Kerbart

It looks like the discussion has shifted from “why u no scatterer” to “why not rebuild KSP so it utilizes the newest and fastest hardware to the max?” Aside from maybe it should be built-in but optional, the game has a long history, and for reasons that are at this point largely irrelevant, it has a large user base that has not always the best hardware. In fact, the game has a certain appeal to people who would normally not spend significant amounts of money on high-end graphics cards or gaming rigs in general. Part of the charm of Red Dead Redemption is the realistic sculpting of the game world. Some will argue that it's the saving grace of the game, because without it there wouldn't be a lot to play with. KSP is not that game. Surely it benefits from good looking graphics, but most players are not expecting great graphics. And if a poll were held and the outcome would be somewhat reliable*, the number of players that would say “stop playing it” when the alternate choice are “buy a $1,500 gaming rig to continue playing the game” or “have said rig” would be fairly high. Candy Crush did great without great graphics. Clash of Clans does great without great graphics. Shredder Chess is great without great graphics. Certain games do just fine without them. * the bias involving "being a forum member" and "being interested in this thread" alone would throw off the survey results.

Technically it's also not "Kerbol" and yet we refer to the sun that way. The wreckage on the KSP menu screens says "Mün or bust" so it's not coming out of nowhere.

"The Big Three" of Adobe (Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign) are nearly impossible to use on a serious basis without knowing a lot of the keystrokes. Surely you could, but everything would take ten times as long. I have colleagues who work like that, and they measure their Photoshop work in hours, not minutes. And I remember Autocad from college, where the struggle was mainly memorizing the command line interface. Although, again, it would fly once you mastered that. "Powerful but it requires keystrokes" is really not limited to open source. A keystroke-driven interface does require a certain amount of commitment and a higher barrier of entrance. which is why a lot of commercial software tries to bypass that these days. But it's usually worth it; it increases productivity by an order of magnitude. My 30 minute Here's how to get much faster at Excel workshop at work (which I do with the caveat that people shouldn't be using Excel as often as they do, but that's another story) is pretty much Here's a list of 20-something keystrokes. Although there's a lot of disappointment with the audience that they actually have to learn something to get better at it. But I digress.

Built a rocket bigger, and with more parts, than I could do with the demo version.

I encountered the same issue, and indeed, removing the Squad folder and replacing it with a refresh from Steam did the trick. I assume a lot of people update their KSP by letting Steam take care of it automatically (I do) -- even when it's copied over to a local folder afterwards. This might be worth listing in the documentation(?) as a known issue, together with the fix. Amazing work, by the way. Absolutely breath-taking.

If you want a complete answer, get the book “code” by Charles Petzold. He answers exactly that: how does software work, all the way up from bits and bytes and transistors. This book, theoretically, gives you all the fundamentals for building your own computer and writing your own compiler, although you’ll find that a bit more challenging in practice. Still, it provides very good insights in how exactly computers work at a fundamental level. Mr Petzold is not some journalist who set out to write a popular computer science book, but rather the author of “the book” on windows programming, and he knows what he’s writing about.

The cynic in me believes that this is the true reason these robots last so much longer than planned. Not because of their exceptional build quality (don’t get me wrong, it is exceptional), but because a rover with an expected life span of, say, 5 years, would burn a gigantic hole in the budget. so the “official” mission duration is 6 months and now the money for the remaining 4.5 years comes from some other “unexpected mission extensions” budget which allows the official budget to remain passable. I don’t have proof but I do have suspicions.

Agree. Sad, but at the same time, we've gotten a tremendous mileage out of it. Also, if we keep them roaming around it's going to be that much harder for future stranded astronauts to contact earth. We have to be considerate to them as well.

They've given up on Opportunity a long time ago. This is just due diligence to make sure no opportunity is passed (no pun intended) to restore contact, however unlikely it may be.

Did you use pip install krpc to install it? I recommend installing it that way to ensure all depencies are installed. On a side note, you really should switch to Python 3, as Python 2 will not be supported from Januari 1, 2020, onward.

You can decouple it. I’ve set up mobile communication outposts and dragged them as a trailer to the right destination, decouple, and I’m in business.

No. There is a chance, you’re right about that. But too much chance? I don’t have numbers at hand, and I don’t know how to get them, but I would be very surprised if at more than 10% of the launches the clamps would not go with the first staging event. And definitely, without a smidgen of doubt, more than 50%, or the majority of launches would release the clamps at the first occasion. Surely that would “get it wrong” for a minority of the players. But it would get it right for the vast majority. Mind you, I’m one of those “light engines, check if all is fine” (there’s mods to ensure it isn’t always) and then release kind of people. But I still think that it makes sense to default the clamps to always the first stage. It wouldn’t matter for me—right now the game gets it wrong regardless—but it would at least be right for most players.

Insert mandatory “how are we supposed to figure this out?! They hold us for rocket scientists” joke. I’m with @Snark though. After a “wait, these things stage?” moment, figuring out how it worked wasn’t exactly ro... nvm.

The service module isn’t decoupled by staging to prevent accidental staging accidents with possible loss of Kerbal life. Also, the author and maintainer of the mod has made a deliberate choice to not list it on CKAN, for reasons. Check the FAQ on the first page for deeper insights on both issues. Happy gaming!

