Mako

Since redundancy when not mission critical can be considered excess, I'm going to have to say the word "bug" in your quoted text is the excess word. Based on the last several weeks of Dev Notes alone, reading your quoted text with the excess removed as "Lots of fixes" seems incredibly accurate. What do I get as a prize for playing your game? You'll provide my ticket for the Hype Train?

I'm not discounting your feeling of it being counter-intuitive to you, but I would like to mention why your method would be counter-intuitive to me (and it seems like I'm not alone). When someone illustrates the motion of an object, like a ball being thrown in a game of catch, they often put motion lines opposite the direction of travel to depict the object flying through the air. I can only guess it's to show motion so the ball doesn't just appear to be a hovering orb between two children. In this manner the direction of travel - and the fact of travel - can quite easily be determined. In a likewise fashion these new orbit lines are indicating the motion and direction of the object. Obviously with a moving image like that of a video game the lines become less necessary. However, from a distant enough viewpoint with zero time compression, like what you might experience zoomed out in map mode in KSP, the objects in motion may appear to be barely moving. However, if you add these motion lines trailing the object it becomes just like the playing catch illustration: easy to determine existence and direction of motion. Add to it that the future trajectory of that object is still displayed (although not highlighted as you and others would prefer) and it paints a clear picture to me what is going on at a glance. For me, if the depiction of motion was reversed it would look like everything was moving backwards like a video in rewind. Certainly everyone can look at things differently and this is my perspective. Since the devs do seem focused on maintaining/increasing the mod-ability of KSP maybe this too will be another aspect that is easily adjusted to accommodate everyone's preference.

Today I installed additional RAM in my computer. I broke my overclock while getting the BIOS to recognize the new sticks. Once everything was running (mostly) as it should, I ran some limited stress tests. Then I ran KSP to throw some part-heavy crafts at my system to get an idea of my favorite game's performance. I decided to ramp up the tests starting with some stock ships I've never flown before. I got to the Learstar and managed to fight it to orbit. Then I decided to see how well it handled gliding unpowered in the atmosphere. I time warped until atmosphere and then physical time warped. Physical time warp did not agree with the Learstar (specifically the Mk2 Inline Clamp-O-Tron), which exploded and sent the cockpit on ahead. Having not played too much with body lift in the 1.0.4 atmosphere, and seeing as how I had taken Jeb's and Bill's lives in my hands when I set them on the suborbital trajectory, I figured I'd see if I could get them home safely in a ship that now consisted primarily of a Mk2 Cockpit, Mk2 Crew Cabin, and two AV-R8 Winglets. I have to say that I surprised myself by managing to touch down in the water at below 25m/s and lost everything but the cockpit. So today I saved Jeb and Bill from having a very unpleasant day that I admittedly caused by being impatient.

So, I admittedly have not read through your whole post, but from the bit I skimmed through I have to say you make good points. My first thought is that the newly announced, seemingly in-game, wiki would be perfect for explaining the addition of such numbers. So if there was ever a time to add this it seems like the wiki addition would be perfect.

I don't believe anyone is honestly demanding they change company policy to begin censoring personal social media accounts (though as a business operating in the social media age I'd be surprised if they didn't already have some sort of policy regarding just that). What I, and I believe others, would prefer is for information that is worth sharing be given a "press release" type of treatment and posted here on the forums. If an employee is that excited about it that they wish to put it on their personal social media then a headline and link to the forum posting should suffice (even if it means waiting a day or two for the article to be written). What happens now with these 140 characters or less posts eventually makes it back here and just causes a stir and doesn't really tell anyone anything; it is just a tease that isn't always followed up by official, accurate information. I'm happy to see that the latter part of that statement isn't true in this instance. On topic: I'm looking forward to finding out more about the 64-bit build and the 1.1 update when the article is posted.

I agree with what you're saying. Good Console-to-PC ports aren't impossible. I was only attempting to highlight the apples to oranges comparison of developing Console-to-PC ports versus PC-to-Console ports. My post is from a worst case scenario point of view, and yet it doesn't even begin to reflect the gameplay issues (such as control schemes) one encounters when porting either direction. On the technical side only, my post reflects the difference in work, time, and money involved in the porting process. I am not claiming it is cost prohibitive or unachievable to produce a Console-to-PC port, but rather discussing where the incompetence, negligence, greed, and time constraints you mention are bound to hinder a good port job. It can happen when porting either way, but one way is technically simpler and less expensive to get near perfect at launch.

Absolutely. Porting from PC to a single console all but eliminates the worry of getting software working on multiple hardware configurations and operating systems. I say "all but" because I'm sure a hardware revision over the life of a console could potentially mean you have another hardware config to worry about. This is extremely different from porting a console game to PC. Even if you're only targeting Windows operating systems there are at the very least 3 different versions you need to focus on (7, 8.1, 10, and you could potentially count Vista and XP to make it 5 versions). That's not even considering Mac or Linux playability. Then you need to attempt to make the thing work on a theoretical infinite number of hardware configurations ranging from several years old to bleeding edge parts. Apples to oranges. Now that's not to say things go perfect, but from my point of view (based on extremely limited programming experience) it must reduce a ton of the variables that can make developing and testing software difficult.

Beautiful. I can't wait to fly this mission. I've done it before with a version or two of Mulbin's Munbug. In fact playing with the demo and browsing the forums and seeing Mulbin's version is what convinced me to buy this game. I'm a sucker for this mission and I love all the as-accurate-as-possible recreations. Thank you.

