Mako

If I had to guess I'd say sometime after the heat death of the universe, but before Half-Life 3.

Exit the game, or at least Alt-Tab away from it. Open your web browser of choice and log in (or make an account if you don't already have one) to KerbalX, CurseForge, or really just any file hosting site. Come back to this forum and make a post with a description and a link to your file upload in the Missions and Challenges part of the forums.

For the one player who unknowingly has a vehicle in the exact wrong spot, I would guess that anything ranging from nothing happens to game crashes on load of that specific save file could occur. It seems likely that it would be possible to edit the save file to still be usuable (it's just a text file, after all), but worse case scenario that save file would not be compatible with the new update. My guess is we'll never know because it seems incredibly unlikely to happen (unless someone intentionally parks a ludicrous amount of vehicles all over the desert in hopes of finding out).

For Laythe surface to orbit launches there's no need to hyperedit anything; just test from Kerbin. If you can get off of Kerbin at sea level you can get off of Laythe.

Practice landing on Kerbin. Seriously. Duna's atmosphere is rather thin compared to Kerbin and Laythe and that's probably why you're having trouble slowing down. Landing practice on Kerbin would give you a better idea of what to expect. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm mistaken in this, but I've always tested Laythe landers/planes on Kerbin. Good luck.

At this point in development, it seems extremely unlikely. Once upon a time there was likely a plan for a gameplay purpose to the stats, but it seems like that was left behind a long time ago. At this point, if a gameplay purpose for stats gets added I suspect it would be as shallow as career mode itself. That being said, I do run a meritocratic space program: only those that excel at both stats get hired...

Nah, it just means they've already been found one time. After that no one lost them a second time, rendering all subsequent finds moot

You're ignoring the fact that KSP models so many more physics interactions than Elite. Those interactions are expensive in terms of how long it takes are CPU to calculate. That's the single biggest problem with performance for KSP. So any system, be it console or PC, will be limited by the speed of its CPU. Since most games' performance are limited by the GPU, consoles have tended to aim for a good GPU with just an okay CPU. That strategy is sufficient for most games, whether it's on PC or console. But KSP was not made like most games: KSP went for lots of complex, "realistic" physics while largely ignoring fancy, pretty graphics. This means KSP requires a much better CPU, and barely needs a GPU at all. Since this is the opposite of how most consoles have been designed, it's led people to say that consoles aren't very well suited to KSP. It's not a PCMR thing, it's just a KSP design thing. And I'd also like to say that for Frontier, the developers of Elite, it's extremely likely that they had a larger, more experienced team creating Elite than KSP had. Should all games work great, sure, but comparing two games that are not trying to do the same things allnd were not built by the same caliber of developer doesn't seem to provide a good overall picture of the situation. All this being said, should you have a working product for your money? Absolutely. Should you have had it in a better timeframe? That would be ideal. It's unfortunate how things went but it does seem that Squad is trying to do something about it. I'm sure people won't ever be able to agree on how much is warranted, though. Also, you can play KSP on a sub-$500 laptop with at least as good FPS as playing on a console (I know, I've done it), so the $700 PC argument is a bit of a stretch. A base, non-premium console is still cheaper (unless you factor in the cost of the TV), of course, but I'd argue that a PC for KSP can be equally as affordable as affordable premium PS4 Pro or Xbox X. And PCs requiring constant hardware upgrades is a myth unless you're constantly chasing excessive performance at the highest settings. I built my system in 2010 with hardware that debuted in 2008-2009. It was of course expensive, even with reusing the GPU and hard drives from my previous system, but with a minor GPU update a few years ago it's still working and playing things from KSP (all settings maxed with decent FPS timer green at around sub-200 parts) to Assassin's Creed Origins (at 720p with low graphics settings). The system has been going longer than previous console generations, and probably cost about as much as two consoles cost at launch. My point is PCs don't have to be that much more expensive. But everyone is welcome to their preferences on gaming machines and performance, of course.

I don't think so. The problem with revealing easter eggs to people is it ruins the moment of discovery. The discovery is the fun. If you can make a mission that causes people to discover an easter egg, I don't think that will ruin the fun of the easter egg. The trick is to somehow still make the easter egg a surprise to the player. I think a mission that makes use of the easter eggs could be fun.

