Kerbart

You're either saying you would prefer no vacation ("Work! Work! Work you lazy pigs! work!"). Or you prefer no release. Since I'm apparently so stupid to think you meant no release, what you're saying is that Squad should have continued their death-march towards bugged patches, instead of taking their time, recharging and fixing it right and proper? Or are you saying they should not have released 1.1.2 at all, and leave it at 1.1.1? I might be stupid, but at least I have a memory to recall that there were a couple of really bad bugs in 1.1.1 that needed fixing, and 1.1.1 was a much welcomed fix of 1.1.0. So what bug-ridden release should they have stuck to, before going on a break? So what are you asserting? Because, yes, I'm that stupid that I cannot figure it out.

If your issue is a big & heavy craft (given your 30m burn time), consider piling on more engines. You keep the Isp, might lose a bit of DV due to extra mass (but at the quoted burn times not that much, hahaha) and you'll have the rewarding sight of lighting up a dozen (or more!) engines when kicking off for your journey!

Not to pile onto what the others said (well, kinda... I'll admit) but the low TWR of the Nerv is the game balance. Unless you want to change the Isp - but in that case, why not simply pick another engine, like the Terrier, Reliant or Swivel?

Well, that is a clear and good question. Why didn't you say that before? The way you stated it first made you sound like an ignorous troglodyte who did not think that a vacation of the dev team would be a valid reason to not bow to your demands. Communication is really important. See where not communicating will get you in life.

If I look at the date you posted in this thread, that was less than a day ago. So it has everything to do with it.

Given that the dev team went on a (much deserved) break after the 1.1.2 release, that shouldn't really be a shocker.

That was probably a mod. Stock allows transfers between any parts regardless of what's in between. That's been like that in 1.0

Check out the post just above yours.

You are right of course. I was thinking "lines that go horizontal" but yes, that means vertical resolution. Doh. And I work in marketing . Taking away services offered to customers? It's easier than ever to pick the right service for you! One wonders why marketing has a bad name, hahaha.

Thank you. I have the same kind of discussion of photography forums, where a lot of fools misguided souls insist they need at least 25 MP. We tend to view printed photographs at a distance of 5-10× the length of their diagonal; only at trade shows are wall-sized images inspected from 10cm away (and preferably with a loupe). From that distance, you rarely ever need more than 5-6MP for a sharp image. More pixels gives more room for editing of course, but when looking at sharper prints it does absolutely nothing. The camera industry, on the other hand, will work very hard to make you believe otherwise. Likewise, it's to be expected that the monitor industry (and the graphic cards manufacturers in tandem) will work very hard to make you believe that upgrading to 4K is a religious experience. Foolish me! I always thought that 4K meant "4k lines," just as 720p and 1080p. I just saw that 4k is double the line resolution of 1080p which, as you stated, is called 2k. To add to further fire to the discussion, the required resolution for moving images is significantly less than for static images*. If one is watching movies, then 1080p on that 50" TV screen should be enough, and it's unlikely that 4k will look any better. But... if you like to watch the Yule Log on christmas eve, or you like watching baseball or NFL football, 4k is probably a good idea. * For reasons; not just subjective impressions.

Actually, the real denominator is the angular size per pixel. This is why electronic billboards get away with a pixel size measured in centimeters (or inches if that's your thing). Yes, the pixels are huge, but so is the viewing distance, making the apparent size per pixel rather small. This goes back to the question how close are you sitting to your screen. If you're viewing a 20" screen from a distance of, say, 30" then you're getting into the territory where 1080p is already retina territory. (Apple's "retina" definition is based on pixels/square inch held at arms' length). For a screen that small, 4K is going to do very little. Similarly, if you have a 1080p TV screen that is 50" and you're watching if from, say, 3m or around 10', it's equally unlikely that 4K is going to be 4× “better.” But... if you’re sitting right on top of that 50" screen because you’re using it as a monitor, 4K will make a difference. The angular resulotion of the human eye is about 1 arc minute, which translates to 0.0003 radians. So, at a distance of 50cm, that translates to a pixel size of 0.15mm (distance × angle; it works only for small angles). Assuming you have a 27" screen, that means (at a 16:9 ratio) that the screen height is 33.5 cm. A retina display would have 335 / 0.15 = 2233 lines. Anything beyond that simply out-resolves your eyes. Unless, of course, you're going to inspect the monitor really close, but that's not day-to-day useage. So yes, in a case like that, upgrading from 1080p to 4k will make a difference; but upgrading from 2k (if there is such a thing) to 4k will not. But it's something you have to look at on a case by case basis. Use a 20" monitor at the same viewing distance and the 4k advantage becomes really, really small. Use a 50" monitor and the 4k advantage becomes significant. But you cannot judge resolution by the screen size alone; you have to take viewing distance into account.

