Bandock

If there was a move to a custom engine from Unity, SDL2 to use for such an engine would be great a place to start since there are supposed to be bindings to C# for those who are experienced with C#. One nice thing about SDL2 is it can run on multiple platforms as well as be compatible with various licenses. Heck, one can even use OpenGL/Direct3D with it of course. I have not experimented with SDL2 through C#, but I have experimented with SDL2 through C++. Of course, a custom engine will take time to design (in fact, more time than developing a game itself). I know because I have ideas for a game engine that is not available yet as it takes time to design it. I actually have plans for a game that is currently unannounced that might benefit Kerbal Space Program, but as stated is currently under planning.

Let's add more fun by adding wind to the mix (due to introduction of proper aerodynamics)! *Jebediah starts seeing rockets crash down before ever getting a chance to fly caused by wind conditions.*

Currently, 4K is not a priority at this time, but expect to see it in the future. I know because I also made a suggestion for such a feature: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/98121-Future-Support-for-4K-Resolution 4K support will come in due time.

I forgot, gold is too malleable for hype trains! Anyhow, having a countdown would be great when 1.0 gets ready. Perhaps a wonderfully prepared livestream to make the release of 1.0? About the name, I agree that just calling it Kerbal Space Program is just fine the way it is. I just thought it would be clever to have an interesting name/subtitle to mark it as the full-fledged release. Imagine a future version of Kerbal Space Program known as 2.0. That version shall be called: "Kerbal Space Program: The Next Generation" This version mainly consists of Kerbals going warp speed and utilizing transporter technology to easily explore planets and new civilizations! Yes, I'm joking, but would be funny nonetheless.

Not a bad idea. Heck, it could also use Liftoff (similar to the board game called "Liftoff!" which is what led to BARIS (Buzz Aldrin's Race Into Space).

I know that is far too soon for me to start such a thread, but I have just thought up some interesting names/subtitles for Version 1.0. Name Idea #1: "That's one small step for a Kerbal, one giant leap for Kerbalkind!" - Neil Kerman (Well, a reference to Neil Armstrong ) Name Idea #2: "Golden Age of Kerbalkind" Those are the only two I have come up with so far. I was going to make it a poll, but that would limit it too much. Instead, I would like to encourage anybody in the community to come up with a name or subtitle for Version 1.0 once it goes gold. For all we know, your name could be chosen (or something very similar could pop up). Heck, imagine if we ended up with a Gold Hype Train! Anyhow, throw in some suggestions for names. Note: I might have some other name ideas in the future, which will be in future posts on this thread.

While I have not personally used FAR nor NEAR, I would definitely like to see improved aerodynamics (and no infinigliding!). Though I have not yet voted, I think it is worth sacrificing backwards compatibility in the regards of aerodynamics provided they are a major improvement over the previous builds. Besides, nothing is final until the true release comes about. I always refresh my saves upon each new version (at least until we hit the true release). That reminds me, I have some name ideas for version 1.0 which I will mention in a thread.

Landing is definitely possible without any landing legs. Provided you are extremely careful of course. Heck, I remember experimenting with landing relying only on engines themselves back in 0.13.3/0.13.4 before I even bought the game.

I have one good addition for your guide Yemo. That addition deals with certain kinds of contracts that have very low payout, yet are difficult or outrageous to pull off successfully. Instead, you take a doable contract as well as some other contracts to make sure you are not in the red (more expense than the amount you get paid for even a combination of contracts). Example: You take a solid rocket booster contract that offers very little in Kerbits where you must splash down. While not impossible, it certainly is a hard contract for a low payout part testing contract.

Very interesting mod, I might look into it sometime.

Great job on this year's releases. Pulled out some of the best releases in the history of Kerbal Space Program. Hope y'all have a great Christmas and Holidays. ;D

One thing I can say is that Hard difficulty is definitely more challenging than before. Is it impossible? Of course not. Now, playing Custom with extreme penalties and very little reward might as well make the game near impossible to progress. I already played through Hard Career mode twice since I have been playing it like Hardcore except it involves the fact if I lose any of the main Kerbals (Jeb, Bill, or Bob), it's game over. It's a great way to try new things and start fresh since there are times you could even run out of money due to poor decision making. For those playing on Hard and have enough funds, stick with a 5% or 10% Outsourced R&D. It still gives a lot of science.

