Kerano

Eleven versions. 0.21.1 0.22 0.23 0.23 Multiplayer Mod 0.23.5 0.24 0.24.2 0.25 0.90.0 1.0 1.0.4

I'd be interested to know the stats for the number of people that make it to the different planets and moons. Not a forum poll, which has a minuscule sample size, but the actual bulk game data Squad receives. I'm sure it's only a very low percentage of players who make it to places like Jool and Eeloo, but I'd wager a much greater percentage still enjoy the experience of these planets via Youtube videos and shared screenshots. Back before I'd ever played KSP, seeing a video showcasing the view of Jool as a spacecraft landed on Laythe is what inspired me to invest hours and hours into the game to try to get there myself. I bet the marketing value of an update video which featured the view of a ringed gas giant from a nearby moon would be massive, even if only a small fraction of players actually make it there in-game.

I used to go with flat and wide, or wheels on both top and bottom. Then I discovered the joy of reaction wheels on rovers. Now my favourite design is low to the ground, long and sleek with plenty of roll torque. Here's one example:

I never think of stranding Kerbals as a "sacrifice"... it's an opportunity for an extended mission! What could be more exciting for a Kerbal than getting extra time to explore in space while another ship is launched to collect you?

I much prefer the current Lab system to the one we used to have. Automatic science generation while warping is much less fiddly and overall more fun than a tiny % bonus to each individual science transmission. Also it allows more freedom in spaceship design when the Lab doesn't have to be carted along to every landing to maximize science.

Sounds like some good progress. The new devnotes are settling into a good style too - they were a bit stiff and formal to begin with, now they seem more relaxed and informative. Good stuff. No, though you can probably make an educated guess. Since we're still awaiting news on QA and Experimentals, I wouldn't expect any release for at least another month. However you can bet the team will want to release something before Christmas holidays. So maybe November.

I'm a big fan of building monstrously large things. Almost all my ships are therefore capable of single-launch travel, landing, and return trips to their target planet. However my largest ships will often have a docking port so that the crew can do the landing in the main ship while the "tanker stage" remains in orbit for refuelling after the main ship launches back to orbit.

Frequently when I'm building a 20-40 stage monstrosity I get the staging order wrong and end up jettisoning most of the ship directly above the launchpad. Multiple times in a row. Oops. I often design my ships around the minimum delta-v requirement, which usually works okay except when it comes to Moho. Even with experience I tend to forget that the launch window for Moho has to be extremely precise and end up running out of fuel in deep space on the return journey. Cue rescue mission. Oh, and I also never quite manage to get the Duna aerobrake right on the first try. It's such a tenuous atmosphere that I frequently end up under-braking and wasting tonnes of fuel correcting... or occasionally over-braking and "whoops" crashing...

Most difficult achievement for me was definitely building a ship capable of landing and returning from Eve... at sea level. Made all the more difficult by the fact that my attempt occurred around the transition to one of the 0.24 patches which made radial decouplers apply phantom forces that bent stacks inward and destroyed the rocket.

Damn, looks like I missed the opportunity by a mere couple of hours. Shame, I would have loved to submit an application. Think I'd be a pretty good experimental tester, I'm familiar with the bug tracker and have plenty of spare time. I've also done closed alpha testing for other games in the past. Ah well.

Loved it, great work!

Hmm, perhaps it was bad luck then. I think you should change the one-time "Explore X" contracts to be treated like the "World First" contracts - i.e. automatic credit the first time you orbit/land on a new body. Otherwise you're punished by never being able to gain the benefit of the one-off "Explore X" contract just because you visited a body before the game told you to explore it. It's the same problem that the altitude contracts used to have - a penalty for being ambitious. All one-off contracts should be automatically awarded, IMHO.

If it's reputation based then the balancing is out of whack. I did a dozen or so missions on Kerbin, landed on and returned from the Mun, ferried several tourists around Kerbin and to the Mun, rescued a Kerbal from Kerbin and another from the Mun, and apparently still didn't have enough reputation for the "Explore Minmus" contract to appear. This despite no contract failures at any point. I've noticed in general that reputation gains are way lower than in version 0.90, where I didn't have too many issues with getting the big "explore X" contracts appear. Squad may not have properly adjusted the contract triggering system to compensate for the reduced reputation gains early in the game.

