Terwin

Assuming they are only adjusting existing parts and not adding any new ones, you have: 18 LFO rocket engines + LV-N 16 pods/probe cores 23 non-spaceplane fuel tanks 6 solid fuel rocket engines 10 decouplers(not counting the pylons which may classify as space-plane parts) 3 landing legs 5 parachutes 3 reaction wheels 3 RCS ports(including vernors) 3 fairings 4 heat shields 7 solar panels 5 batteries 7 docking units(including klaw) and lots of structural and aerodynamic parts(including nose cones) just minor balance tweaks to all of those would require huge amounts of testing. not sure about #2

Squad has a standing policy of not talking about future features. Occasionally this is ignored/bypassed and people get very concerned when a single lapse does not lead to a waterfall of information. Personally, I would be very surprised if the finished version of these parts was not in a later version(possibly even as early as 1.2.1), but SQUAD does not want to get backed into a corner should PorkJet get hit by a bus or some such. I thought it was very clear: the rocket part revamp was not complete in time for 1.2, but they have some resources from it that they can make available for those moders who want their parts to look like stock parts. As a developer myself, I am quite aware that 'scheduled for' comes with a giant asterisk, and is generally information that is not released outside the company without good reason.(I seem to recall SQUAD mentioning that the RPR was 'scheduled for' 1.2 way back when, and if the revamp was not complete, I am not at all surprised that it was not mentioned in recent devnotes). I'm excited about the new mechanics and RoverDude's USI-MKS revamp that he is planning to release for 1.2, even if any 1.2 Caveman games will no longer have easy access to the Tundra biome just west of the runway... Questions: Will 'splashed down in the highlands' also be going away?(it was over near the badlands, found it when trying to get splashed in the badlands) Will probes without a narrow band scanner on-board have access to the ore information on a previously scanned planet? Will the 'ground proofing' detailed results be visible in the scanner when previously collected for that biome?

One Ticket for the Hype-Train for KSP 1.2 please. First Class.

Yes situational awareness is nice and simple. It is not like there are trillion dollar companies spending billions of dollars trying to get enough situational awareness to let a car drive itself or anything. The simplest approximation would be each distinct part having a record of each biome it has visited and when the craft is recovered the 'points' for each part that has been in a biome that distinct part has not been in before(as in no Rhino engine has ever been recovered after being landed at the shore), it will contribute a certain number of 'points' to a specified list of 'improvement targets' to let you unlock new parts. Even then you are tracking each biome for each part in the game(and any modders that want to add parts will also need to define what sorts of research they can help with). This adds a non-trivial additional memory overhead for each loaded part, meaning that before 64 bit KSP 100+ part ships might well have been flatly impossible, while bringing two 60 part ships inside the same physics bubble would have crashed the game. And of course adding things like 20 additional stylized wing parts would also be akin to cheating the system because now you can get a lot more aerodynamics science progress just from using those wings around the KSC. And remember, this is the *simplest* version of what you are asking for, one that still has nonsensical activities like taking jet engines biome hopping on the Mun to unlock new jet engines. To do this research system in a way that would make you happy would probably require more development time than having SQUAD write their own game engine, and I would rather have SQUAD throw in something simplistic like the current system, than never be able to bring the game to market at all. Why bother with collecting science for cash when I could even more easily set up the 'Kerbal Fuel Refinery Service' to convert ore to fuel on the launchpad and make money that way? That is a good 'real world' way to make money, but hardly seems like the type of behavior you want to encourage in a game about rocket ships...

Considering that the primary game-play is the building and flying of rockets, what is wrong with using a tried and true approach to getting better gear availability for the game modes where that is part of the process? It uses well established mechanics used in many other games and provides almost no additional learning curve for that aspect of the game. Sounds like a good idea if one of your objectives is to limit the steepness of what is necessarily a rather steep learning curve for new players... This is not the 'Kerbal Research Simulator' after all. Sandbox mode has none of that. If the science collecting add-on functionality is not to your liking, the stock game has a play option where that is not an issue. And if you still want to have contracts and funding, you can just bump up both the starting science and the science bonus and unlock the entire tree in your first few launches. So, in short you want a very complex and 'realistic' research game in place of the current science system. With a nice, fat learning curve on top of the already existent learning curve for the actual rocket science. Sort of like a 'spreadsheets to get the parts to get to space' type game. I'm kind of glad SQUAD never attempted such a complex and convoluted monstrosity as I would never have heard about it from the dozen players who would actually have enough bloody-minded determination(or initial aerospace research training) to get past the horrendous learning curve and actually get to the point where they could enjoy the game and do what they want to do.(assuming SQUAD could get it out the door before running out of money of course)

It works on me is all I can say. Even on Ike and Duna, where I no longer have much need of additional science, I will usually biome-hop with my ISRU-equipped ship so as to get full science from several biomes just because of my completionist tendencies. (And in 1.1 I take an extra of each experiment for loading into the lab for research on the way home/elsewhere) Of course in 1.2 I may well just slap on a few extra probe-cores to hold the duplicate data instead(at least for the Kerbin system).

