Vallius

Since we're all wildly speculating anyway. Maybe they're integrating some sort of fairings mod. MaxMaps mentioned that Harvester found a way to let cargo bays cancel out drag, so maybe they want to introduce a few new fairings parts. Instead of procedural fairings, maybe they could implement a few stackable parts (like they did for cargo bays). I would be a big fan of any mod that give me a reason to build space stations or satellites though.

Now that we have destructible buildings, wouldn't it make sense to have the option to self-destruct wayward vehicles before they blow up KSC?

Really depends on your difficulty settings. I started a new game in hard mode, and saw contracts promising 7 funds, 0 science, and 5 prestige to test a part in the upper atmosphere. Just imagine the conversation they had with Gene Kerman. Gene: "So let me get this straight. You want me to test this 1000 Fund engine, going at 400 m/s, at 8,000-10,000 m." R&D: "Yes." Gene: "For.... 5 funds if I succeed, 7 prestige and no science." R&D: "Mmmhmmm." Gene: "And if we fail, we have to pay you 12,000 Funds?" R&D: "That's right." Gene: "Well, I'll run this by the boss. But tell you what, don't call us. We'll call you." R&D: "Wait! Wait! I'll give you an advance to carry out the test. Will 2 Funds sweeten the deal?"

It's so true! Lets make those deadlines more urgent, at least for near-Kerbin work. While a week to complete a test contract isn't a big deal, it would mean you can't mess around forever without getting it done. Also, the test-part contracts should really only give you a finite number of loners (but then I guess that's what the advance funds are for).

Overall, I am loving the update. Some of my favorite new features (small and large) are: 1. I'm really happy to report that click-though of the Flab menu in the VAB has finally been fixed! Can't tell Iyou guys at SQUAD how happy that minor fix makes me. 2. I'm really enjoying the new uses for the Alt key in the VBA and SPH, finally can get those parts aligned! 3. The admin building strategies finally give me a way to cash in my ridiculous reputation--For Science! ----[N] Of course now science is ludicrously easy, especially since my existing career mode defaulted to normal mode, where no funds are needed to unlock parts.[/N] 4. And of course, I love the SP+ parts. If I wasn't so afraid of blowing up the runway and killing kerbals I'd be going nuts with space planes. On the other hand, there are a couple of things that are... odd.... 1. Am I the only one who notices that the flags at KSC don't wave anymore? This isn't so much a complaint as an observation. Perhaps adding a destructible flagpole made it too buggy to have the flag wave? 2. While it's perfectly reasonable to have the runway and the Launchpad be destructible, is there any way to make them less touchy to just loading the vehicle? 3. Yep, I'm also seeing some spontaneous kerbal flights. Haven't tried EVA's in space yet--but I'll keep you posted with what I observe. 4. Hard mode might need to be rebalanced a bit for the contract rewards. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a challenge, but many of the contracts are actually a detriment to my space program now. ----They cost far to carry out than I could possibly recoup, and nil science or reputation.

It's just as well that I'm at work. Better do my job, and just wait till I get home to see if the release is ironed out.

Hard with Quickload. I don't generally use it, but I reserve the right to turn back the clock 30 seconds in I crash because of something out-of-game.

Looking at my options when prepping my larger space missions, I have a pretty good routine for assigning action groups. I've always wondered how I'm supposed to use the "staging" slot. I'm not really a fan of dumping my transfer stage prematurely just to say, open solar panels. Is there a way to assign the staging slot to a particular stage? Does anyone here ever use it? If so, what do you use it for?

It looks so, so Kerbal. Took me a moment to convince myself that the lander wasn't built in KSP.

When it takes you more than 10 seconds to register that a real-life spacecraft design proposal was not built in KSP. This proposal from Boeing looks so much like a lander I'd build. http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/604643main_2-Panel%202_Donahue_Final.pdf I guess that's just one of the many charms of KSP. I'm interviewing with a company that manufactures rocket boosters tomorrow.

I'm almost drooling just looking at the new effects. Granted, I knew about these already, but to finally see some of them in action is a beautiful thing!

I don't know, I couldn't help but smile when I saw Blueprints and Blowups. Some days are like that at KSP. Everything blows up in your face. Plans, rockets, rocket-plans....

For the update name, how about "White Wings and Red Tape". Based on the KasperVld pic, will cockpit and hitchhiker container windows be lit up from inside.

The secret feature isn't earth shattering, but it's a nice touch of realism. One reason the US beat Russia to the moon was catastrophic launch failure with the latter. I've already started tilting my rockets slightly after clearing the launchpad. I'll also start paying attention the orientation of my test decouplers (no sense in blowing up a building for a chicken-scratch contract).

I attended a seminar where the presentation was given by an engineer who manufactures and tests batteries. He advised us that most modern batteries have a much longer life if they are not regularly discharged. In other words, the battery will last much longer if it is kept fully charged and in the laptop when it is plugged in. If I recall correctly, the practice of fulling charging and discharging batteries is only right for Nickel-cadmium batteries. Most electronics these days use lithium ion batteries.

Um, I'm not sure where to report this, but I'm getting a 500 Internal Server error on the KSP website... Is this normal while you update the site?