Not that I want to see this fail to meet the minimum order requirement, but when the Papers, Please Collection failed they did a new sale with just the poster for a (more easily) justifiable $16. So if the KSP Collection doesn't meet the minimum, I would love to see just the mission patch go up for sale. That would be hard for me to resist. However, I suspect that if anything were to go to the consolation sale it would be the mobile since I believe profit margins would be significantly higher. I imagine the production costs for the mobile have to be much lower than any other item and you could still charge a premium because it would be a Single-Run Collector's Item. I would also imagine the production cost of the mission patch would be close to the reasonable retail price of it, so I don't anticipate spending any money at Gamer's Edition anytime soon. It's cool and I would enjoy having some collector's items for KSP, but for the money I'd rather buy two copies of the game at full price and give them as gifts to people I know would love the game but might be afraid of the price tag.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/116729-Stock-Payload-Fraction-Challenge-1-0-2-Edition The results in this thread would appear to directly contradict your thread title.

It works for me. I'm using FAR, Deadly Reentry, and Procedural Fairings. The only big issue I've had is in the VAB when adding the Structural Wing part to an existing ship. The game freezes and has to be stopped via the Task Manager as soon as that part touches the ship. Other than that I haven't had any issues aside from the graphical ones noted by pretty much everyone else.

Here's my Duna craft. It isn't pretty but it'll put a Kerbal on the surface of Duna and bring him home with a bunch of science. It has 3 Goo Canisters, one Science Jr., one Thermometer, and one Barometer. All science comes home; no need for transmission (other than crew reports which gives full value for transmission). When I did my mission I decided not to get any science from around the sun and only do science within Duna's influence. I did not attempt any interaction with Ike. It got me enough science that my next mission was a Jool and Jool's moons flyby (I botched that with overzealous timewarp but still managed to make it home with over 3000 science). It requires the following tech nodes (from left to right and top to bottom): Start Basic Rocketry General Rocketry Stability Survivability Advanced Rocketry General Construction Flight Control Science Tech Heavy Rocketry Fuel Systems Advanced Construction Advanced Flight Control Electrics Space Exploration (only for Thermometer) Heavier Rocketry Advanced Exploration Abort Action Group is set to save your brave Kerbals (Leave thrust at Full and clear the rest of the ship, then cut throttle and press 1 for Landing) Action Group 1 is Landing Mode (Lowers Landing Gear, Turns on Lights, Deploys Chutes) Remember to repack Chutes for Landing at Kerbin and it should have ample fuel for less than perfect flying. https://www.dropbox.com/s/w2e73auu3ffpy4g/Duna%20Lander%20Mk1.craft Please let me know if it works for you or if you have any issues. If you're missing certain tech nodes to use the craft I can attempt to edit it and reupload. Edit: I just totaled up the science received from this mission. I was able to get 16 different science reports and bring home a total of 1246 science points. I also wanted to add that this was the first time I'd been to Duna in a vehicle of my own design and only the second time I've been to Duna.

I have a manned Duna ship from right after my Minmus and Mun missions. I'll take a screenshot or two and post a craft file in an hour or so. I'll try to catalog the parts if I can so you can see if you have the tech unlocked. I don't think it hass all the science you're looking for on it, but I minimized it because Duna doesn't have biomes yet. All science can be returned to Kerbin for maximum gains.

Not a problem. It was the first thing that came to mind when I saw the question. I've flown a version, Munbug X I believe, and managed to get the free return trajectory exactly as Mulbin describes it. It's an amazing craft and I highly recommend it. It was a very fun, very difficult challenge to attempt and it took me quite a few tries to carry it out without any auto-pilot. I'm currently working on an free return trajectory Mun flyby on my first 0.23 Career save. I think it really illustrates the impressive skill and ability of the Apollo scientists and astronauts. Good luck!

Mulbin achieved it with his Munbug with a burn of 878 m/s

Good luck! I for one am interested to hear how it turns out. Having the Plan B of getting out and pushing is good, but getting the hang of the orbital manoeuvres necessary for rendezvous is far more rewarding.

One thing you might want to try is having your trapped kerbal get out of the cockpit at apoapsis and then push against the front of his spaceship using his EVA suit. Since you're already so close to entering the atmosphere, you'll probably be able to slow his ship down enough to drop his periapsis into the atmosphere. This way you won't even need to have a second ship rendezvous. Be sure to point the ship prograde before getting out and pushing. Also, make sure to get back in after pushing to check if the periapsis has dropped enough. Then, just sit back and let the atmosphere do all the work. If you do want to attempt the rendezvous, make the second ship's apoapsis higher by a decent amount by burning prograde at it's periapsis and then wait/timewarp until your closest approach becomes very small. Make sure you set the first ship as your target, and when you reach your closest approach time burn so that your relative velocity to the first ship is zero. Then it's a matter of burning towards the first ship so you approach it and then burning again to make your relative velocity zero when you get close. It may take a few tries to really get the hang of it. That's why I mentioned the first method of getting out and pushing. Rendezvous are made a whole lot easier with RCS.

Long time listener, first time caller: Since flying your Dunebug II on a rescue for poor Jeb whom I left stranded in a command pod on Duna I have been very interested in your crafts. I want to say thank you. To answer your question: I just attempted to fly Munbug VI for the first time. I'm running 0.20.2 and having a heck of a time reaching a stable Kerbin orbit even at 75k. In fact, after struggling to reach orbit I don't seem to have enough Delta-V in the third stage to reach the Mun. I'm not a great pilot, but I feel like I am adequate enough to at least make it to orbit. I can't offer any more information than that I'm afraid. On a side note (and I'm not sure if it's related or not), The structural panel fairings do not seem to want to jettison very nicely. Having not tried Munbug VI on earlier builds, I have no previous experiences with the action of the fairings to say if this is my screw up or something that changed with 0.20.2.