I see it as an incentive to bring along a scientist and a lab. If you bring both of those, you can get all the science for each biome in one trip. Kind of makes sense that if you want that last bit of science that you probably want to bring a scientist and lb with you, and anything less will mean lots of trips. The alternative to several clicks is for SQUAD to find some reliable, consistent, easily understood and unexploitable method to boost science returns based on who and what you have on your ship(and possibly including who collects the science), This would have the side-benefit of no longer knowing just how many copies of a given experiment you need to be able to get 100%, as it would be different based on which ship you were using(and it would need to keep track of the characteristics of the collecting ship at the time of the collection for each experiment, possibly including the local personnel/equipment during the extraction of the experiment). Do I think SQUAD is capable of this? Sure. Do I think it should be higher in the queue than other, more broadly appealing features? nah. And for those that are really bothered by the current format, there are mods/config files.

This is making it sound like I will be able to transfer science data between pods the same way I can now transfer Kerbals(a boon for those who use a detachable ground level pod for Eve landers), also providing a way to transfer some but not all of the science data in a given pod to another pod(so I can keep a probe core stocked with one of each experiment I have not yet sent to my lab, letting me transfer out anything that I accidentally re-add after it was already researched. This would also allow me to transfer experiments to a 'return' probe while the original probe moves on to the next target... So many possibilities...) I would assume that you put in some sort of 'one way transfer' mechanic so that I cannot store a copy of my gravioli readings in a spent goo canister...(this may be as simple as having a 'transfer size=0' on the experiments) As far as open experimentals go, I believe the original plan was to fix the patcher so that KSP store users could also participate in the next round of open experimentals(presumably GOG users as well), but that was a stated goal at the beginning of the 1.1 open experimentals and plans may well have changed since then.

I would not be too sure, whenever I do this, I just find another stranded Kerbanaut who tells me that the princess is in another pod. My astronaut complex if getting pretty full and I am going to need to start building non-automated bases soon...

Does anyone have a link to the badge with easy/normal/moderate stones?

I find that, in general, my probes are 1-way and my manned missions are the ones that return non-transmitted science. Also, funds are not a major concern for most of my play-time, but time-efficiency is, so 1 probe per planetary system(to scan for resources and use scansat to locate biomes/landing areas), then a manned mission is usually about it. (I am, however experimenting with an automated fuel base style probe which could be a 3rd probe for each planet, and would actually let me get landed science on low-g bodies[Moho is about the limit, and has a version with fewer ore tanks due to the high gravity]) Of course the science storage would probably also make Caveman style games somewhat easier, as you would not need to ensure all of your experiments survived reentry(along with not needing duplicate reuseable science parts and still being able to collect science data from each of the areas you pass through)

There is still a lot you cannot do without kerbals on board(reset science, surface samples, crew reports, EVA reports, wheel repairs, ISRU, Control without signal from kerbin) I'm looking forward to the probe science containers. An extra place for my kerbals to stow science data without bringing a lab on board(plus the option to actually bring back more than one copy of each experiment per science part on actual probes of course).

Each time I see this thread I keep thinking it is about recovering a heat-shield from the mun or some such(I did not realize what it was when I took the contract, so I ended up finding some adequately sloped terrain and slowly pushing the thing around by walking into it until I finally got the klaw to engage. Last time I ever took a contract to recover landed equipment...)

Pixelations during cut-frames, incorrect or illegible images, green-screen issues, typos, weather map issues, missed lines, special effects errors, volume problems, missed cues, scenes that had to be cut, scenes that should have been cut but were not. Lots of types of problems, many of which will not be noticed by many users. On the other hand, I would consider a sand-box game to be much more similar to interactive theater. Would you expect the actors to be able to gracefully handle a member of the audience climbing up on stage and doing something completely unexpected(say drawing a real sword and chasing after the 'bad guy'?) A few years ago I was in an interactive play where the person playing the 'bad buy' was really worried that either myself or another large fellow participating might have positioned ourselves such that he would not have been able to 'escape' out the side door. (it was more of a scripted ceremony, but at the time I thought it was readily apparent that the character was a scripted goad as the espoused views where wholly incompatible with the organization the 'bad guy' claimed to be a high ranking member of). The lack of control over all these variables are probably part of why both interactive theater and sandbox games are so much less common than the other types.

Early game is probably close to 50-50, half my time flying and half my time building/designing. Late game is is closer to 10-20% designing and 80-90% flying. A lot of this is due to using standard designs. I have 'scan-sats' that I launch to every planet out to about Dres(early versions just go around the Kerbin SOI, but once I have nukes, I have a standard design I can send to any planet where a pair of gigantors provide > 3ec/sec My most recent change to this was add in 3ec worth of RTG and remove the solar panels for a deep-space version. (probably 10-15 min at most) and I will launch at least 2 of this version(Eeloo, Dres, possibly jool). Before that I created a 'deep space' version of my low-g Autonomous mining station(4 drills, ISRU, Nuke engine, fuel tanks and lots of clipped ore tanks (~1300 units each of liquid fuel and ore with 660 of oxidizer for the vernors and ships that need it)). It has a claw on the front for 'docking' and belly and tail landing gear(it mines on it's belly but lands/launches as a tail-sitter, thus the vernors near the nose), by adding ~65EC/sec of RTG. Already launched one of these towards jool for future missions(it can launch from Vall, Eeloo or Dres fully loaded Might even manage Moho, but have not checked ) Just getting those platforms distributed to Ike, Gilly, Eeloo, Vall, Pol or Bop, and Dres will take far more flight time than it took to design them. Same thing with the Scansats, one design, many destinations. I also launched my seond kerbaled Duna mission last night, with less than 10 min of design work updating the ship from my first mission(swapped out the nuclear reactor as unneeded and added a Mk1 crew cabin so I had enough capacity for a contract)