I'm not too worried about machines replacing humans in everything. I'm an engineer, and I've done a fair amount of programming. My experience is that computers are mindless automatons, and are actually pretty stupid outside of their "best" conditions. The video overlooks the reality of software bugs, and the dependence of AI on programmer intelligence. The more adaptable a computer's logic system is, the more complex (and potentially buggy) it will be. Think of the last time you used a 100% bug-free version of Microsoft Windows. While we can certainly design factories that run themselves, we still need people to watch the machines for when (not if) things go wrong. Computers lack imagination, and are not well equipped to think on their feet. They can only use inputs and outputs in the way they were designed to be used, and their ability to interpret data is padlocked to numerical methods. I highly doubt it will ever be more economical to place sensors on every inch of wiring, pipeline and gear, than it would be to have someone walk through the facility and look for leaks from time to time. Consider how a computer might make decisions using physics and simulation. A computer might try to make predictions about the future based on the models programmers put it. If the models are wrong (and they always are at least a little wrong), or the measurements are off (no measurement is 100%, and industrial measuring devices need to be regularly re-calibrated), then the computer will occasionally make mistakes. Every time I've done simulation work or numerical methods, I have to verify that what the computer says happens will happen. Computers are not designed to second-guess their logic, unless I've foreseen the possibility and have explicitly programmed it to watch out for every pitfall. To make a short story long: Some people think that the world will be destroyed when the robots take over. I think it's far more likely that we'll just trust the machines too much, and be wiped out by a blue screen of death.

In our world, science instruments are rarely (if ever) quite the same from one space mission to the next, even if they serve the same function. Using tweakables, KSP science could reflect this kind of customization. For example, compare the mirrors on the Hubble, Chandra, and James Webb space telescopes. All are used for capturing images of the skies, but are sized differently, have different resolutions, and were designed for different types of light. The cost of each telescope is based on the size and quality of the mirrors, the computer hardware they run off of, and the cameras. Each (appropriate) science part could have sliders, much like those used for fuel and oxidizer in fuel tanks. 1. Slider: Precision vs. Working Range: Precision: How Precise is your measurement? How much science do you get under ideal conditions. Calibrated Range: What range of conditions can you get a good measurement. Reasoning: Most real world measuring tools are only good for measuring values within a certain range (e.g. You wouldn't a bathroom scale to weigh a feather), and the accuracy that you can get a measurement has some connection to it's range (A good chemistry scale isn't mean't for more than say 500 grams, but can measure to 0.01 milligrams). Implementation: A thermometer calibrated to get temperatures on Eve might give you such great results on Eeloo. You could give it a wider range, but then you wouldn't get as much science, because you have to sacrifice precision. By default, all science instruments would have the maximum calibrated range, but maybe only 20% of the maximum science return value. This gives players an incentive to consider measurement conditions on a mission by mission basis. Additionally, this could give players a better reason (other than spamming) to put more than one thermometer or barometer on a probe. 2. Slider: Recording Device Quality (How much of Science can be Transmitted) vs. Cost and mass Reasoning: Once science instruments have made measurements, they need to record those in the pod's computer in a form that can be transmitted back to mission control, or analyzed when the pod returns to Kerbin. While it makes sense that players should be rewarded for returning science instruments to Kerbin, there should be a way to minimize science transmission losses (at a price) for really remote locations. Better recording equipment costs significantly more, as well as increase its mass. Implementation: The higher the quality of your recording device in your experiment, the more expensive it will be. This would be controlled by a slider. At the center of the slider would be the default transmission loss, mass and cost (1). This would allow players to beam back experimental results from Eve or Eeloo with a minimum of science loss, but could increase the cost of the experiment by as much as 10x or more. If we move the slider to the left, the experiment weighs less, and costs less (but no less than about 50% of it's initial mass and price), but transmission values become even worse, going down to maybe 10%. And an aside: Antenna quality needs to matter While not central to this discussion, transmission quality needs to be linked to the choice of antenna. What are your thoughts?

Seriously though (even if it isn't), why does the PR man wear a hazmat suit? Imagine what the conversation would be between him and the media. Walter Kerman: "Despite what you may have heard, I assure you that every launch at KSP is perfectly safe." Media: "If your rockets are so safe, why are you dressed like that?" Walter Kerman: "Safety is our number one priority, plus I find the suit comfortable." Media: "Are you afraid of chemical leaks or something?" Walter Kerman: "Eh... No. Of course not! I just have a terrible, eh... personal allergies... to smoke." Media: "Right...."

*sniff* It's beautiful! I cannot wait to fail now! Jebediah: "Hooah, let's light this candle!" :( *Bob and Bill back away slowly.*

Based on the new parts being introduced this time around, I'd say the hype shuttle is the most appropriate vehicle. But then, it doesn't roll off the tongue like hypetrain or hypeplane...

Saturns rings are extremely thin, but they are so packed with particles that anything trying to pass through them would likely get pulverized*. I think a solid collision Mesh for rings would work well, physics wise. *According to History Channel's "The Universe", and NASA.

I've never actually collided with debris from other launches, but I've had some close calls with debris from my first space station (broken solar panels). I made the mistake of launching the Milkyberry I in retrograde orbit. Naturally I took it down, but there are a couple bits flying around thanks to poor EVA coordination.

That takes me back to my first landing on the Mun, way back in 0.21 I think it was. This was before I knew I could use EVA to push a spacecraft. In those days, that was dicey anyway, because kerbals tended to bounce off the command module when you tried to grab a ladder. Jebediah had just gotten back into orbit after his historic first landing, and he initiated the burn to head home. The problem was that I ran out of liquid fuel leaving my periapsis at about 600 km from home. "No problem!" I figured, "Maybe I can close the gap using my RCS." About 30 seconds later, I was still 300 K out, and out of RCS. Now I was really desperate, when I can a crazy idea. What if I could activate my abort system (seperatrons on the top of the command module), to push me the rest of the way home. I rotated the craft to the proper direction, crossed my fingers, and set off my last stage. The rest is history reminiscent of a combination of Apollo 11 and Apollo 13. There was cheering, a goofy victory dance, and a lot of fist pumping. So to make a short story long, redundancy and creativity are how I get my kerbals safely home (usually).

I would like to see more photo updates of features, but if I were Squad, I'd avoid it. Anyone remember Spore? It's a decent game, but we were promised so, so much more than was delivered.