you are part of them, and as a perpetrator of the Moon-scam you have likely used trick-photography, falsified data and none of your work should be taken seriously as such These are really not people you can reason with.

Especially now that RT has finally an on/off button (so your career isn't wrecked when RT stops working after an update). I hope they implement the delay as well, that's half the fun for me about RemoteTech. But I'm under the impression they won't. Still, I would welcome it in stock; it would remove a lot of the "heavy lifting" away from RT (which is always good for a mod; less code means less bugs)