Extending stations has been part of stock. Taking them elsewhere... Haven't seen that yet.

“Here is my proposal for making synthetic hydrocarbon fuel” I will dismiss any suggestions as of alternative energy sources over synthetic fuel, or why we need it in the first place I will dismiss anything that has a higher yield per area, energy input, money investment or feasibility, for reasons I will dismiss any suggestion that we don't need it right now, or that alternative solutions would me more attractive in the future. “Within these constraints, is the proposed method the optimal solution?” I'd say, absolutely, without any question (literally). If I were you, I'd invest your entire 401K, and that of your family, into developing this. After all, we can't come up with any sound argument against it.

It's not just land. Farmers don't get a fair price. And it's not that we're not willing to pay for it either. Doubling or tripling the income of farmers would have a neglible effect on what we'd pay for our Big Mac, cup of Starbucks coffee or the food in the supermarket in general. And it's not a third-world problem either. (And yes, the cartoonist who made this cartoon did get fired “after complaints from our advertisers”) People go to the cities because they can make more money there. That part is definitely true. And we can’t blame them for that, or expect them to stop it. But it's impossible to revert that unless the companies that control the agricultural trade are willing to reduce their profits (even if it’s just by a tiny margin). And that brings us back to the original problem. The climate is a “tragedy of the commons” problem. If everyone made their contribution we can solve it. But if everyone made their contribution except ME, we'd still solve it, and I would make more profit. There is good news though; life on earth will thrive, whether we solve this problem or not. So we don't need to solve the climate problem for Earth's sake. We only need to solve this problem if we want to be a part of life on this planet in the future. Hopefully that will sink in before we pass the point of no return; the future will tell us if we already did.

That's not what you said. Time accelleration doesn't make the trip to Minmus shorter. Using extra DV to get there faster does. Besides that, my play style is “limit time warp as much as possible.” To “simply accelerate time” does not suit that. The suggestion that fullfilling other criteria is outrageous (if your quote “You might equally choose to engineer a craft to visits minmus via laythe” is intended to illustrate anything else I’d love to hear an explanation of that) because it doesn't fullfill bare economic needs is shortsighted, and for those who like to add a bit of extracurricular spice to the game, perhaps even insulting. So, since you don't understand, let me make it clear: depending on how you want to play the game, shortening the travel time can be worth the fuel cost.

Unless your play style does consider time to be a resource. In my career mode I try to reduce stress for my Kerbals as much as possible. That rules out any Minmus missions in a Mk I, and if I can cut 10 days of travel time on a round trip mission then the fuel price might be worth paying it.

Far out dude, far out...

More efficient is not always more desirable. There's something else positive about wings at the nose, and that is "positive feedback loop" which is generally a Bad Thing (generally; not everyone wants to stay in control of their vehicle when launching it). Controls at the nose? Pitch up, and your control surfaces' angle of attack increases. So now they generate more lift, resulting in more torque, resulting in a steeper pitch, increased angle of attack, more lift, etc. Fins behind the COM will have a stabilizing effect; fins (and surfaces) in front of the COM will result in an unstable vehicle. Nimble perhaps, but frightingly unstable.

