I_Killed_Jeb

I wonder what the discussions would have been like if electricity was not a resource at all and only now was being added to the game. Everything people are saying they don't like about life support applies to electricity. You have to bring extra parts that can add mass to your ship, and can be completely circumvented by adding a couple RTGs to the vessel provided it's not an ultralight ion probe. You forget this and uh oh you're toast, and stranded. Why can't life support simply be treated exactly like electricity is now? Some battery equivalent storage units, some generation units, and engines can generate both electricity AND life support. A simple and not thought-through suggestion, but honestly the arguments against continue to ring hollow to me.

put it this way, how badS would you feel if you could reverse an apollo-13 kind of disaster situation? you'd feel like a rockstar! the same way one of the best moments for a lot of us is when we fixed what seemed to be a hopeless deathspiral/flatspin/crash to death/etc. there are ways to do this in a manner that doesn't induce ragequits. it takes thought and execution, something that is lately a bit in short supply with ksp to be honest as for life support this has been discussed ad nauseum but honestly i can't believe a game about rockets and space travel don't intend to implement something that is arguably the most mission critical portion of manned ships. why bother with electricity then?

I've never had issues with rear wheels like this in the past; in fact may people build this way as well from what I can see in the exchange. How would this explain the change seen from changing only the front wheel placement.

You are correct, I apologize if I came across as testy; haven't had my morning coffee yet .

I know how to build planes, I have been building SSTOs from scratch without problem for many moons now; I think these surfaces are the main problem as they aren't really taking the load I'm used to them taking. Maybe I'm just imagining them

There is no input on these meaning there should be no torque generated anyway. Moreover this is just a quick example piece, I've noticed similar behavior on longer planes where suddenly the problem disappears with placement on a straight part

Have others noticed excessive instability/veering off the runway with nose gears attached to Mk2 parts? I've specifically had issues with nose parts, i.e. cockpit and adapter. These two are exactly the same except the nose gear placement. When I was first building spaceplanes with the new update I figured I was just making poor use of new parts but it seems to me that it's specifically an issue with these part types not having a straight surface for the wheel to attach properly in line with the rest of the craft. In fact I've gotten planes to stop the death veer by simply taking the nose gear off the runway!

I would kill for a borderless windowed mode so that people like me who are using multiple monitors can access online tools like the launch window planner without minimizing the game (which also sometimes crashes it for me). Or even better if the game improved to the point we don't need external resources

pics??

which is a major UI oversight and as such shouldn't be perpetuated even further. i agree totally there are solutions, but they have to be implemented

Not a huge fan of "place X ship at Y" because of performance concerns once these start piling up

Only if there is a way for you to know in-game where the heck this biome is, as opposed to having to look it up on the internet and try to make sense of the 2D map

I'd like KT&T to offer me a competing contract to Kerizon

A joke, kind sir, did not mean to shame you! Please all, carry on, sorry about the derail

with all due respect could you kindly not use every post as an opportunity to show off your creations?

that's a very latin american salute

Go back to building that perfect Eve lander that keeps eluding me

not sure where these alleged eggs are

lol you could have easily said "not for me"

lol at the ridiculous logical contortions and mental gymnastics people at undergoing to 'prove' kerbals aren't obvious representations of males

I don't know if this has come up earlier but if this the way you truly see your community I would humbly suggest a change in viewpoint. This is an artificial dichotomy to start with as is the alleged divide of the players ourselves. All of us I'm sure find that a game can also be a simulator?

I am on board this train

The fact that I didn't personally mathematically optimize the hilt-to-blade ratio of my Dragonborn factors into why this matters more in KSP. And your analogy further breaks down as the entire point of an RPG is that i am playing a role, ergo I am my character in Skyrim. Much in the sense that I am the pilot in KSP

Except the Kerbals are not at all piloting the ships. We are. Now, if in the future they were to be able to autonomously fly ships, then sure by all means Jeb should be able to milk more dv out of a boat than say Guscas

One thing that could make sense is for there to be a strong incentive for a more advanced mission to include at least one Kerbal who has been on a simpler type of flight, much in the way Apollo commanders were Mercury/Gemini 'nauts.