pincushionman

Based on your mention of Styx earlier: Foreigner. Toto. But I agree with the others - "good rock bands from back in the day" is very, very broad. My first thoughts (currently) are '70's style funk/R&B/soul: Commodores, Lakeside, Isley Brothers, Parlaiment…

Now you're getting into "virtual memory" and paging, which starts to get way more complicated. Imagine your desk. You can have sheets of paper on it, which you write things on, erase from, or crumple up and toss in the circular file when you are done. Your desk is big enough that you can only work with ten sheets of paper at once. This represents your physical RAM. Now, how do you deal with more things going on at once? Here's where paging comes in. You also have wire baskets on the desk. You split your work up into "processes" like your math homework, your history, and your doodling. These represent processes like your game, your Excel, your Chrome browser. Don't have enough room for another page of math work? Take something you think you won't come back to for a while, like your history paper, and take one page and put it in one of the baskets. Now you have space on the desk for another sheet of math. The wire basket represents a file on your hard drive called a "pagefile" or "swap space," depending on your OS. But you set some rules for yourself. Not only can you only have up to ten pages of work on the desk at once, each homework (math, history, etc.) can only have up to ten pages each. Otherwise you'll never find what you already did. But as long as you follow those rules, you can swap pages between the basket and the desk as much as you need to. That's how virtual memory systems work. Except your desk is a lot bigger and you can dedicate a lot more pages to each task. When us Windows KSP players complain about memory, it's actually the second rule that's giving us problems. Even though we can have a lot of sheets on the desk, KSP has to fit on three pages, period.

For your landing problems, I think you have a lot of wing, a lot of engine, and a lot of speed, and you need far less of all three. 80 m/s is darn near 180 mph. How slow can you go before you stall or lose control? You want a low stall speed, but once you get down you want to stick to the ground, not float.

[salutation] [welcome and statement of includion in the community]! [shameless self-flattery about awesomeness of community and its members]. [suggestion about becoming more badass].

Ah, but you need to do the EVA-take-data-put-data trick to actually run an experiment for different biome/situation. Which is also not exactly obvious.

Just a quick primer: All "closed" orbits around a body are ellipses with the body at one focus (NOT the center!). Periapsis: the point in the orbit that is closest to the parent body. At this point you are moving fastest. Apoapsis: the point in the orbit when you are furthest from the parent body. At this point you are moving slowest. Delta-V: Only two things are needed to completely define an orbit: position and velocity (speed + direction of travel) at that position. Once in orbit, you can't arbitrarily change position (the only way to do that is to follow the orbit); the best you can do is change to a different orbit that intersects your current one at your current position. Since the position is the same in both orbits, the only difference is the velocities -different speeds, different directions, or both. The vector difference in these quantities called delta-V ("change in speed and direction") and describes the maneuver to get from one orbit to the other. In KSP the magnitude is the dV number shown, and the direction is marked on the navball. You'll also see delta-V bandied about when describing ships - in this case, it's describing the total change in speed the ship is capable of (the "direction" part of velocity is meaningless when used in this manner). In a nutshell: - To get somewhere, you need to be in an orbit that gets there (this orbit has a periapsis and apoapsis that describes it). - To get to a target orbit, you need to be in an orbit that intersects your target orbit somewhere. - Once you reach that intersection point, you perform a maneuver to move from your current orbit to your target orbit. This is accomplished by changing your velocity (speed and/or direction), and is described by delta-V. Keep in mind "target orbit" doesn't have to be a specific orbit; most of the time it's "anything with about these peri/aopapses is good enough." Hopefully this helps a little; I know it didn't address the "slidey bits" you asked about (the pull handles on the maneuver editor maybe?), but maybe that gives you some insight into what you're trying to accomplish.

I'd recommend recording in 1280x720 in windowed mode, myself, which is both 16:9 and a "standard" HD video resolution. It also means "bigger" GUI elements, which is useful for Youtube viewers who watch in non-fullscreen mode or on smartphones. And in windowed mode you have quick access to other stuff like capture software contols and whatnot.

If Squad wanted to DRM through Steam, they wouldn't have contracted to GOG and Amazon years after they began Steam distribution.

Disregarding the ability to spread vessels across threads (which…frankly, I have my doubts about), it is certainly possible that PhysX 3 is just plain more efficient than 2.x. I would think that any *real* performance increases we see would be due to this more than anything else. That said, we will still be limited by part count. Do you really think we won't just start building bigger ships?