Well, that clears up the exploding launchpad issue. At least I now know it won't be a bug, but a feature. In fact, it might encourage more to use Launch Stability Enhancers to develop large rockets. Would be even more interesting that a certain type of launchpad is required to even use them.

Alrighty, I'll keep an eye for it then. ;D And I changed the first post where they are links instead.

Reason why I have brought this up is because I have actually been playing around with nVidia's recently released built-in downsampling feature for certain Geforce cards called Dynamic Super Resolution. It actually works great under 3840x2160 (4K Resolution) which is twice my native resolution (being 1920x1080 as 1080p resolution). However, the UI and text are incredibly small as well as some minor glitches with highlighting (which could be the result of using DSR). Now, I know this could wait until after 1.0 as bugs and other features still need to be added before bothering with 4K resolution (way low on the priority list for any game). Graphically, it has definitely improved with various portions of the game. Here are two screenshots representing different resolutions (spoiler tags included to prevent accidental bandwidth exhaustion): 1080p Screenshot: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v458/Bandock/Screenshots/KSP1080p_zps5e9b70ec.png 2160p (4K) Screenshot: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v458/Bandock/Screenshots/KSP2160p4K_zps8660116a.png Notice that the Mun looks better under 4K (and yes, my smoothness under nVidia's DSR has been set to 0%). There is of course a hack that several of y'all probably know or even use that is handy for AMD/ATI card users. All that really needs work is the UI that is Unity styled as the Main Menu works great at scaling. For any fellow KSP players out there with any capability of testing out 4K (through native solutions (very rare and expensive at this moment), driver solutions, or hack solutions), feel free to post any screenshots or test results here. I know this kind of suggestion is of very low priority, but I thought I would put it on the table for future access.

Another good reason for enabling quicksave/revert on Hard Mode at this point is due to a commonly occurring launchpad explosion bug (caused by extreme masses).

Very nicely built mobile bases. Yeah, they're definitely not hard to make. The non-mobile modular varieties on the other hand (no wheels) are much harder as you have to be precise and maintain control at all times (once established, make sure SAS is turned off). Edit: One thing that could make non-mobile ones easier to place is landing gears (which others have done in the past). Especially handy for stabilization.

As promised, here is the screenshot (with no spoiler tags included):

For those who have seen my blog, I have decided to give it a name for the craft used to demonstrate the wonders of connecting modules the very hard way. This variant should have four docking ports that act as a guiding unit (if you use 'Control From Here'). Download: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/24250760/KSP%20Ships/ExperiModu%20Lander.craft To encourage further innovation of this sort of design, I have decided to make this one free to modify or study. There are no restrictions to however you use it. You can even use the same concepts from it and actually improve it. Heck, this could even serve as an inspiration for a mod (or use with a mod) such as targeting computers. Screenshots are available on my blog post here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/entries/1742-First-Blog-Post-in-Months-and-I-finally-accomplished-an-Extremely-Difficult-Feat! If y'all do want a screenshot separate from the one found in my blog post, I will show one. Hope y'all enjoy. Warning: Using this craft to land modules on the surface may require quite a bit (or a lot) of skill to pull off. Especially when aligning with placed ground base modules.

I also had a similar problem due to too much mass. Only workaround is to use Launch Stability Enhancers until it is fixed.

I know this bug has shown up for others on the runway. However, I have now been affected by this bug causing instant death to the launchpad (and in the process, killing kerbals) due to the extreme high mass of the rocket. Only workaround to this is to use Launch Stability Enhancers. Otherwise, it is instant death. :|

I have logs for anyone interested in reference to some of my recent crashings on the Windows 64-bit version. Link: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/24250760/0.25%20Crash%20Log%201.zip For my case, there was an access violation in reference to XInput for reasons I do not know. :/

Checking over my logs, it appears that it tried accessing an invalid area of memory through XInput (causing a Memory Access Violation). Edit: I'll just put the logs inside the Windows x64 thread found in support.

I have tried .25 x64 and it's definitely more unstable than the previous version of x64. Reason being that when I tried loading a save game, it would crash very often (which wasn't the case in 0.24 of x64). So, I would stick back to 32-bit x86 for the time being. That's what I been doing. As for what is causing the crashes, I may need to check the logs.

That would make for an interesting challenge. I have thought about that myself to see how extreme the conditions players can go. Even at the most impossible conditions.