pincushionman

"Camera" science experiment. Once unlocked, carried by Kerbals. Can either "take picture" in the Kerbal actions (like EVA Report, soil sample, etc.) or "place Camera (like Plant Flag), on tripod pointing the direction of the current camera, has its own action of "take picture" once placed. On "take picture", any Kerbals in frame (of the camera) will automatically mug or pose, any not in frame or behind objects will attempt to get in frame, resulting in photobombs.

"Perform Gravity Scan in orbit around the Magic boulder, in Space High above North Green Crack, between 72 and 256 meters…"

So it was a satellite of a satellite (moon, Ike) of a satellite (planet, Duna) of Kerbol? Did it have a SOI? 'Cuz if you could put up a probe (or an asteroid, that would be even better) to make a satellite of a satellite of a satellite of a satellite, that would be pretty badass.

It seems to me the statement "has a retrograde rotation and a 97 degree tilt" is somewhat inaccurate, and instead should be "has a retrograde rotation because it has a 97 degree tilt." Subtle difference, but huge in meaning.

Don't drink coffee. Can't stand the smell. I haven't seen where caffeine from pop keeps me awake, though. I do drink pop on the weekends because I like it, but I'm very particular about what flavors I want to drink. We've still switched to caffeine-free at my house in case my young children are susceptible to it. …Though I DO drink it at times on long car trips to stay awake, I doubt the caffeine itself is doing it, based on other observations; I think the act of picking up the bottle to drink breaks up the monotony of driving sufficiently, and that only works for so long before I need a legitimate break.

Hint: the program you want is probably cmd.exe. May be called something like "command prompt" or something like that.

Also keep in mind if they DID have gravity, you'd be hard pressed to find one whose Hill sphere isn't entiresly within its own surface.

Having fuel available for the return doesn't make it "too easy" - it makes it easy if you planned ahead and sent a fuel operation there ahead of time. Is it "too easy" to also send a payload of full orange tanks to your target orbit and top off using that method? A fuel mine on Eloo won't make sense if you're only going there once. An extra tank put up at Jool won't make sense if you can put a miner on one of the moons. It's all a balance of effort required and ROI.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you should for me. What I meant to point out is this simulation asks the question "does U5 run well?" And it shows that yes, it does. But that's really not the question we're discussing. The question is more properly "does U5 run better than U4?" And without an equivalent test in U4, we can't evaluate that claim. Just, you know, as a note for the aspiring scientists out there: when designing your experiments, make sure you properly identify your hypothesis, and always include a control!

Not to be that guy, but I've seen several attempts to show U5 handling the physics much better than we know KSP currently does, which is great. Could you please run the exact same simulation in U4 and post the results similarly, so we can compare the two side-by-side? If the U5 sim runs great, that's great…but if the U4 sim runs great too, then it's meaningless, and the performance bottleneck is something besides just a U4/U5 thing. Now, I say that as someone who would love for U5 to be the big performance breakthrough, simple as that. But the devil is in the details, and it depends on exactly what KSP is doing and how it goes about doing it. And even then, as others have said, it may not be as simple a task as just switching. The'yve admitted to kludging some stuff to get U4 to work…well, at least partly like they want. All of that will have to be evaluated as to whether it ports smoothly, ports at all, needs re-written, or even needs to be used at all.

Ability to change the environment, and the ability to communicate with one another about making said changes to the environment. Note that these may be quite rudimentary - ours obviously took some time to evolve.

I don't have enough mods to justify CKAN. Only about 10 max.

Tina?

I'm a player who ordinarily despises Sim-X type games, and even I think that time-based constraints (build /development time, overhead costs) are an essential part of what the game intends to be. After all, it's Kerbal Space Program. Career should be a challenge.

It's probably a workaround to give a challenge to having large staffs -another reason to force you to take money-making contracts at times. The "realistic" way is to have recurring costs based on your astronauts and building levels. But for that to make sense, time has to have meaning as a resource. Such as ship build time and tech unlock time, a la KCT. …but for some reason Squad doesn't want to introduce time-costing mechanics "because players will just timewarp through the waits." Which is BS, with recurring costs you simply can't afford to do that! So…I see what they're trying to achieve, but it feels like a kludge to me.

Yes. But it would have to be Alt (or "Mod" as I think the controls page calls it). Which is it's own problem.

I agree, that's the minimum functionality needed, and it's essentially my (5) and (6). I haven't used HyperEdit, but it seems like everybody uses it to place ships in certain locations. So a replacement for the "launch" functionality is the obvious place to put the Hyperedit options. The other things I suggested are more along the "let's go whole hog with this" line. Reverse time warp would be a really useful test tool. Building limitations like no maneuver nodes or patched conics are an important consideration in career, as are pilots' Exp abilities, so a test environment should allow you to account for that. Turning off tech nodes doesn't do anything except make it easier to build and tweak without having to keep track of what parts your real save has. And importing the state of a save does nothing except make it a one-step process to do the other things.

This is going to start sounding like a thread hijack, but here goes: In order to use Sandbox as a "simulator mode," we'd need some options added: . 1) ability to freely upgrade/downgrade buildings . 2) ability to upgrade/downgrade Kerbals' levels . 3) ability to timewarp in forwards and reverse (including timewarp 0) to let you set up initial confitions to your liking . 4) ability to import the state of any other save to use as initial conditions (planet positions, building state, hired Kerbals) . 5) ability to import ships from other saves, including those in flight there . 6) "Launch" becomes "spawn," where you choose: . . a) body . . landed/flight . . . i) if landed, specify lat/long . . . ii) if flight, specify orbital params . . Of course, the defaults are kerbin/landed/launch pad or runway coords. You know what? This is sounding more like "simulator mode" than just sandbox. . 6) No automatic saves. This is a test environment.

If they aren't physically connected, they'll collide with the ship during normal flight and pass through during warp/when out of physics range.

I use Sandbox for this. However, if I could enable/disable nodes in the tech tree to limit me to the appropriate parts, it would be easier. I always have to write down what I have available first.

I'm not going to watch through to verify, but I believe he said that a) he didn't find signal delay fun and it didn't add anything that would have been interesting to see in a Let's Play.

The specifics of the cost aren't important to that example conversation. The point is people weren't convinced to spend a significant amount more for a negligible benefit, but they could be convinced to spend a "small" amount more for a small benefit.

"We can make an airplane that gets across the ocean two hours faster than mormal! It'll only cost each passenger $2500 rather than $700!" "No one will buy a $2500 ticket for that. What would they do with those two hours?" "Ummm…watch TV, probably." "How much would it cost us to put a TV in every seat of a normal airliner?" "Well…about $10 a seat, if you spread it over the lifeti-" "People will buy an $800 ticket for that." And that's why we don't have any supersonic airliners, but all the long-hauls have TV's in the headrests.

I listen to a lot of "old-school" rhythm and blues. Lakeside. Isley Brothers. KC and the Sunshine Band. Brothers Johnson. Jaaaaames Browwwwwn. Not a lot of new tracks, though. It's pretty much all from the '70's. I also laughed at the thread title, what with implying rappers were different from musicians. I know what was meant, but it came across as funny.

I know the mod accounts for some FAR changes, but does it use just the CURRENT stage configuration, or does it account for the possibility of (currently-un-deployed) chutes cutting your lateral velocity and bringing your impact point closer?