While there's still external support needed, it's being done way simpler than you describe. Method 1 In tropical regions, sugar cane is planted. The sugar can plants take CO2 from the atmosphere and turn it into complex hydrocarbons (preliminary glucose and related molecules) In a processing plant the sugar cane is converted into ethanol. Of course this process takes energy, but you can feed your powerplant with the ethanol output and still come out ahead (as your sugar can has already done the highly efficient CO2 conversion) Method 2 In moderate climates, rapeseed is planted The rapeseed plants take CO2 from the atmosphere and turn it into complex hydrocarbons (preliminary oil contained in the seeds) A mill can extract the rapeseed oil from the seeds The rapeseed oil can be converted into fuel (bio diesel and derivatives). Again, this is a process that will take a refinery, but the energey required for it can be supplied by the output Of course you can build some kind of processing plant to convert CO2 directly but the biological process is a lot cheaper (and knowing nature, probably more efficient). It will take large areas of land, which is why we might still need CO2 processing plants in the future, but with the current state of affairs it works just fine.

Aside from the centrifuge the rest of the .41 (current) release seems to work fine in 1.1.2 Which is good news; Porkjet can take his time in making the new version even more awesome.

Turning CO2 into fuel is already done on a large scale; just not in the way the OP describes.

Jeez. I think we'll be happy when 1.1.3 comes out first. And probably 1.1.4 and 1.1.5 and after that, maybe after that, we can start dreaming about a 1.2 release. Which will, quite certainly, be delivered Not Soon™.

As Wumpus pointed out, that's still superior over the European high speed rail network that only covers half of Western Europe at an average of 150 mph

Of course's there's Porkjet's Habitat Pack that does a good job covering inflatable habitats, and the PA330 has more than just the name in common with the Bigelow contraptions... But it'd be great to see a Bigelow sanctioned mod. To be launch on a ULA sanctioned rocket, of course!

Thank you for posting it in such a way that quoting you is impossible. Squad has been "improving career" since well before beta. I'm not sure it is working. Well, why do you think it's listed as a concern? If it were good the goal wouldn't be to improve it, would it? The reason it's listed, is because it's good practice to have (well) defined goals. We're not here to talk about the verbage in the contracts, or the color of grass. The concernt is that career mode, as it is, is not satisfactory. Yes, as you mention, it's not working right now. We know that. Why do you mention that it's not working? Doesn't this begin and end with the MPL device? removing it removes the horror of the warp button. Or do you want to avoid people waiting for their Duna mission to complete? I imagine it would be terribly unpopular to force people to interrupt their Duna mission just because you're afraid of the warp button. No, it doesn't. Because you could also fast forward a couple of years and collect all your science in the Jool system. The point, in my view, is that in a good career mode you don't get away with running the clock months at a time, regardless of why. That's not how NASA or Roscosmos run things either. To make career less "grindy", all Squad has to do is seriously cut down the biomes. Doing the science dance over and over and over is the why it is grindy. Less biomes means less science dances and less grind. At least I took the effort to try to read this thread. You obviously didn't. I guess that was too grindy too? I'm completely clueless how time matters in KSP. Unless you are using the mod where spaceships take a finite amount of time to build, all this is just silly. Are you expecting the player to be forced to be in a race to acquire the tech? While that sounds great in practice, it assumes some new means of unlocking the science tree because right now all that will inspire is players rushing to spam driving (or kerbals help them, walking) around KSC spamming biomes followed by KSP getting uninstalled. You need to fix the science mode before attempting to "fix" this. Or simply do not offer contracts for programs where the required tech is missing. That's what's happening in the game right now too. The game would not be offering a Duna program until you've landed on the Mun (or even completed the Mun program first). While it is all well and good to expect kerbanuats to get a salary, do you bother to pay the kerbals doing whatever work in the VAB? How about the rest? Of course, this might be your cure for the "warp problem" (which I still feel is a disaster. You should't penalize players for wanting to complete a mission). Each building should not involve a one time cost but be paid monthly. Presumably this will pay for all the kerbals' salary. I'm also wondering about these "repeat the same mission n times". It sounds much more grindy than the Squad's. Think of salary as a "joining bonus". Did I mention recurring salary everywhere? Please quote me on that, I must be losing track of what I typed (can't find it in what I wrote either, so besides losing memory I must be going blind). I also want to thank you for your useful contributions to this discussions. This one: And this one: And this one: Thank you!