Kerbart

Partially recoverable by the inevitable rescue mission that follows, of course!

While it will not crash, performance would likely be pure agony. I suspect that 95% of the users running into memory problems now will be fine. But it's the remaining 5% that will be complaining and posting about it. My experience in software development is that removing one barrier simply means people are going to run into another barrier. Unrelated but related; 1.1 seems to give a huge performance boost in relation to the number of parts we can use. Is that used to enjoy a smoothly moving game with the current vessels we build? When I see Das Valdez putting a 700-part monster together on Twitch, I doubt it. Partcount will increase until regular choppiness is achieved!

Haha, it's the internet! Anything can turn into a long thread if there's enough nitpicking to be done! The more info you provide the less chances of people getting your wrong.

Ah, unclear communication! Your original post could be interpreted as that though: You're saying that the game allows you to warp large amounts of time without punishment. It did not say “you can keep your Kerbals for years on board of their vessels without sending or providing air, food or drinks.” The way I interpreted was that you did not agree to large amounts of time warping in career mode. And, provided you have enough life support on board, LS still lets you do that. Hence our suggestion that LS is not helping you. Adding a line "if I'm going to send my Kerbals on a five year mission I'd like to think I bring enough snacks and air to keep them alive for that time, so that it is OK for me to warp for months or years" you would have made your intentions a lot clearer. For now, the original post left a lot to guess. Apparently I'm not an expert mind reader, and I guessed wrong. My apologies.

Tourist jetpacks have extremely limited DV on board. And maybe five times the thrust to simulate that they are really inexperienced in using it. If you're going to have tourists EVA'ing it should be a real hair-raising experience and you should take all kinds of precautions to prevent them from drifting off in space (or getting lost on the surface)

The issue is not how you play it. The issue is that we fail to see how LS should limit you from excessive warping. Pack enough life support and you can still warp three years through a mission. On the other hand, I never warp for more than a couple of days at a time and somehow I don't need LS for that. That's the only thing that was really questioned as far as I was concerned. By all means, do enjoy playing with life support.

Let's implement this, and I can assure you, three months from now: It's ridiculous that tourists that EVA on the surface of a planet or moon cannot take surface samples. They pay a good amount of funds to get there, they have the trip of a lifetime and you're telling me that they can't bring back souvenirs! This is an outrage! Tourists on EVA should be able to take surface samples! And a year from now tourists are just full fledged kerbonauts on temporary assignments. I like it that tourists have limitations. I had to unlock the regular docking port first before I could send them to Mun/Minmus (I only launch LKO; from there anything transfers on "Kerbin Station" to transport vessels to go beyond). Surely I could transfer them through the juniors but the for me it implies an EVA and I like the restriction that tourists can't do that; an extra challenge. Now, it would be cool to have contracts that don't use tourists but full-fledged scientists (and engineers and pilots) instead. Take Tomfrid Kerman to Minmus where he takes surface samples, and return him and the Minmus surface samples to the KSC.

You're aware that alt+warp keys gives you physical warp, in those cases where regular time warp doesn't work?

I've always maintained that once the program barrier of 2 GB would be removed (as will be with the upcoming release, it seems) it will simply be replaced by complaints about running out of real memory. It's not like it's a different order of magnitude after all, and when people claim that having five dozen mods active is "not that many mods" one can only expect the best for the future.

It takes two to argue. Authors abruptly stopping comes with a reason; if the mod is that important than “the community” should treat the author accordingly. Expecting that to happen (“the community? It's like herding cats!”) is just as reasonable as expecting people to continue volunteering something they despise. Or handing off their work to a community they’ve come to despise.

Since the discussion got the Godwin equivalent of KSP (being the 1.1 pre-release on Steam only) and we didn't get a good follow-up on that I'll play for devil's advocate. Don't expect any responses on your resposnes though. Fragmentation can lead to lack of attention. In order to serve the Minecraft, Space Engineers, Doom, Prepar3d, Super Mario and Factorio community, less time is spent on interacting with the KSP community and following up on their wishes and desires Requested features would not be implemented because it's a KSP specific request; it does not serve a purpose for any of the other games Similarly, the KSP mod interface would be polluted with features that are pointless for KSP, but they are in high demand for the other games The list gets polluted with mods that are uploaded under the wrong category (ie Space Engineer mods under KSP) Personally I don't think any of these issues are showstoppers. Curse seems to be dealing just fine with them. Then again, everyone seems to hate Curse, so yeah, there's that.

And yet... when I have a tallish-stack with a SAS unit in the payload (on top, not in the center), I find the whole bunch a lot easier to launch (less noodling) when I turn SAS off, then when I keep it on. If noodling is the result of a SAS wheel in the center, then why is it causing noodling when it's placed at the top of the stack, and do the problems disappear when I turn the SAS wheel off?

While placement of the SAS wheels itself has no effect on the amount of torque it generates, it will cause twisting and bending of the parts that "transmit" the torque. For that reason it makes sense to place them close to the COM, just to prevent bending, vibrations and other Bad Things.

*cough* curseforge *cough* It seems that "use the URL that doesn't show the parts you don't like" doesn't really work.