That's why I'm at the train station, hoping the hype-train tickets go on sale when they post this weeks Devnotes Tuesday.

I always stow my ISRU in a Mk3 cargo bay so that I can attach medium radiators to the side of the bay, and a large radiator on the back side if it is a tail-sitter(often flanked by solar panels) I find the weak connections and refusal to accept radial attachments two of the 2.5m ISRU's largest annoyances(at the very least we should be able to hook up radiators and struts to it) I also attach drills in pairs(often tweak-scaled so I can get the benefits of more drills without the excess part count). Sure they may be draggy, but that is rarely an issue beyond the first 60 seconds of the mission. (I also tend to either leave my final stage mostly empty or cross-feed it's fuel tanks for the launch stages then fill up the tank and ore storage on Minmus. Only need about 1.5km/s beyond circularization to have plenty of safety margin to land and top off the fuel)

Unless I am mistaken, the last 5 devnotes came (often very late) on Tuesday.

No need to wait for mission control, just plant then retrieve the flag. I normally do: eva, plant flag, retrieve flag, next then re-board everyone at the end.

I didn't think the bank would bother to reposes a hot-wheels. In any case you could prevent this by giving him a buck or two so he can finally afford to pay it off.

Not that I have noticed, but then again I generally have enough surface mounted drills, landing legs, radiators and solar panels that any shape based drag from a reasonably aerodynamic part shrinks into insignificance.

I suppose it depends on what you consider abandoned. I have Scansats around Kerbin, Mun, and Minmus that have finished their planned mapping duties and are sitting in orbit waiting for 'gather science in space over' contracts(thermometer and Gravioli detector on each of them just for this purpose). Similar satellites are currently around Moho, Gilly and heading to Duna(~ 10 days?), Jool(~200 days away), and Dres(~ 4 min from ejection burn) (Eeloo scan-sat launch to commence after the Dres ejection) In previous games I have more neglected abandonments: Jeb along with 2 tourists in an orbital tourist ship that does not have enough fuel to avoid burning up during reentry, waiting on the development of the Klaw for a rescue(In a Caveman game which I will probably not return to now that it is complete) An extensive scattering of 'Mun Bomb' probes landed on various mun biomes in a few Caveman games. An eve probe with an electrically powered propeller for propulsion and several science instruments landed on Eve in a 0.90 game(abandoned after visiting several biomes) 'Automated fuel stations' on Ike, Gilly, Minmus, Moho and occasionally other bodies in various 1.0 games (the 'automated delivery' component was Deprecated before 1.1) In previous games I have also abandoned a variety of surface probes(generally consisting of a service bay, solar panels, probe core, reaction wheel, antenna, and one or more science experiments, ejected from a manned lander for future 'science landed on' missions) I don't consider spent stages to be abandoned, more fully utilized and discarded (unless they still have fuel for some reason).

I am pretty sure I have never used the Mk 1-2 cockpit, anything that is not done with a 1.25m part is usually done with the Mk3 cockpit, or, occasionally Mk2 parts. I currently have a ship returning from Duna with 2 crew in a Mk3 cockpit(and more crew in a science lab in the back) I also have a ship heading out to Jool with 2 crew in the Mk3 cockpit. I have never gotten a space-plane to orbit, but I still use the Mk3 cockpit on every 'large' rocket I launch. The rocket equation makes dry mass the primary optimization value for almost every ship to be launched, for a part to be useful from an engineering design standpoint, it needs to have benefits over other parts that serve a similar function. I do not find the Mk1-2 cockpit to have compelling benefits over the Mk3 cockpit, so I do not use it.

Seems like they would be a good candidate for having ideas on how to make the contract system more flexible and robust however. I always considered the Tourist and satellite contracts to be quite realistic methods of funding a private space program.(presumably we should need to give up control of said satellites, but if you want that you can always delete them from the tracking station) Sure the contract income is rather high, but not only is that adjustable, but was probably put that way on purpose to reduce grind. (Imagine if you had to launch 20-30 commercial satellite missions to afford each of your non-contract launches)

I can see a lot of purpose to a SSTO that requires surface refueling on Eve/Lathe/Tylo and can deliver base components large enough to include a full mining rig(Drill, ISRU, Probe core, and presumably some sort of mobility and docking/klaw) You can use it to build surface bases one module at a time.(starting with ISRU of course so you can get back to orbit) On Minmus this is the standard approach for filling orbital fuel bases.(land, fuel up, launch)