Kerbart

Except for these guys then.

Dude, using my craft files? So uncool, bro.

'Tis a sad world we live in when a game company gets commended for doing the right thing; for it implies that the standard is not doing the right thing. But here we are. One of the things Squad has done right, I think, was constantly increasing the price of the game as it developed further. The "crappier" the version you "stepped in," the less you paid, reducing the risk of paying for a game that didn't deliver on the money you paid for it. Along its entire development history you pretty much got what you paid for right at that moment, with the added benefit that the game was only getting more developed from then on.

I forgot what the name of the novel was, but there was this concept where the generation ship was made inside a hollowed out asteroid, spinning for artificial gravity, and the colonists were genetically engineered to have a sub-par intelligence so they'd be content with the primitive and monotomous lives they lived. The colonists were in divided in two tribes kept apart by a variety of obstacles, and the genetics were engineered in such a way that inter-tribe offset (not supposed to happen while traveling) would restore full brain capacity needed to colonize a planet.

The most efficient way is simply burn retrograde until your orbit intersects the surface. The higher the altitude the better, as it requires less fuel. After that nothing is required; impact will follow sooner or later. When you're adding extra criteria as "walking away from the landing site" or even "being able to return to orbit after landing" (I know! But believe it, there are Type-A perfectionists who insist on these ridiculous criteria!) things get more complicated and I revert to the above. When you use Engineer you can see "suicide burn altitude" under "vessel". When it reaches exactly zero just hit full throttle, lean back and enjoy the landing (I yet have to do it that way).

I think it's fine as it is. Mount it on a decoupler (upsidedown) and it will detach just fine when you want to detach it.

To the level where most of the parts, except for the very large Kerbodyne stuff, spontaneously rapidly disassembled (unplanned). I'll use the TT-38 and the TT-70 when I need the space. The Hydrolic Manyfold only in combinations with Kerbodyne tanks. The Pylon? Pretty much never.

It was a high school physics question. Not a philosophy exam.

Right smack in the middle:

No, the volume flow is .5m3/s Since the height is 200m (assuming g=10m/s like the rest of the thread), velocity has to be 63 m/s. For .5m3/s that means the area of the muzzle is 0.0079m2 and that puts the diameter at 10cm if I'm right.

That could actually be the next question. Making all the usual assumptions, what is the diameter of the nozzle?

How should it work? Like Wing Commander? Or like Elite? Or maybe even Space Engineers? For all we know, the reason the game is not up to your standards is because your standards might be inadequate. Or not. It's hard to tell.

As with many other things. On this forum we just tend to be interested in it. How much do you know about container shipping? Agriculture? Plumbing?

I vaguely remember seeing on youtube that creating artificial gravity this way only works with vehicles, but not with Kerbals for some reason. But I might be wrong.

In the past, Squad had stated that once 1.0 was released the game was finished and development would halt. Now, obviously, they've backed away from that claim, but I think there's still a lingering feeling that not too many updates will appear once 1.0 hits the shelves. So you'd rather want 1.0 to be as good as can be, and not a half-baked product still in development. And with so many new features to be added it is going to be a half-baked product. Second, in a world where many early access games disappointed or never came to full development, KSP is a shining example of "early access done right" and is getting a good amount of attention in the gaming world. Going 1.0 is the moment where major gaming sites (and magazines. do they still exist?) will review the game. You can only do that once. Most of us rather see KSP get a glorious A++ review than a "B-, it has potential but many features need work and are badly implemented" review. A better review means more sales, and more room for further development. Third, there's a whole bunch of features that's going to be in the 1.0 release that were not in the beta version. Well, you have a point there, that's what a beta is for, to test out those new features. Well, not really. That's what an Alpha version is for. In Beta you're supposed to stop adding features and focus on plugging bugs. And Squad's not even doing that. It's like taking a road trip from Chicago to New York. Most of the trip has gone amazing. But passing the New Jersey state line (always a bad omen) your driver whips out a bottle of Grey Goose and starts drinking heavily while driving. "Hey, if we crash right now we've come a long way, I'm still happy with where we are!" True, but seeing bad behavior at this point is still a reason for concern. Especially with the finish line in sight.

