Kerbart

Page not found, and page doesn't exist.

I work in an office mainly “doing computer stuff” no one else in the office can. That used to be a lot of Excel, then Photoshop and Illustrator (I still recommend developing Illustrator skills to anyone), and nowadays it involves writing lots of Python code.

The gyroscopic action of the wheels result in steering action towards the direction the bike is falling—it's a beautiful feedback mechanism.

Part of the problem is that wheels in KSP don't have proper angular momentum and the gyroscopic reactions that come with it and that are very helpful in keeping a bike upright when it is in motion.

Well, I build my rovers horizontally in the VAB. Then I test them on the launch pad. Can I drive it around? Can I deploy the solar panels and antenna's? Basically will there not be any surprises after I finally manage to land it? Then revert to lab, and if it needs to be oriented vertically (not all rovers require this), I grab it by it's root part (most likely the rovemate) and use the WASD keys to flip it around so it's vertically oriented (the WASD keys, together with the Q and E keys, allow you to re-orient parts in the VAB. Use them in combination with Shift to turn in 5° increments) When you right-click on the rovemate you can change the orientation from "Up" to "Forward" - this way the controls are not messed up when you fly it as a rocket in vertical orientation but you're landing it in horizontal orientation.

Well, there are four Kerbals in the picture. Three have name tags, so we assume the fourth one is Bob. But maybe it’s Dilbart? Or Snarkbot? Or Fribos?

Around when 1.0 was released, Squad used usage metrics (the ones we think mean they want to rule the world) to rebalance the game, if my memory serves me right. Since then, many parts were added. The parts are priced for the game’s sake, not to be realistic Newer parts follow another logic I suspect that the only thing that really matters is how interchangeable parts compare. It’s not like you’re going to add a Mk I lander can because its a better deal than a Mk 16 chute, if you need a parachute.

No, the picture says no fuel is flowing There can be many reasons for that the engine is not activated throttle is set to 0 Non, l'image indique qu'aucun carburant ne coule Il peut y avoir plusieurs raisons à cela le moteur n'est pas activé l'accélérateur est réglé sur 0

Simple solution: get rid of the counter-rotating arms. You really don't need them.

When I was much younger and working in a warehouse for minimum wage I got an offer for a 16 megabyte ram module for only $200. It meant eating macaroni with ketchup for the next two weeks but the deal was simply too good to pass on. Yes memory is cheap these days. Even relatively speaking; maxing out the memory of your average desktop or laptop is much cheaper now than it was in the past.

“We have both kinds of music—country and western!” — The Blues Brothers

First of all, I don't think 90 is a particularly low number. Second, it's not the number of mods that matter—it's how much memory they use. If you have mods with many parts and high quality textures it will not take a lot of them to use up significant amounts of memory Third, the spec recommendation is for stock. Once you start loading up mods (especially 90) you're likely going to need more than just 8 GB.

Not what I expected. Very impressive!

They don't have to be morons but it's not unreasonable for them not to be geniuses either; those are the ones that design and build the ships and stay home. I expect Kerbal crew to be over enthusiastic and perhaps a bit over confident in their abilities, pushing buttons they shouldn't be pushing and getting into situations they should not have gotten into. More like Doc Emmet Brown from "Back to the Future" than Albert Einstein, so to say.

High level tourists would offer contracts that take them further. You'll only get contracts to take tourists to mun once you've built up a pool of one-star tourists, and so on. Killing tourists (or perhaps giving them a bad experience) will diminish that pool.

If you want a taste of that, try out VGA Planets (revived and ported over to the interwebs as Planets Nu) When I played it in the mid-90s in it's original form, you'd get a data file every turn that would feed into the client software. Pretty much everyone reverse engineered the data file to feed it into their own software so you'd have automated projections of how many resources each planet would have, based on production and inbound freight vessels. If there's one wargame that teaches that war is logistics, it's this.

The approach to logistics seems more a matter of "if we throw enough money at it, it'll work." Come to think of it that seems to be the approach for anything but the troops.

I recommend Rod Pyle's Amazing Stories of the Space Age; the US Government had all kind of wonderful plans for military bases on the moon. The main reasons it didn't happen seem to be: Reality The diminished Red Threat of a presence on the moon Budget Automation & miniaturization reducing the need for feet on the ground Part of me would have loved to see how stationing a platoon of marines in what seems to be the equivalent space of one or two 20' shipping containers would have worked out.

Maybe more inside the gaming community. The real-world spaceflight community seems to embrace the game. I think we can do with some more variety, booth in looks (I know, there are mods for that) as well as in behavior. It always bothers me when I see a video of somebody flying/driving around the KSC with one or two Kerbals onboard in external seats, and all you see is one or two helmets that stay absolutely stationary no matter what happens. There might be dead bodies in those suits, as far as I know. For me, the Kerbals are pretty essential in a couple of ways: Initial Attraction: virtually everyone starts the game with fail after fail. outside sheer tenacity, seeing the Kerbals panic adds a bit of fun to the game that makes the failures more endurable and keeps you going. I llike to think that without those silly Kerbals, a lot of us would have missed out on the game, even when the Kerbals themselves wear off after a while Motivation: saving Kerbals that you stranded, making missions with a return component; there's a lot more that gets added to the game once you have crew. Granted, those could just be mechanical stick men, but I wouldn't feel the same urge to bring them back home as when they are adorable little creatures you're responsible for. Variation: the spice of life! If we do the same thing over and over again, things get boring. This is where the game currently lacks: we have male and female Kerbals, and tourists. Getting more variation in who they are and what they do on a ship can only help in making the game last longer.

I see what you did there

I enjoyed it. It's also clearly fiction which gives the show plenty of room to be very liberal with how they portray the characters. Unlike The Right Stuff where you're constantly wondering “was it really like that?”

You need an engineer to do it. Then click on the wrench icon, grab the part you want to weld and place it somewhere else, just like you'd do in the VAB.

Actually, it was an issue but not for the right reasons. When Squad was doing the pre-releases they used Steam only (and not GOG or even the KSP store), I suspect for logistical reasons. That raised a ruckus because many non-Steam players (in some cases anti-Steam who felt they were doing Squad a favor by not using Steam) felt that they were unjustly barred from the privilege of a "preview". That, in itself, highlights one of the problems; many of the "testers" don't really intent to test but rather see the early release as a sneak preview. Throw in the questionable quality of the bug report ("my rocket explodes when I launch it". maybe accompanied by a screenshot of the gamedata folder containing 118 mods and another gamedata folder) and I agree that those bug reports create more work than the time they would save. I did always enjoy the sneak peeks people like Das Valdez, EJSA and Scott Manley would give us, and they consistently would find bugs (and show how to create a proper bug report by making it perfectly reproducible)

They do, but only if the right game (as opposed to the “regular” settings) settings are applied. Under Advanced, Commnet Options you will need to check Require Signal for Control At the same spot you can also set the occlusion modifiers which dictate how much of a planet will block your radio signal And at the same spot you can check or uncheck Enable Extra Groundstations; if you choose to uncheck that option, also consider turning off the extra launch sites (under Basic Settings) as those function as a ground station as well.

I might be wrong but didn’t one of the early 1.x versions replenish EVA fuel with monopropellant from the capsule (if any available)? I think the point being to end “EVA pushing,” but the feature got dropped quickly—maybe even with a bugfix release. My memory might be playing tricks on me though.