Crusher8000

Oddly enough I sometimes can't switch tabs in chrome when I'm playing KSP 64bit.

So you have to get all the parameters right and then turn on the SRB to test it? Activating it first and getting the parameters during it doesn't work?

So with this new update comes also the option to turn off the "Return to VAB" and the other rewinding features in the debug menu. I tried to play without it and it really adds a new perspective to the game. The first few flights were easy enough but when I build a larger ship there turned out to be a design flaw in it and started pointing towards kerbin while still the boosters were still on. An escape plan is more a necessity and mistakes are a horrible tragic. I lost Jeb and Bill because the boosters I had to test were so powerful they just destroyed the entire ship. I ran out of funds and had to take missions just to be able to build rockets. I love it.

Yea you're right. That's more specific. Saving and autosaving isn't a problem (as long as you can't use multiple save slots) but reloading and reverting flights would just suck all the challenge out of the game when there's more to risk than Kerbals. When you have to worry about popularity and finances it's easy to just take big risks by building a large rocket and if it doesn't work you can just revert the flight and try something else, if you can't revert flights there's more at stake, you can't affort a lot of mistakes and your rockets better work from the first time. Also (and I find this rather important) there's an actual reason to have a back up plan for if your rocket explodes in mid air but your Kerbals are still alive. Normally you would revert the flight on the spot but without it you would have to take disasters into consideration and build your rockets like that. It adds to the game and in my opinion would be more fun just like I play Mount and Blade in the realistic way (with one save slot and it saves every time you do something). I'm not saying it should be standard but the option for it should be there.

Is there any news about this? I think it would add a lot to the game.

I think the main problem atm is that money isn't part of the game yet and you can build any rocket you want in career. Afaik once parts cost money it will all balance out but for the moment what was once a challenge to do is now easy as pie and I can understand why people are annoyed by it. People like a challenge and if a new patch suddenly makes things easier it will annoy people. Hopefully in 0.24 money will be involved and you can't just use whatever part you want.

KSP is pretty stable and if it saves often (like once every 5 minutes) it shouldn't be too much a problem if it does crash. If the Kraken show up it's a different story of course, you can have the perfect rocket with the perfect trajectory only for the Kraken to screw you over but i haven't really seen a lot of problems with it these days.

Yea but that's not the same. It would be fun to have the option in the game much like mount and blade where you get to choose if you want to play it with or without the ability to save from the start.

Much like some games do it (like mount and blade) you have the option to play it with the possibility to save whenever you want or to let the game save your progress every time something happens. The way it is now in KSP if something goes wrong you can always revert back to the assembly building but I think it would be way more tense if you can't and if something goes wrong with your rocket you either have to try to fix it, land it on kerbal, or launch an improved version after it.

I'm going to use it on my rovers, red for back lights and white in front.

When you dock mutiple rockets to one asteroid, does it all act like one rocket like being docked or are they separate because I think the best way to land an asteroid on Kerbal is to guide it to the atmosphere, dock 5 or so structures full of parachutes and let the parachutes do their thing but if every rocket is separate it might not work as you would have to deploy them all separately .

My speciality is sending 7+ missions to the same planet when I get a window in the hope at least a few of them make it.

"Landing on the mün is easy" I told my gf who I wanted to introduce to ksp as my lander crashed into the mün.

There comes a point in the game that you unlocked the entire tech tree, probably new parts will be added in the future that expand the tech tree but you'll still unlock it all at a fairly fast pace. It's also important to unlock it so fast because some of the more important parts are at the end. The problem is the game loses a reason to play the moment you unlock everything, it can be delayed with money and missions but you will still reach that point. How about you can upgrade the existing parts? Nothing over the top like engines doing double the thrust. more like +2% thrust. Maybe it's better you specialize parts like more thrust but less efficient, fuel tanks could be stronger or carry a bit more fuel but heavier, pods could have more torque but require more power, etc. That way you can keep collecting data forever.

I'm pretty sure it's been mentioned before however I could not find threads about it so I just want to know the current opinion about this suggestion. Can you accept missions in career mode in exchange for money? Like: Go to [X] in [Y] amount of months conditions: [Z] Reward: [A] amount of money Ideal would be to have a mission generated based on the amount of money and progression of tech tree. Opinions?

I placed quite alot of science modules on the mun and minmus and one on duna and Ike. However things went wrong during the landing on duna. It still works but it looks like ****. This is the one on Ike

My first mission to the mun in 0.21. I send 3 rockets, a hitchhiker rocket, a rocket with the crew and a rocket with a rover. The hitchhiker rocket's take off stage exploded while taking off for a good minute but I managed to get back in control and continue with my other stages and the rocket carrying the rover was actually just designed badly to land on the mun so I had to disconnect the rover while landing and let the crane crash. Then the next day I send another rocket, a drone with 3 empty seats to send my kerbals back home but on their way back the rocket exploded sending 2 of them on a crash course to kerbin and the other one in an orbit so I had to quickly launch a couple more rockets and pick them up before they fell to their death. They all survived and I'm proud I overcame all the problems.