I get the naysaying, and while I'm not yet convinced as I haven't tried it myself, the review I read for Shadow was better than I expected since the performance was better than the reviewer expected. Of course I didn't dig deep into the review, but the reviewer mentioned they had tried similar concepts in the past and said that Shadow was the first one they tried that actually seemed viable and ready for consumers. The catch is you have to live relatively close to one of their server farms to reduce latency, and you must have an internet connection capable of at least 15Mbps. As far as I saw, Shadow is only available in California in the US, and four countries in Europe at the moment. As others have said, this is not a new concept. I set up remote login for Windows probably about 15 years ago and cloud computing has been around for a while as well. And now it seems like multiple companies think that it is possible to provide an acceptable gaming experience to folks who only have access to a lower-spec system. In the case of Shadow, it's a bit more than I want spend (US$35 - $50 a month depending on monthly or yearly subscription) and you only get 250gb of space to install games (or whatever you want to install, it's your own Windows 10 environment and space for however long you subscribe). With big budget Triple-A games coming in at 80gb+, you could be spending a lot of time downloading and deleting and installing games if you want to play a variety of things. All of that said, it seems to me overkill for KSP. The processors seem like server grade Intels and I'm not sure of the core clock speed. They're probably fine for most games, but perhaps not as good for a CPU dependent game like KSP. Also, no one needs a GTX 1080 to play KSP. Ram, at 12gb, would be sufficient for many, I suspect. But overall it's overkill for KSP. If you have a 4k TV you really want to play games on, no newer console, a potato for a computer, a good internet connection, and live close to a server farm, maybe this could be worth it to you. But I think that there is probably limited appeal for something like this. And I'm curious, and I bit skeptical, about how well it really does work.

It's not just Cloud GPUs. It's basically logging into a remote server that is a decently high-end gaming rig. You send keyboard, mouse, and controller inputs to the server, and it feeds you high quality, low latency (in a perfect world) audio and video. Eventually it'll be a paid subscription so you can play all your games as if you had a $1500+ computer from practically any system... provided you have a decent internet connection. I applied for Beta access since it's free, but haven't been selected yet. I figure it's worth a shot at no cost. I believe there is a similar service called Shadow, run by the French company called Blade, that is already available as a paid service in very limited areas. You pretty much rent a high-end gaming rig with your own Windows 10 install, if I recall correctly, for a not insignificant amount of money each month. This stuff is pretty neat, and it seems like the tech is getting to a point where it's viable provided your internet connection is decent. I'm interested to see how well this idea catches on. I don't know if I'd ever want get away from building my own systems, but if hardware prices keep rising as they have been this might actually have some appeal.

It's Take-Two's game. If they want another developer to work on it, they can ditch Squad in an instant. If they want to bolster Squad by providing additional resources, as they have in the case of the QA team that Squad has told us about, they can do that too. If Take-Two wants to delay release because the product is not up to their standards, they can make that call at any time. Yes, Squad is the developer, but they are working for Take-Two. Take-Two calls the shots. If Squad says they need more time for an update, Take-Two can choose to listen and respect Squad's recommendation, or they can choose to say Squad has to meet the deadline. If Squad doesn't meet expectations, they might find themselves no longer the developer of KSP. As I said, I get that everyone is making business decisions, but I also think it's a shame that quality suffers for it. This release could have been delayed to spend a little more time finding and fixing the most obvious problems. Take-Two either chose to release anyway, or Squad told Take-Two everything was ready and Take-Two trusted them. Either way, it is indicative of the attention and care that Take-Two is currently giving to their property. Which as I said previously is not completely unreasonable given the limited popularity and small community that KSP has. But I like KSP and want the best for it, so I'm internally conflicted between what I want for KSP and what I expect as logical business decisions.

With all respect to your insight into the industry, which is very welcome, I have to stop you there. Take-Two publishes GTAV which is still printing money for them. There is no shortage of resources available if the really wanted to do something. In fact, they delay much higher profile releases all the time. The reality is that KSP is a tiny thing with a small audience compared to their other properties. I'm not saying that as a business they shouldn't treat it as such, rather I'm saying that if they wanted to treat it better they have the capability. At the end of the day it comes down to making business decisions. I believe we both agree on that much. Take-Two will always make choices that are best for its business, as opposed to an indie developer without a publisher that may choose to make choices that are best for its products since it doesn't have to answer to shareholders. Ultimately my point still stands: if Take-Two was serious about making sure KSP releases were very professional and high quality they have the resources to do so. Pleasing customers and earning the good will of a small community is obviously worth less to them than meeting their fiscal year end deadline to please shareholders. I'm not saying I expect them to act otherwise. I'm saying that excusing the release quality, or lack thereof, based on the idea that Squad is small and lacks resources is not really understanding the whole story. The release is the result of business decisions. Business decisions don't make games better, but they can allow companies to continue making games. I do understand the situation, but I also think there's plenty of room for improvement if Take-Two cared to try.