As noted, in the Tracking Station and in Map mode they'll show up. In map mode you can click them and "Activate Navigation" and they will then be represented on the navball. This is helpful once you approach them; if you're still halfway around the world not so useful, as they point directly toward them (through the ground and whatnot). Even better, you can install a mod like Waypoint Manager, which will render the waypoint icons as GUI elements.

The fact that you even ask the question says to me that, for you, it is not worth stranding a Kerbal. Plan a means of return.

What is the graphics card, and what is the sound card (is it on the motherboard)? Does the sound card even support 5.1 out of any of its connections? I presume you're talking about a Panasonic A/V receiver (sound system), and I agree it is probably a problem with the capabilities of the computer itself, not the receiver.

Maybe. But on Earth you need something more like 10 km/s. The "get to space" (vertical; get-to-space) part isn't that much less than what we deal with for Kerbin, but for "orbit" (horizontal; stay-in-space) you really have to be going like a bat out of hell.

This.

We need MORE time-based issues (life support, build time, etc.) to make the clock more than just numbers in the corner of the screen. Just because you can timewarp through it doesn't mean it can't be meaningful, when there are rendevous to hit, snacks to consume, contracts to expire, etc. ...That said, time-based repairs probably would just be an annoyance, as unless you're going to take hours or days to make the fix, the time taken is probably negligible in the big scheme of things.

Yes. To describe things that may not be apparent in the title, like (early in career) what experiments it carries, number of stages, number of crew, part contracts, etc. The "name" usually covers the intended destination. It was REALLY important before we got the ship thumbnails.

Do other sources (Cable box, Blu-Ray, etc.) send 5.1 sound via the HDMI connection? * oh, just saw the sentence about the HDMI being on the graphics card. You may be out of luck; you'd need to consult the graphics card manufacturer's technical support. AND the motherboard's, since they need to talk to each other for it to happen.

I was going to be witty and respond to that, but then I thought better of it and realized I'd be derailing the thread. EDIT: dang new editor. You used to be able to abuse the quote blocks for comedic effect. SUPPOSEDLY you can use the Inspect Element options to do it, but it doesn't stick.

NASA blatantly uses FAR and KJR. That airplane makes it look like a few of 'em use Infernal Robotics and pWings too. EDIT: Oh, I didn't realize that plane was a Burt Rutan hack*. That guy pretty much says "I want a plane that does…" and then he makes a plane that does it before anyone tells him he can't. * hack in the sense of clever and impressive

All we have is clay.

They're mods.

What would numbering these engines accomplish for you? You don't have maintenance actiond to track. Failure messages don't specify which instance of a part was damaged or destroyed. i can see where this might come into play during roleplay, but as far as the gameplay goes it doesn't go into those sorts of details.

Um…you do know at least one of those is a photoshop hack, right? This land across the street from my office regularly (my company makes one of the fuselage sections); I don't think it's long enough to get the entire fuselage in at once.

I don't think that counts. Ore-related contracts are separate from surface sample contracts, and ore isn't even "science" as defined by the game. It might be possible to add the Kerbals' "collect surface sample" function to the ore drills via a module manager script, though.

At the risk of sounding daft (as I am not knowledgeable (very) in general relativity), I was under the impression that the existence of mass was one of the axioms and therefore not, technically, deriveable from the theory (the existence of spacetime as a manifold being another one). Inertia and gravitation are consequences of mass. That doesn't mean you can't prove it, though. The theory states that "IF mass exists, THEN these predictions…" And all predictions thus far are consistent with observations except edge cases involving quantum length scales. Now, correct me if I'm wrong (I'm reaching even further into the bag of things I don't fully understand), but the existence of mass is not an axiom of quantum mechanics, and it really is a consequence of the interaction of fields (in particular, the Higgs). And has been observed to be consistent with said theory, again except for edge cases. …But in either case, the existence of mass is well-established in both theories, as well as in the simpler Newtonian theory. The success of all these makes a theory without mass a pretty tough sell. Exactly what mass is is still a matter of debate, but that is a far cry from questioning its existence. Now, one could conceivably refactor GR so that mass is not an aciom but a consequence, but you'd need another thing to take its place as the axiom, and there's little reason to even try to do that. Occam's Razor and all that.