Yesterday I wanted to see the new features of 0.21 so I send 3 rockets to the mun. One with the hitchhiker crew thing, one with a pod containing 3 crew members and another one that drops a rover. So I launch my first hitchhiker rocket and while trying to leave kerbin's atmosphere my liftoff stage explodes sending my rocket tumbling around. Not a particularly good start but I managed to stabilize it in flight and continue with the second stage which was enough to reach the mun. While trying to land the mun i realized it's hard to find a flat surface and manage to land on a slope. My rocket that contains the crew launches with no major problems however. So then I launch my rover ( http://i.imgur.com/fHrYXMI.jpg ) which flies somewhat unbalanced, with the weaker SAS I have to constantly adjust it but it's not a huge deal. However since my base is on a slope I have no idea how I'm supposed to land the totally unbalanced crane. So with quite some quicksave/load I manage to drop the rover while the crane is crashing. For a while I'm having fun with the base on the mun, roving around, planting a flag, etc. And then I remember you can send your kerbals back to kerbin and use them again so I build a new rocket that should have enough fuel to get them back home. http://i.imgur.com/oJMdGps.jpg It all works fine, I manage to go the mun, get them in my seats and take off again however I had to use all my fuel and most of my mono-propellant to have a trajectory towards kerbin. I still had the second to last stage connected but it was empty so I pressed space. For some reason disconnecting it made the entire thing explode sending debris everywhere. Fortunately my kerbals were still alived but 2 of them were still on a crash course towards kerbin, one of them managed to get into orbit. I really didn't want to lose Bob, Bill and Jebediah on their first mission so I had to make a quick choice, I build a rocket with a pod, put one kerbal in it and try to intercept the 2 who are about to crash in kerbin. Jebediah was in an orbit so I could pick him up whenever I wanted to. So I send a rocket and manage to intercept Bill but I realized Bob was ahead of him and he was going to crash first so I quickly send another rocket. It took me several tries using quicksave/load to pick him up, he was going at 3km/s towards kerbin, in the end I just had enough time to intercept him before I reached the atmosphere. Both pods managed to land safely on kerbin. Jebediah was also saved. I don't think I've ever had a mission with so many fails and still managed to keep the kerbals alive.

I don't mind the weaker SAS, it gives me something to do thorough the whole flight.

Gaming companies are a business but their customers are one of the most demanding people out there because alot of game devs stay in contact with their fans, it createst a bond but the more fans you have the more you will disappoint, you could try to focus more on the community and get some of their ideas in the game or focus on earning money and try to reach as much people as possible. Personally I dislike anything that's focused at a big audience, movies, games, food, clothes. The only way to reach a big audience is to smooth out the character of your product. Games lose their challenge because some people just don't have the attentionspan to play it for more than an hour, movies all look shiny and smooth because it's easier to be impressed by visuals instead of a story, etc. There's a reason why I prefer to play indie games or at least games from smaller companies. If you go for the money your product loses its character and that happens to be the thing that make people fall in love with. A game full of character certainly won't please everyone but the people that do will love it and I appreciate a company to rather goes for a game with character instead of a golden turd.

Nothing is wrong with crosshairs but that particular game didn't have any, it was one of the first games that solely relied on aiming with your ironsights because your gun never really pointed in the middle if you didn't aim. It was pretty hard to land a hit because there was also no zoom or any other aid but with the sequel they added zoom that felt out of place, movement was speeded up, everyone had pistols, recoil was extremely decreased. The recoil in the original game was unrealistic because it was just waaay too much but that's what kept the balance between SMGs and rifles, you couldn't land a hit if the enemy wasn't a couple of meters away. The battles actually felt like you had to survive instead of run and gun because it was unlikely you were going to hit anyone. That all changed in the sequel to reach a bigger audience, good for the company but they lost most of their loyal fans and that's quite a shame.

Well let this be a bit of a warning to Squad, never sell KSP. I used to be a "fanboy" of a certain indie company who made a semi realistic shooter 7-8 years ago. It was the best game I've ever played and the whole community made jokes about implementing crosshairs in the game, laughing how it will never happen, how the game will never be a COD clone. Well 2 years ago they made the sequel to that game and they tried to appeal to a larger audience by implementing a COD mode with crosshairs. KSP is Squad's game so they can do whatever they want with it ofcourse but I assume we would all greatly appreciate it if they didn't try to appeal to the masses, there will probably be a moment where they have the choice to be loyal to the fans or go for the money, please don't go for the money.

Perhaps a very foggy planet would be interesting. It would create a new challenge to landing and driving around.

It's not english, it's kerbish but by coincidence it's the same language on paper.

It might be irritating in some ways but at least now I can build a rover in the SPH, move it to the VAB and build a rocket with a capsule. If the first capsule didn't get crewed I wouldn't be able to build a rover with just a seat or I would have to send 2 rockets, one with crew and the other with the rover.