Klapaucius

I started a year ago and have since clocked up over 800 hours--probably a lot more considering I have been playing a lot with planet packs recently so have multiple copies of the game with different solar systems. I was actually asked to teach a class to kids using KSP and so had to learn it very quickly. Not being a gamer at the time, I was actually just frustrated by the whole thing and probably would've given up if I had not had to do it. The in-game tutorials are not great, and while I love Scott Manley, he is really better for intermediate and advanced players than beginners. It was discovering NerdySpaceMan, though a post by another member of this forum, that got me going and got me loving this game. He is the most underrated tutor for the absolute beginner, and I cannot recommend him highly enough. He does not go too fast and he does not make assumptions. He teaches in Science Mode, which I think is a great way to begin. It is less complex than career and less overwhelming than sandbox. PS. Welcome to the cult, er club :-)

Now that is interesting....

But then it is no longer a viable submarine. I think the goal should be a sub that can get to orbit, return and still be a submarine.

Part of the problem is you do not even need to clip the part to have the hatch blocked. I have made several craft where the hatch is unobstructed, but because a wing or an engine is close to it, the game thinks it is blocked anyway-- due to the way the colliders? or something like that work.

I managed to get my asymmetrical aircraft to takeoff and land without anyone dying! This was for my own Asymmetrical Aircraft Challenge. There are a lot of good entries.

Well, I finally got my own entry completed. I've decided to call it Qfwfq, after a character in Italo Calvino's Cosmicomics, which I am reading right now. It is absurdist sci-fi, which seems apropos for this thing. It still needs work. It is a handful to fly, and it has a habit of veering off the runway on takeoff; I had a couple of takeoffs that occurred at a 90 degree angle from the direction of the runway. I don''t think the passengers cared for that too much. Nevertheless, it can take off and actually land, so I am pretty happy about that.

I think it probably has more to do with the creative aspect. KSP planes can be in all sorts of shapes and sizes. Rockets tend to stay on a basic theme: long and pointy. There is just as much engineering in a good rocket, but I have more fun from a design aspect with aircraft. I think also, for those who are keen on replicas, that aircraft lend themselves better to that.

Scott Manley already has a video out! I just bought it and did the first two tutorials. Not sure if this happens in the regular game, but I managed to splash down (at least I assume I did--it was night and there is no planet shine mod). The ship began to sink and show negative altitude, but I just throttled up and leapt out of the sea again. I did this a few times. That's some re-usability!

@Lisias But I think these are things we all discover after we start playing the game. I got asked to learn it to teach kids. I got into and and got better and thought it was cool. Since I had never played the game before, I had no idea what to expect or what was out there. It was only after a lot of play that I started using mods or thinking about parts I would like to have. I certainly did not think to myself: "Hmmm...This game has some odd parts, some of which need repainting, therefore I don't think I will learn it." So while I think you are probably right as far as what the developer is doing, it is still an odd way to go about things.

Pardon my ignorance, but what is a procedural part vs a non-procedural part?

You said somebody took a look at the player base and decided they would be more willing to have better looking existing parts. But, the player base are all of us who have already bought the game. Unless they release a new expansion, we are no longer contributing to their profits. You could ask why they are bothering at all, really. So, if they are going to spend the time to create an update called "Dressed for Success", which is not going to bring them any more money from existing players, why not give us new parts that are sorely lacking in the stock game? PS. I''ve studied a few other languages, but have never achieved the kind of written fluency so many of your non-native English speakers achieve. I'm jealous

Except that the player base already plays. We are not adding any value as far as sales go other than talking up the game to others. For personal gameplay that is actually fine, but when you are sharing on KerbalX or creating challenges, you often need to all come with the same set of parts. All my uploads are stock for that reason.

I would be willing to pay for a propellor DLC. As a board game player, I am very used to buying expansions, as long as the pricing is reasonable. Having said that, what in the "Dressed for Success" update made KSP more profitable? Other than bug fixes, all of it to me was superfluous--nice but hardly necessary. If they can spend all that time repainting engines, why not spend it creating more options, like they did when they added the Woomerang launch site?

Yes, I saw that in my Steam feed and plan on getting it. I have Simple Planes and the original Simple Rockets, so I have been eargerly awaiting this. @Clockwork13 and @Brofessional: I don't think of it as really competition. At least with the Planes, they have created a exactly what they set out to: a Simplified version for folks to get into this type of game without the steep learning curve. I am particularly interested because I got into KSP after being asked to use for a library programme to help local high-school kids get an intuitive sense of rocketry. The problem was the KSP learning curve got in the way of that with the limited time we had (not to mention limited attention span of some of the kids). Also KSP Edu is really geared towards the kids who already have really solid math skills. While I think KSP will remain the non-plus-ultra, what Simple Rockets and Planes may do is offer a less intimidating introduction to plane and rocket building, and it will shine in educational situations for younger kids and kids who are curious but may lack the background to make the most of KSP edu. But, I'll have to spend some time mucking around with it to know for sure.

I know Woomerang and the Inland Center are different. I just did not know what the name Baikerbanur was supposed to signify.