Vallius

Unity Code--And magic,of course. Some noted Kerbal theorists claim that it's really the result of strange quantum entanglement, but that's the same thing.

"Gold Edition" is generally reserved for games after the developer is done working on it and all expansions. KSP is approaching 1.0, but AFAIK squad is still planning on 1.1 and 1.2 updates (before they officially do expansion packs).

I'd like that. Tiny text takes a lot of fun out of trying to play KSP on the big screen.

The full release should be, "Kerbal Space Program". No more, no less for the full release.

Actually, I think Kerbal will get great reviews, so long as SQUAD avoids major bugs. I think they'll succeed there, based on how they've done in the last few releases. For me to consider it 1.0, I reiterate the need for fixed aerodynamics. I really hope they add some sort of clouds in 1.1 or 1.2 though. It's a minor touch which (with Astronomer's Visual Pack, for example) do wonders for the game's overall appearance.

Unlike most games, I feel like I've accomplished something worthwhile. I'm even more impressed when I make a spaceplane work (at all) in stock.

Here's my recommendations for prioritizing features for 1.0. Let form follow function, as they always say. 1. Aerospace (and by extension, fairings). This will cause, by far, the largest and most important game-play change, and should not be significantly altered after 1.0. 2. Tech Tree Revision. It doesn't need to be perfect, but this determines the overall progression of the game. New players need to have a semi-logical progression of technology. 3. Part Balance. New aerodynamics will greatly change the way most parts work, so this should be high on the list. 4. Early Career Mode needs to be more forgiving for new players Useful but not critical to 1.0: Improved aircraft design tools, Engineers Report. Reentry Heat, Bigger spaceplane parts Pure Gravy: Female Kerbals, ISRU Parts, interiors for all crafts.

Sometimes I take inspiration from mythology. More often I use a naming scheme based on pure, unadulterated whim. It's hard for every name to be as epic as "Odyssey" or "Prometheus" after all.

Every single time I need to choose a pilot for a spaceplane design, I ask myself, "Now who could I most afford to lose?"

They're extremely handy for docking and landing on other bodies. The Vernier engines are meant for bigger spacecraft (I've usually only use them in the first 3 stages or so for Apollo-like missions).

Since career mode came to include money, it changed my play style significantly in the early game. Now I always say, "I'm a miser with my launch money." (When 1.0 comes out, I'll almost certainly go back to my science save so I can relearn how to play this game.)

Maybe SQUAD could use the part icons we see in the VAB/SPH for this purpose? I suspect that this would increase the load time for mission control significantly, but I'd consider it worth the wait. Heck, they could even use the parts as they are presented in the Science lab. (It's been a while since I played, do they respond to a mouse like the VAB parts, or just as static pictures?)

Make some iteration of Astronomers Visual Pack stock (or at least add clouds to bodies with atmosphere). I can live without actual weather, but this little change makes a huge impact on the game visually.

Gosh, how can I answer. Most of these answers are correct, and none of those statements excludes the others. I wouldn't go as far as to call it a true spaceflight simulator (although 1.0 is certainly a lot closer in that direction. We do explore planets and moons (sort of--unless you're on Kerbin or close to an easter egg, there's not all that much to see). We definitely assemble and design our own crafts (you really should have added "pilot" to that one). You can learn some orbital mechanics from Kerbal, but I had to go to the community to really learn how to fly. We manage a space agency a little bit, but the real focus is designing cool stuff and moving it through the Kerbol system.

Speaking for myself, I'm less active these days, not because I think any less of KSP, but because 1.0 will cause a lot of fundamental changes to my play style (The fact that I'm now splitting time between a real rocket science job and finishing my thesis is entirely coincidental). I want to like spaceplanes, I really do, but until 1.0, they're Difficult, Expensive and Deadly (or DED) to me. The forum is probably less active because there's less motivation to push the limits of KSP with such huge changes in the pipeline. Other than chipping in my 2 Funds on the direction of development, to try to influence 1.0, I don't really want to invest lots of hours in trying big missions. I guess I'm afraid of getting burned out on the start-up phase of a new save.