I’m not someone who wants multiplayer. In fact, the only reason I read these threads is the trainwreck-like fascination they bring up. Just like some others I think that there is little that MP has to offer. But, creativity has no boundaries and surely people will find ways to make MP just that much more rewarding. I know I sound like a broken record, but “sim proto” MS Flightsimulator, with its lively mod culture, is a good example of a sim where multiplayer adds a lot of fun, and not always in ways Microsoft envisioned it. Live ATC, relay races around the world... Making History introduces scenarios. I doubt MP wouldbe played out a lot over multi-year missions (but who am I to say so?), but more around doing things together; that’s where the fun would be, I think. So why not make MP more scenario based? That still allows you to do Duna landings, Eeloo rendez-vous’, etc. Without a timewarp requirement, thus without the timewarp issues. Want to do a Duna mission together? Have a set of multiple scenarios, from building and launching a craft, to making it reach a transfer sol orbit, to the injection burn—just hop from scenario to scenario, instead of timeshifting. Solve the problem, not by inherently flawed bypasses, but simply by eliminating it completely.

Isn’t the one on the right a frequent guest on the numberphile videos?

Aside from what pertains “realism” and what doesn’t (atmospheric behavior? Real fuels including physical properties that are temperature dependent? Metal fatigue and radiation induced degradation?) It always seems to me that for people who want it harder and more realistic to show off how good they are at the game they can achieve it in three simple steps: One save and one save only. NASA doesn’t have the luxury of restarting in 1958 either. No quick saves. Obvious. No time acceleration. Makes your commitment of getting that Duna mission right the first time a lot more serious. Any claims with that this is impractical: realism doesn’t care about practicality. If you want a space program with the rigor and demands that reflect real life space programs, all you need to do is commit to this. The rest is just numbers. Me? I enjoy the game as a game. I have no need for more realism.

Wow, Hollywood is really ramping up. First the Armstrong movie, then the Apollo 11 documentary that’s slated to come out soon, and now an Apollo 11 movie as well?

Don’t forget the imperial war museum and the battle of britain museum.

As @5thHorseman points out, the reason is that it will open up the can of worms about the values being wrong. Or “unrealistic.” Or about the choice of units. We have units where we need them; I’m fine with things the way they are. no additional units, please!

Ironically, no fact checking took place to see what the movie was about. Just some assumptions based on the interpretation of a trailer. Yes, the movie is bad, and yes, science as usual takes a back ride. But it's not nearly as bad as it's made out to be: The balloon is—shockingly—not used to fly to Io. Io is indeed depicted as a tiny moon full of volcanoes. Apparently those are feeding a power station (I do not deny the questionability of that) so the decision was made to convert the power station to a temporary colony (I guess because a lot of the required infrastructure was already there) The element of urgency is introduced by the story element of a much better alternative being discovered, and all resources are now spent towards launching a ship towards that; time's running out to make on board to a ship to Io. Io was probably picked as a metaphor: after humanity poisoned Earth, it's forced to retreat to one of the most inhospitable places in the solar system. Again, I'm not saying it's a good movie; far from that. However, it's ironic that criticism on the movie makers about fact-checking is largely based on the same perceived sin - just making some assumptions without checking what is actually true. And it's totally uncessary as the movie leaves plenty of reality-bashing scenes available for the hordes: a 10" ground based telescope providing better imagery of Jupiter than Hubble ever can give us Ammonium detection with flames got the colors wrong and the need for it The balloon. Oh, don't get me started on the balloon... There's plenty to bash. But the movie suggests that the makers are perfectly aware that Io is a nasty place full of volcanoes (it's a plot aspect), and nowhere in the movie is the suggestion made that a balloon is used to fly to it.

But worth it. Imagine the fun it is to handle a rocket loaded with fluorine. That stuff makes red fuming nitric acid look as benign as gasoline.

You overestimate the community. There'd be complaining about updates "that don't do anything."

@Green Baron I used to have that alarm clock! @Gargamel is a gap of 12 worth anything these days?

What makes you think they are not? Along industrialized countries, the US has the highest death rate in traffic, and teenager age group forms the largest statistic within that. Weak enforcement of traffic laws, laughable testing of driving skills and a general attitude where problems are always the fault of someone else* do contribute as well, of course. To get back to the OP: BMW loved advertising in the 70s and 80s with claims that all that horsepower was a “safety feature” just for the case lined out. I always smelled the bull manure coming off the pages when I saw those advertisements. Personally, I think that most situations where extra speed is needed to get out of an unsafe situation is caused by grave judgement errors (some might say “reckless driving”). If you're on a 2-lane road and your car is limited to 50kmh and the truck in front of you is doing 48... don't pass. It's not safe. * My “favorite” case is the family of a high school graduate who was drunk, and speeding. He ran his car off the road and got launched through the windshield when it flipped over (because, of course, he wasn't wearing a seatbelt) and died. His parent sued Ford, because the roof had collapsed (as the car violently flipped over), and if he had worn his seatbelt he would have been killed because of that.