The Joker

Taking advantage of RCS, I see?

Sokol 56 - Hard mode, 483 m/s. http://imgur.com/a/YU1by

Parachutes don't necessarily lift your craft off the ground- if you place them right.

If we're attempting the Hard Challenge, is it okay if we turn heating off? You didn't quite make it that clear. - - - Updated - - - Here's my entry for Hard Mode- the Sokol V. 339 m/s and 8.4 Gs. It's definitely got room for improvement. http://imgur.com/a/9JWA0

Alright. I've already got a second submission, the Roadrunner 3. Roadrunner 3 - The Joker Highest Altitude Achieved: 28,049m Highest Speed Over Land: 1,695 m/s (just short of Rodyle's 1,727 m/s) Highest G's Endured: 6.1 G's

Will we have to land at KSC or is it possible for my previous entry to be submitted to the "ironman" division because he successfully splashed down?

I agree. Perhaps the pilot should also survive the flight?

Definitely plenty of room- working on Roadrunner 3 now. Good luck to everyone else! - - - Updated - - - Hey Slashy, Two questions: 1) Can I enter a second submission? 2) Is it allowable if the plane separates before the record attempt (i.e. a plane being dropped from another at high altitude?) Thanks, The Joker

Hi Slashy, here's my submission- the Roadrunner 2. Climbing to record-attempt altitude of approximately 10 km above sea level. The only good picture of the record attempt taking place- the smoke is the vertical stabilizer being incinerated. Here's a good view from the cockpit of the record attempt. Jebediah's speed indicator reads just over 1 km/s. Any landing you can walk, I mean, swim away from is a good landing. And here's the end of flight statistics. Roadrunner 2 (The Joker) Airspeed Record: 1,117 m/s Altitude Record: 12,146 m G-Force Record: 13.0 G's

Hi Slashy, Great challenge, and I'm almost ready to enter my submission. Just one question- I've forgot how to view the end of flight statistics screen (other than creating a catastrophic failure). Do you remember how? Thanks, The Joker EDIT: Nevermind, I've got it. Expect my submission soon.

So, if anyone here has attempted lithobraking (though I'm sure most of us have on accident ), they know that while you have pieces that can survive incredibly high impact velocities (namely the structural pylon) but the problem is that in that time frame the pylon itself has stopped but the rest of the craft has not, so the craft is destroyed anyway. Today, on the KSP subreddit, I saw a post of a lithobraking on Kerbin using the structural pylon. To get around this, he placed the pylons on top of each other to "cushion" the fall. Each pylon meant a drop in force. What I want to know is if this drop of force between parts can actually be calculated mathematically to be used to plan lithobrakers in the future.

I would just like to say that it's ultimately Squad's choice on what they want to do. They made the game, their word is final. I respect that. But it's the majority of the community's opinion (over 2/3rds) that do not want KSP to go into 1.0 immediately. Have we ever seen an update the size of what Squad proposes before? No. At the same time, I'm not saying its bad to have these new updates. The game deserves these features before it can be considered finished. Still, Squad needs to understand that with a mountain of features comes a mountain twice as high of bugs. The game, as it stands, is already poorly optimized. It crashes, it lags, and many underlying features have not been actually implemented (Terrain Scatter, anyone?). All I can ask is why Squad is so rushed into releasing everything in 1.0. Why can't we have a .91? This way has worked and many features have been fleshed out for the past few years throughout Alpha. I'm not suggesting that Squad is doing this because of some ulterior motive or money troubles, but I'd like them to come clean in their decision-making process and in why they have so far chosen to immediately go to 1.0. If it's a valid reason, I'll accept it without complaint. Squad, so many things have been made better in KSP because you listened to the community. Do you want to turn your backs on them now?

If someone can answer me why Squad feels the need to rush through Beta into 1.0, that'd be great. As we've said before, all previous "reviews" of KSP have been taken with a grain of salt, because they realize its only in Alpha/Beta. But what happens when Squad goes to the 1.0 release? Reviewers will see the poor optimization, the lacking of many features, the mountains of bugs and crashes. They'll be harsh with their treatment of the game. It won't go well mainstream. Squad, you don't need to rush this. People aren't leaving because you're taking your time. Take your time, flesh out every little feature and part, and make this a real masterpiece.

No one said anything about the oven. Like what's been said, KSP has been in Alpha for several years now. We've only just gone into Beta, and Squad has, for some reason, decided to put practically everything into the next update. With a mountain of features, there'll be a mountain of bugs. The game has poor optimization as it is. Squad needs to go through each feature piece by piece and flesh it out. We've come this far doing that. I don't see why we need to rush a masterpiece.

But these reviews kept in mind that the game was Alpha. When it gets released as 1.0, it will be treated instead as a full game. I'd imagine a lot of them would re-review KSP.