Yeah, pretty much. Let's just hope my real-life designs are more successful than my Kerbal ones.

Hi everyone, I've done research in energy for several years, thinking I'd probably be a petroleum engineer. I've been going to school for Chemical Engineering for a few years now. I've always wanted to be a rocket scientist, but never thought I'd be able to do it. It's a difficult job to get into, especially because the American Government keeps changing its mind about whether we're going to space or not. But then I found Kerbal. I failed time and time again to get into orbit--but I finally did it. Then I landed on the moon (surprisingly, I succeeded on the first try with Jeb). Something changed in me on that day. I received loads of support from my wife and parents, encouraging me to go for my dream, even if it seemed unlikely. As I progressed through my Masters degree, I got to be friends with several people in the rocket industry. I had several interviews that fell through at the last second due to changes at the company. But I did not give up. I kept at it, I became determined that I would be a rocket scientist, and pursued that again and again. Like KSP, there is joy in the journey--and I did not let that stop me. Today, I got an offer from the company building the rocket boosters for the new SLS. So to make a short story long, HarvesteR, SQUAD, fellow Kerbalnauts--mark me down as someone who's life was changed for the better by KSP. This game inspired me to keep trying, and now I'm going to be a real-life rocket scientist (well rocket engineer, close enough)!

"Waaaaaahoooooo!" Now Jebediah can literally go down in flames of glory in stock. He'd prefer it that way. So does this mean we will also have stock heat shields, or do different parts simply handle reentry heat better than others?

As long as procedural fairing's don't allow completely ridiculous geometries, I'm all for that. We already have procedural engine fairings, but It'd be great if I could choose larger covers for tiny engines in a stack.

I got on board the hype shuttle back at update 0.22 or so, just when career mode was getting off the ground. Very punny, I know. I just saw Mr. Peabody and Sherman the other night.

I used to have that problem, but you can reassign the the keys to open up the steam overlay. I use ALT+/ (There really aren't a lot of keys not used in KSP).

I usually consider test contracts fun challenges to try unorthodox designs (as long as I can get at least as much money out as I'd put in), so I see no problem with them. Some of the newer contracts give me a special incentive to go to certain locations, and specifically grab samples from them (so that helps give me an incentive to link science missions). But yeah, we seriously need a mapping system in 1.0 or soon thereafter. I don't want to have to guess if I'm hitting the same biom twice on interplanetary missions.

Alternatively, is there any way the stage numbering can be reversed, so stages are numbered in the order they are fired? In real life, conventionally the 1st Stage is the one that ignites on the launchpad.

Regarding the barn controversy, I can see merit in the points of view for and against. The way I see it, there are only 2 possible origins for aerospace research. One is sheds and barns, and the other is military (like an air force base). Since the kerbals are a peaceful (although certainly not risk averse), the barn/shed origin makes more sense before government funding comes in. It's not supposed to look like a state-of-the-art at first, and I'm confident that SQUAD will give the models the polishing they need before 1.0. One of the greatest things about this game is how much feedback Harvester and the gang have received from us.

I voted no, because with this big of a change, SQUAD has got to have at least 1 update purely for last minute balance and bug fixing. If I were them, I'd go ahead an do all the features, but call this release 0.95.0 or something like that. That way, they'll have a chance to let us try out all these huge changes before the final release. If everything checks out, they can go to 1.0 in just a couple weeks. If there's unforeseen bugs--SQUAD will save themselves a massive marketing disaster. Real life rocket companies, like SpaceX and ATK, always do at least 1 or 2 full scale tests before going to launch their customer's payloads into space. These tests cost millions of dollars--but you only get to launch once. Blow it, and you'll have a hard time staying in business.