To answer your question: because they don't have to. I checked the EULA and it doesn't specifically mention that it should give you access to all previous versions. And because they're busy with other things (like the 1.1 release?) I doubt that they're spending time on it. Or that the majority of the users here would rather see them spend time on that, than on, say, fixing wheel bugs and landing leg bugs. Or asteroid bugs. On a separate note, “it’s the tone that makes the music.” Some people, less educated, less patient, less relaxed than the awesome folks at Squad, might interpret this inquiry as demanding. Which on some occasions can rub the wrong way. Some consider it “fuzzy marketing fluff” but carefully picking the right words can carry a request a long way, carelessly picking the wrong ones can crash that request quicker than a Kerbal rockit.

Off topic. But there's a good chunk of 32-bit software that checked for "invalid os" by looking if you were running "windows 9*". (95 or 98). Guess what? "Windows 9" matches that pattern. So they fixed the name to prevent that software from refusing to run "on an old windows." Not sure if true or not, but I think it's a great story and it definitely sounds legit to me. On the planetary subject: Pluto is a matter of definition. We know of other pluto-sized objects—some of them maybe even larger—that are “hiding” in the Oort cloud. Given the size of the Oort belt (I like “belt” more because it sounds less dense to me than cloud) I'd be shocked if there's not at least a dozen planet-sized objects hiding in there (unless the way our solar system was formed dictates that it can't). I mean it's big. Really, really big. And we're just starting to learn what's out there.

I think it's all about managing expectations. Does it mimic reality? Assuming your reality is literally based on a world 600km in diameter and populated (or so they say) with bug-eyed little green men, then yes. If you expect a fairly realistic rendition of reality on earth, no. But then there's x-flight and Prepar3D for that (or better for those that have access to professional simulator systems). The fact that you can slap together something in 20 minutes that looks like an airplane and kind of behaves like an airplane is very impressive to me. That, more than anything else, makes the biggest difference.

Doh. Why didn't I think of this earlier. One of my favorite board games! "Diplomacy" If we ever develop an AI that can beat us at a game where backstabbing is elevated to an art, we'd have to get worried, really worried...

In addition, the effect wears off. It becomes an annoying dialog you just click away to launch. Yeah yeah yeah, "Ok." Followed by aaaaaargh why didn't I see that! What would be cool is if you could drag a contract inside the VAB/SPH (after reading it) to you craft to "attach" it to your vessel (removing it would be tricky. Maybe through the context menu of the command node?). And then get a warning before launch from Werner or Gene telling you "are you sure you want to launch? My engineers tell me there's no thermometer on the vessel"

I just roleplay my way around it. The Mk-1 command pot is small and cramped and only meant for short trips. The only ones that can handle multi-day trips in them are Jeb and Val, as they're badass. The Mk-1 Lander Can seems slightly roomier so I can use them for multi-day missions. They're also my go-to airlock and control cabins for larger craft. Of course the Mk-1 Lander Can is vacuum operation only; you simply cannot use it in an atmosphere (as per the description)*. The Mk1-3 is actually my workhorse transporter for surface to LKO. Yes, it's heavy. It's also my #1 re-entry vehicle, so I just chalk up the extra weight due a reinforced structure that guarantees survival (assuming the chutes make it). I don't use it beyond LKO so its weight is no big concern for me. That leaves the Mk2 Lander Can. I'd like to think that it's heavier because, being roomier, it can be used for longer duration missions, but to be honest I prefer the comfort of the hitch-hiker with a Mk-1 can attached to it; the extra weight is well worth it for the comfort of my kerbals (and it offers room to 3 more kerbals, great for flag-planting and tourist missions). That combination also works well as an ad-hoc surface base. I can't see a crew of two staying in a Mk2 lander can for two weeks on the surface, but I can with the Mk1/Hitch Hiker combo (especially since it means that not everyone needs to suit up when a flag plant request comes in). I don't think there's anyone who does not think the M2 lander can needs a weight reduction. * Yes, of course you can make landings on Kerbin with it. I just don't do it.

Chess would be a good example Since the mid 1970s (and perhaps earlier) chess programs have been written by programmers who know (compared to grandmasters) very little about chess. The hard part about a chess playing computer is (a) evaluating a position, (b) managing branches of possible moves and (c) doing this within set time limits. Point (c) clearly was the biggest bottleneck in making human-beating chess programs. Deep Blue beat Kasparov because it was running on supreme hardware. Not because IBM hired a bunch of programmers who turned out to be crackerjack chess aces. Modern chess software plays chess quite smartly, but again that's due to a lot of algorithms that have less to do with chess and more to do with searching, pattern recognition and hash table management.

The only exception I can see on this is the practice of putting a bunch of laboratories in orbit and fast forward as they generate science. Of course there are about a million arguments against using LS to counter this, the most obvious ones being: Don’t gather science that way it if you regard that practice as cheating or joy removing (duh). You can put those labs next to the VAB and still collect science that way, LS is not going to stop you. If you really want science without working for it why not use the debug window? So yeah... don't use LS to stop you from doing something you don't want to do in the first place.

Once in a while I get these 179° inclination solar orbit contracts. I don't care what they offer. I'm not going there. I assume they’re put in there to punish those who do not read the fine print before accepting a contract.

At SEA?! That's not even a question...

It gets heated from the inside out. The core is hot and that seeps to the surface