When you're working yourself to the bone to get the "gold 1.0" release out you're going to focus on what is essential, everything else will be left out. The real problem here is rushing the 1.0 version. Fairings should have been a .91 release. Fixing the bugs we're going to find with the fairings a .92 release. Adding features that we, the community, consider "lacking" a .93 release. And THEN and ONLY THEN when fairings are solidly in play, the .95 release would be having the long awaited atmospheric model, and you'd need another two or three releases to tweak it and to have the fairings interact with it nicely. In parallel, and along the same path, you'd be introducing heat shields. First cosmetic, but get the 'procedural heat shields' right and once that's in play introduce re-entry heat (and consequences) in .95 Same for the buildings, deep space fueling, career overhaul, etc. You would want to have a handful of version so by the time 1.0 comes out the game is "perfect" I really, really think that 99% of the people on this forum would have no problems at all with a 1.0 version whose "modest" features are that all the bugs have been squashed, as that would have been an epic achievement. And THEN Squad can focus on adding features like Infernal Robotics, KAS, Life Support and other cool stuff to new releases updates. Where I now think we're going to see a pretty long procession from 1.0 to 1.13 of bug fixes.

I think the OP was clearly mentioning that their capsule remained intact. I agree, sheer luck -- or just not trying hard enough!

At the same time, and I'll admit this may be a cynical or cold-hearted approach, if this means one crash per x-flights replacing five crashes per x-flights due to pilot error, you'd still be ahead of the game. If human pilots were behaving perfectly we wouldn't be having this discussion either. As much as we think technology advances by revolution, and in the grand scheme of things it does, the actual process is always, always evolutionary. My prediction is that you will see certain airports that will become certified for robotic flight, and there will be very stringent rules for that, not just for the airports but also for the airplanes and the robots involved (mechjeb need not apply). But there's advantages for both as you can probably squeeze more slots in a day. Over time you'll see more airports and more airplanes using robotic flight, and large airports like Atlanta, LAX, JFK, etc will probably become robot-only airports. And 100 years from now we'll be wondering why there was such a resistance against it, just like we laugh now over the concerns of the early steam trains that would go so fast that passengers would pass out because of the lack of air at those speeds.

Well, they're trying to implement a boatload of new features, that should have gone into versions .91, .92, .93, .94, .95 and .96 in a gold release version that really should just be focusing on removing that last few bugs (the ones that weren't squashed in said versions .91, .92, .93, .94 ,.95 and .96)

I take offense to that statement. 0.91. At best.

That's way too complicated. Just put a little pinwheel on the top of your roof and let it generate all the electricity you need! Too small, you say? Aaah, now we're getting to the core of the problem with your solution! Related, you're just going to replace one problem with another. Imagine we do have unlimited access to clean energy. What are we going to do with the residual heat all these sources are going to produce for us?

KSP? Getting rid of explosions is "fixing" it? You, sir, are sick in the head!

It would be easy to dismiss Oculus rift based on existing technology. But then again, look at how "Doom" was in 1995 on DX2 and where we are now with Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto. I would not be surprised that there will be a time, and probably sooner than we'd think, that virtual reality goggles can provide the visual effect of sitting in a real cockpitâ€â€if not life-like, than at least to a level that is acceptable enough for immersion. The question then becomes if what those goggles are lacking compared to a "hydraulic cockpit" (vibrations, acceleration, pushed to the left or right when turning without proper banking, etc) can be compensated by what the goggles can offer that the simulated cockpit cannot. I'm not a pilot so I have no clue what would be relevant, but let's for argument sake say "Santa Claus sticking to your windshield" (which maybe a hydraulic simulator can show pretty convincingly as well, but let's assume it cannot), and how relevant would that be for the simulation? I can see that hydraulic simulators can offer things like real smoke (smelling like burnt kerosene) filling the cockpit, etc, but I can also see how many of those things can be done with really good VR goggles (not the oculus rift at this point, clearly). On the flipside, one set of goggles can simulate *any* cockpit, from a customer point of view that is very attractive. Would it be a threat for the company you work at? At this point I think the bigger threat is the question if we have pilots in the future in the first place, and not robots steering the aircraft. In similar fashion the bigger threat those VR goggles might offer is not that it could replace the hydraulic cockpit, but that it negates the need for flying for many. Business travel makes up a large portion of the airline industry, and I can have a quality meeting with my colleagues without spending $2,000 for flying & hotels and spending two uncomfortable days in airports and aircrafts then the airlines would have to cut down a good portion of their business, shrinking the market for simulating cockpits as well.

It's hard to give a polite response when the question is very opiniated and condescending. Steam's convenient if you have many things on steam. I can replicate games among multiple PC's without have to worry about licensing issues, entering activation codes, etc. And I do have perfect control over my KSP -- since what I play is not the Steam version but a copy that lives somewhere else on my hard disk. I just don't have to download the latest version as I get it automatically, without having to do anything for it. That's what computers are for. Do things for you.

I'm not sure what the picture that I'm looking at is supposed to mean but if those lines are proportional to the velocity of the planets you have a bigger problem than figuring out what value G should be. The velocities should be decreasing with the distance to the sun, not increasing.