lajoswinkler

It's deterministic and predictable as anything in KSP. Bodies are still on rails, there is no n-body simulation. No randomness, simply one more thing to worry about if you're gonna park in wacky orbits.

Resource cable, strut placing, TETHER, those are all things we need to have in the game to make the Kerbals actually do something and be useful.

The site seemed ok until I saw it sells those cheap ass octahedral fluorites for more than 4 €. I'd be careful. Contact the people on the certificate form.

As I've said, the unstable region would span in very high orbits where rarely anyone parks stuff. Those orbital heights usually pass unnoticed. Early in the gaming experience the players don't even encounter places with significant differences. Minmus is not one of those places. I don't understand why is everyone so scared of "what will the newbies say". Same things happened with reentry heating. Years of "OMG, think of the n00bs!". Nowdays rarely anyone remembers it.

It's a simple thing, any calculator could chug out the numbers on the go.

As I recall, there are some things that were a no-no and now they're stock. Life support in its simplistic style (one resource: nutrients) would be a great thing for the game.

"You" are an emergent property of a multitude of neuron activities based on biochemical reactions. There isn't a special place in the brain where tiny Souper sits and pulls levers.

If there was more of it in the atmosphere, it would deposit itself, but there is not. For something to precipitate, its partial pressure in the fluid needs to be equal to the vapor pressure of the precipitate. At that point, the precipitate and the vapor are in dynamic equilibrium - rate of particle liberation is equal to the rate of particle deposition/condensation. Any change of temperature or pressure in favor of the precipitate will cause it to, well, precipitate completely (faster if the conditions are further away from the point of equilibrium). Partial pressure of carbon(IV) oxide in air is 0.04 * 101325 Pa = 4.052 Pa. It's way too low. That's why a block of dry ice, even if you put it out when it's almost -90 °C on Antarctica, will be gone one day. Same thing with water ice on Ceres. It can not exist in vacuum at Cererian temperatures.

That would be true if we used a blackbox model. "Living thing". Thing is, we know how living things work and we know how the things that make them work, work. We know the laws involved, chemical properties that emerge from them, etc. All these things dictate we can't have things like life based on helium or plasma, to mention really extreme ideas. There are rules. It's not a blank slate and totally free choice.

It's not necroposting if it's useful. It's not like we need a new thread for this issue every now and then.

Turns out you can harpoon their heads.

Efficiency <1 would have to be implemented so that the resource mechanics don't form a perpetuum mobile, but I like the idea.

I support the idea. KSP desperately needs some content that's outside the simulator itself. So far we only have Kerbals going "aha!".

It's a decent idea, but I'd need to think more about it. One thing that comes to my mind is - will it decrease the progress rate a lot? I'm also not a fan of maxing out the technology tree in Kerbin's system by grinding, but the thing that bugs me the most is how slow the progress sometimes occurs. Repetition annoys me a lot. I think simulations would have to be made to predict the outcomes of your economical model.

Gilly's apoapsis is 48 825 km and its periapsis is 14 175 km. That would be an awesome challenge. The point is to add a challenge to the game. It's not a difficult one. It's actually a minor one a great deal of players wouldn't even notice because people tend to park their vessels in tighter orbits. It would just cause vessels to slip from SOI if they're parked unusually high. As you've calculated, one would need to keep anything below 56 km (an in-game dotted line marking the stable orbit). 56 km above Gilly is a lot. If we're going to question the validity of such challenge, then why do we have electricity as a resource? Using the logic you mentioned, we could say there's no need for it because everyone will avoid loss of power by installing solar panels or an RTG unit. I think this is a great compromise between what we have now and n-body system. Only certain bodies would be affected, no radical changes would occur and interesting missions could be created. If newbies would consider it to be too difficult, it could be switched off in the difficulty settings. (I'd keep the on rails system and avoid small body interactions. As I've said, n-body system would be very difficult and it would cause mayhem and completely unreliable data and chaos. Kerbol system is too small and usage of high timewarp is too often for such thing to be implemented.)

At least that one is metamorphic and radioactive. Well ok, you got it worse.

True, but a lot less pronounced because they're in the shallow parts of the Kerbol's gravity well.

Indeed it would. Bop and Pol. Satellites in very high orbits around them would experience detachments. Laythe, Vall and Tylo have a circular orbit so their satellites wouldn't see any such things. Moho has a pretty eccentric orbit so Kerbol could steal its high orbit satellites.

This occured to me a long time ago so I've decided to finally suggest it. I was looking at Ascension, the comet from Kragathea's Planet Factory, nowdays resurrected as Sentar Expansion. That body is on a highly eccentric orbit and always has the same SOI. That does not happen in real life even if we ignore the n-body physics. SOI depends on the proximity to the orbiting body. If it's close to a massive one, its SOI will be smaller, and vice versa, considering its constant mass and volume. Because of this, you could be in a defined large orbit around a comet when it's far away from the Sun, but when it comes closer, you'd continue your way on an independent solar orbit. (In extreme cases, if the body approaches too close, it's not even holding its shape - it's smearing along its orbit, coming apart. It's the known Roche limit.) I know n-body mechanism would be difficult to implement and cause a great deal of issues for all but very experienced players, but variable SOI shouldn't be a problem. Implemented into KSP, this would mean very large orbits around planetary bodies would be unstable and it would provide a new challenge. I'd like to see this one day, especially if (hopefully) we get a comet in the Kerbol system.

For starters, install Hullcam and activate the camera view from Kerbals themselves. It's pretty awesome.

Use RealChute. It's destined to become stock. It has custom parachute behaviour settings.

Oh, Limewire.

Yet another false color image. And my attempt to correct it.

All I get here is stupid limestone.

Nice drawing made by Kadeart.