Maybe this used to be true when Squad was working on KSP for themselves, but now that Take-Two owns KSP Squad has whatever resources Take-Two chooses to provide. So far we've been told that Take-Two has provided access to a QA team to assist Squad with development. If Take-Two wants to provide more resources, they can at any time. They are certainly big and rich enough to make anything happen. They could also have given Squad more time on this update and expansion if they wanted, but it seems like they thought it'd be better for business to stick to an apparently arbitrary release date. This is no longer scrappy little Squad working by themselves on the unexpected, runaway hit KSP, it's Take-Two's product and what they do with it and how they release updates is directly indicative of Take-Two's priorities. For better and for worse...

With enough time and money anything is possible. A better, albeit equally rhetorical, question is: will there be enough money to provide enough time to fix it? I suspect the answer for the immediate future is yes, and most of the issues seem like they can be resolved in relatively little time.

Looks like it's getting to be that time of year again. The trick to a good hard boiled egg is to add a little vinegar to the water when you boil them. It makes them so much easier to peel and enjoy. However, if you're going to dye them you might want to skip the vinegar; it can mess up the shell. I like to dye them, but these days I like eating them more. The problem is I'm starting to look like the ideal pre-1.0 rockets...

Well, the console players would disagree and say that those versions should be the priority. It is, of course, a matter of perspective. Personally, I can only say that everyone needs to be patient and give them the time to get things right. Otherwise, well, you know what we get when they don't give it as much time as it needs... as do the console players... Check the KSP Weekly posts in the Daily Kerbal section of the forum. They're posted each Friday around 21:00 UTC. A summary of today's Weekly: Squad says they, and Blitworks, are working on patches for 1.4, Making History, and the console versions.

Well, that is the general idea, right? But here's the thing: for KSP a whole lot of unique stuff had to built on top of Unity. Stuff that can go wrong from one platform to another because of how complex KSP is. So while Unity should "just work" for everything, it rarely does in KSP. Feel free to look into bug reports from past updates where all of a sudden something that works fine on Windows and Linux versions breaks on Mac versions. I feel like every update has had some PC platform specific issues, while other platforms have been fine. Oh, good example: 64-bit worked very well on Linux long before it was stable on Windows. That was a Unity issue, not even a KSP specific issue, so even Unity doesn't work perfectly as advertised. And that's before you build something as complex and complicated as KSP on top. I'm not sure what you mean in relation to KSP. Squad has been the only developer on the PC versions of KSP. Console version ports were mistakenly trusted to Flying Tiger Entertainment, and when that went predictably poorly it ended in FTE's dismissal. Now, the console ports are being developed by Blitworks, with some QA performed by Squad. Squad, and by extension I assume Blitworks, has some additional help from Take-Two in the form of external QA assistance. So, as is not uncommon with PC developers, a port company has been involved in the console versions. Two in this case, since the first was too ill equiped and inexperienced to handle the task. I probably misunderstood what you meant, but do you think that another company should be involved in some way? You do realize that the news on that third party micro blogging site is included in the KSP Weekly posts in the Daily Kerbal section of the forums, right? Basically, outside of the Announcements section, the KSP Weeklys are the place on the forum where you find the info the OP is asking for.

Making games takes time. Fixing bugs takes more time. Remember, even though gigantic, rich Take-Two owns KSP, it's still indie dev Squad that is maintaining 8 different versions: Xbox; PS4; Base game Windows, Mac, Linux; and Making History Windows, Mac, Linux. Sure, Blitworks is doing the heavy lifting on the Xbox and PS4 versions, but Squad still has to devote some time and attention to those versions. So that leaves Squad mostly working on the PC side of things which is 6 different products. If you count 32-bit and 64-bit as different, and they can be (they at least should both be tested to some degree), that's 8 different products (9 if Mac has 32-bit and 64-bit options, I'm not sure). And if you factor in the language options, that's possibly 9 different UIs and 27 translations across the base game that have to be looked at if anything in that area needs to be fixed (double that if Making History has all 9 languages available). So Squad is dealing with up to 9 products that all should be getting tested, and at least 9 languages that potentially need looking at. Supposedly they have help from Take-Two in the form of a QA team, but it takes time for them to get stuff done. Remember: Squad has never been exemplary with communications even in the best of times, and there's a lot of work to do. Operating under a deadline does not really work out in Squad's favor, it seems, so hopefully they take their time and get it right. They're doing their thing, and we just need to be patient. It's all any of us can do, really. You know, besides ineffectually screaming into the void...