Was your craft's velocity 'locked' at a certain value while your orbit changed? Did you turn on the Alt-F12 debug log while it happened? Any screenshots? This sounds very much like the 'null reference exception' bug that would be randomly triggered by switching to a ship clawing an asteroid. Only solution was always quitting and restarting the game. I made a detailed bug report about it a year ago when 0.23.5 came out (where the claw was first introduced). I'll try to find it and link the thread here.

Quoted for truth. Hopefully 1.0.1 will bring us saner heating values/controls, as well as useful user information. Smoke coming off parts near overheating seems like an excellent visual clue for instance. My workaround for the time being is to use the 'ignore max temperature' option in the debug menu when I'm running nukes, which are the biggest offenders when it comes to overheating. - - - Updated - - - I've noticed this too. Occasionally it seems to bug out and the entire ship normalizes at a much higher temperature than expected, which causes parts to suddenly explode when you go into time warp.

I also never got the explore minmus contract. I was quite annoyed that it didn't come up, as the reward is significant and visiting minmus without it literally sets you back in your space program since it never appears again. Personally I feel the 'explore' contracts should work like the 'world first' contracts. You should be rewarded by default the very first time you orbit/land on a new body. Most crucially you should not be PUNISHED by losing the benefit of a one-off contract forever just because you visit a body before the game tells you to explore it.

KSP 1.0, fresh install, new career, no mods. As per the image below, solar panels detect "Direct Sunlight" despite the fact that the craft is on the night side of Minmus. The higher panels detect being "blocked" from sunlight by the lower panels, and the Sun is on the direct opposite side of Minmus. The behavior is effectively what would be expected if the craft were at this orientation in deep space. My craft generates enough electricity exclusively by solar panels at night to run a dual drilling rig + ISRU converter.

The heat on the LV-N definitely needs toning down. Requiring part spam to reduce heating is not a solution, neither is limiting to 20% thrust on an already low-thrust engine. The mass increase, liquid fuel requirement and bump further back in the tech tree already nerf the LV-N enough. The main purpose of the engine is supposed to be for long deep-space burns, and right now it can't be used in that way. It's no longer a reward to unlock at the end of the tech tree, it's just a source of endless frustration.

Had this happen to me after rescuing a Kerbal in a Mk1 Command Pod, and wondered what the cause was. Originally I thought it was just the game's way of creatively removing debris, but then it didn't happen on my second and third rescue missions. Bugged heat values after a quickload explains it.

This needs to be changed ASAP though. Nukes already got a mass increase, fuel change, and a bump further back in the tech tree. Their main purpose is for long burns in deep space. The current heat production makes them unusable for that purpose. Spamming parts is not a viable solution. Neither is running at 20% throttle on an already low thrust engine.

Confirmed that I've also experienced the same click-through-menu bug in Windows with KSP 1.0.

Yeah the thermal mass isn't adding up, must be something else. Well whatever the cause, structural fuselages, ore containers and empty fuel tanks are 1.25m parts which don't preemptively explode in space when attached to an LV-N. Useful to know. - - - Updated - - - Not according to the values displayed in debug. 200 for both full and empty small ore container.

Did a bunch of tests in sandbox mode with the LV-N and came across several interesting things (link). Summary: Part directly above LV-N should contain minimal or no fuel mass.

Did a lot of tests in sandbox mode with different 1.25m parts above the LV-N and came across a few interesting things. Summary: Part directly above LV-N should contain minimal or no fuel mass. * The part directly above the LV-N always gets the brunt of the heat. * Thermal mass seems to be the key value in the debug right click menu. The lower the better. If it's too high on a small part it'll overheat QUICKLY above an LV-N. * Fuel adds a lot of thermal mass. A small Mk1 tank full of fuel will overheat quickly. Empty the same tank, and now it will heat up much more slowly... so slowly that the LV-N itself will usually explode first on 100% power instead of the empty tank. * Engine pre-coolers seem to be a decent choice above LV-N engines mainly because of their low fuel mass. They don't dissipate heat in space though. * Structural fuselages work even better, due to the complete absence of fuel. Wastes a part though. * Ore containers actually work brilliantly, especially when full. Ore itself doesn't add any thermal mass, and depending on your ship you may actually have a use for ore containers anyway. * Dipping into 1000x time warp briefly will reset thermal values to default levels for all parts on the ship. Nice to know if you're in a tight spot and all else fails.

Good to know. Though even 234,000 is unlikely to cover the cost of achieving a suborbital solar trajectory and recovering.