Are you talking about the devs, or Take-Two? Because the first group seem like they actually value doing a good job and they likely don't gain a penny more for doing a bad job than for a good job, and the second group is a publicly-traded business that often seems to care more about pleasing shareholders than customers. This certainly doesn't seem like a cash grab on the part of the devs -- they likely get paid the same whether they do a good or a bad job and whether the DLC sells well or not at all. And if it's a cash grab by Take-Two I'd be shocked if it was enough of one to cover the cost of buying the KSP IP and paying Squad to keep working on it. It's easy to be cynical about a rough product launch, but I don't think this is simply a cash grab. If it were, it'd have to be the worst one ever: the devs don't benefit and look bad, and Take-Two doesn't make much money after expenses and tarnish their reputation and that of the IP they just bought. The cash grab scenario just doesn't make any sense or seem worth it to anyone involved. However, since the product has been released for sale in the current and soon to end fiscal year, if the sales aren't great Take-Two can show a loss for this fiscal year (where KSP is concerned) and this can benefit them by reducing taxes, and if sales are good and show a profit Take-Two can show it off to shareholders. In this scenario, either way is good for Take-Two, and (if it means a rushed release to get it out before the fiscal year end) not so great for Squad and customers.

You're in luck! KSP already allows you to sabotage your launches, no mods or DLC required! I occasionally do this, although it's usually unintentional...

Unfortunately, I don't believe there is any way to obtain those versions. The only way someone could have those versions is if they made their own backups, and if that's the case they wouldn't be able to share or distribute them in whole or in part. Squad/Take-Two would be the only folks who could provide those specific old versions to you. The only ones that anyone from the community could potentially provide are the freeware versions up through version 0.13 (ish, I can't recall the specific number). However, if your primary objective is obtaining stats from old parts, someone may have those versions and may be able to communicate the stat values of those parts.

In this industry, a yes is only ever a maybe until it actually releases (see multiplayer for PC KSP). And with KSP's console track record sometimes it's still a maybe even after release. And if the answer is no, why would they ever say so? They have you on the hook and they'll keep you dangling there in case they want to try to reel you in later.

It really feels to me as if it's exactly what @klgraham1013 said earlier in the thread, and what I've been saying for weeks: Take-Two's fiscal year ends in March and big, publicly-traded publishers like to push games out right before year end to show either a return on investment to stock holders, or show an operational loss to the tax man. It's only speculation, since we'll never hear a confirmation or denial from anyone, but this is a business decision made by executives that are more interested in making investors happy than making customers happy. KSP, for all of its unexpected popularity, is still a small, niche, "indie" game with limited recognition; it's hardly the household name that GTA is. KSP is the kind of title where you'll see this "shove it out before year end" behavior because they feel can get away with it without too much press coverage and with limited fuss from a small community. I can't think of a more logical explanation for rushing it out. I'm pretty sure everyone would rather have a polished release that takes more time than a rushed release with issues. I'm sure the folks at Squad would have been happy to have more time as well. As a self-published indie title there is almost never a need to rush anything -- unless production funds run out -- and all due care can be given to release a polished product. As soon as you have a big publisher calling the shots the focus is less on the game's quality and more on how it affects the bottom line; decisions will be made according to what the number crunchers want to see rather than what the designers/developers want to see. Sometimes improving release quality is perceived to be directly proportional to improving the bottom line and everyone benefits, but sometimes quality is perceived to be worth sacrificing for improving the bottom line. I almost can't be mad about a business doing what it perceives to be in its best interest, and these days I'm only ever surprised (and almost always skeptical) when big video game companies make decisions that actually seem to favor the customers over themselves. All that said, Squad usually does bang away on updates until they're actually in quite decent shape, so I'm looking forward to that. Hopefully now that it's out Take-Two will leave it alone again and let Squad patch it up to a point where most agree it's in good shape.

I suspect Take-Two was in a hurry to get it released before the end of their fiscal year. Take-Two and Rockstar are perfectly fine delaying GTA or Red Dead Redemption, as they know those are big, blockbuster titles that they have to get as right as possible. KSP, not so much. Showing a return on investment, or -- potentially in the case of KSP -- being able to claim an operational loss, is important to stock holders. Take-Two makes decisions for stock holders' benefits, not for players' benefits. It's probably better for Take-Two's bottom line to put out a buggy DLC before fiscal year end than to spend more money to put out a polished DLC later. This is just speculation, of course, but it's based on what I've seen from the big publishers in the industry.