[I accidently loaded up a previous QUICK save, how do I load up my last AUTO save?]

I loaded up a quick save (F5 & F9), and I didn't want to do that, so how do I now load up my last in game AUTO save?

Just lost a ridiculous amount of time in KSP.

This isnt an uncommon occurrence, and personally i think really needs a fix. Yes this is how quicksave works, but to do this after hours of playing thinking u had done a more recent quicksave is ridiculously unforgiving and really unfriendly to the user.

you're not alone DucharmeHD, I've logged over 1200 hours to KSP, and this still happens to me once in a blue moon :T. Link

[MK2 Drone + Cargo Bay + 2x Phyisics = Kaboom]

Try attach radiator panel to MK2 drone core you won't need time warp to kaboom

It absolutely does explode with any # of radiators attached. This is for sure a bug, not an actual overheat.

Just wondering, does it not overheat on regular time?

No, not even close - nothing is generating heat, not even enough for heat bars to show.

[MK2 Drone + Cargo Bay + 2x Phyisics = Kaboom]

Was working on a simple SSTO, basically the above combination when mated with a cargo bay = kaboom (nearly instantly) the moment i hit 2x or more physics acceleration.

The flight report states it was due to overheating.

Temp gauges give no indication its even close to overheating before hitting time accell.

The exact same ship configuration without the cargo bay results in no issues whatsoever.

The "overheating" is near instant.

I'm 99% sure this is a bug. Anyone else experiencing this?

[What happened to LV-N and Ion engine?!?!?]

You're either mistaken or bugged.

http://i.imgur.com/xwuRaG9.png

I have noticed that if you run engines while converting ore to fuel, at a certain point the thrust will reduce dramatically even though the throttle is at 100% and fuel levels are "OK". I believe this is a bug.

[A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words]

No sympathy here, you somehow managed to miss an ocean

[How much Delta-V in 1 Kerbal EVA?]

Anyone know how much Delta-V the packs.. pack?

[New Heat System causes memory leak]

How is this not fixed yet? This bug's terrible / game breaking especially for a 1.0 release...

[Rescue Missions to locations other than Kerbin orbit?]

The rescue missions to other moons/planets are a nice touch, however in Hard mode there is very little cost incentive to do them given the time they take to do & delta-V needed. Going to Pol to recover a ship + kerbal is a very long flight even on max time accell (if the planets aren't aligned right).

[Most Adorable KSP glitch ever? - Tiny Parachutes!]

They need to be at least...........three times bigger!!

He's absolutely right.

[To All of the KSP Modders: STOP IT!]

I'm bothered most about the OP having a "4cyl truck" ...

[Wat's your worst Ksp 1.0 glitch?]

#1 Constant Crashes from memory leaks . Had a plane saved in orbit that needed to be landed... (the last of my crew was on it) on re-entry game would fall on its face every single time :T

#2 Imaginary Terrain landing on Bop (or maybe it was Pol?) ... was approaching the ground, a couple KM from the ground WHAM Ship explodes in mid air from a collision with invisible terrain. Reloaded from an F5, WhAM roughly the same place. 3rd try, descended REALLY slow and managed to land.

#3 VAB went bonkers. Designed a fancy dancy rocket (quite a lot of time in it) did some undo/redo combination... couldnt click on parts properly... hit save on the ship - all buttons greyed out Closed KSP, loaded my ship and it was buggy as hell(wouldnt let me click anything, shows all parts out of the staging on the right (even though they were solid in the VAB), had to start from scratch again.

Ran into so many more glitches, unbalances etc... been playing KSP since almost the very start, never seen it this buggy... I hope squad has a good vacation and comes back going bonkers on polishing the game for a month or 3....

[SSTO Success in 1.0]

I've been able to build successful spaceplanes from the start, but my planes intakes (RAM intakes) keep exploding due to heating on reentry. I thought they would have the same heat tolerance as other spaceplane parts.

Yea, the top tier intake has a lot of friction and not a lot of mass . They basically heat up quickly and theres only one point behind it to transfer the heat to. If that point is also the same part thats attached to the engine, it'll be receiving heat on both ends during ascent, making things quite toasty.

[SSTO Success in 1.0]

I just got my first SSTO to orbit in 1.0. (Been trying for a week).

What was the trick? I kid you not, I simply stuck heat discs directly in front of my air intakes. The extra drag created was easily offset by reaching ridiculous speeds starting at 15KM.

Working as intended?

Has anyone done this on hard with full (100%) heating? I'm able to get some of my SSTO's working, but re-entry is usually very finicky, placing heat discs in-front of my inter-coolers has done wonders for me as well. I've also had a repeatable bug on rentry causing a game crash usually in the 8000-24000m range.

[I've just got 14 minutes out of the nuclear engines. Stock parts]

Alternate solution: Higher tier, higher cost, higher mass nuclear Engine with better heat dissipation further up the tech tree.

I agree radiators would be "cool" (haha) but at the same time i don't want to feel like i'm forced to have to use the same formula every time to use a NERVA engine.

[Extreme Hard Career]

I've been experimenting with extreme custom difficulty since the difficulty sliders were introduced. Playing with very low rewards can be an interesting challenge, as you have to be very economical.

The key is to look for ways to do multiple missions with one launch. I had a lot of success doing orbital survey contracts at the Mun and Minmus. A spacecraft in polar orbit can overfly lots of waypoints with very little fuel expenditure.

The biggest obstacles I've found are the negative rep and building upgrade costs. If found that after a while, I'd exhausted all of the available contracts that offered rep. This meant that I was not offered contracts to do anything at the Mun or Minmus. There didn't seem to be any way to get around this, so I took to starting the game with zero rep instead of negative rep.

Building upgrade costs can add some extra challenge, as you have to learn to do without them for longer. For example: getting by without patched conics can be a headache if you're going to the Mun and Minmus! However, setting the upgrade costs too high leads to situations where you can't really progress any further until you've ground enough money. This can be mitigated somewhat through playing really efficiently, but there are limits to what you can do with the early game tech.

My preferred hardcore difficulty uses the same settings as Hard, but with reduced rewards. I enable quicksaving and reverts as a means of recovering from any bugs I may encounter.

Been playing on Hard career for a while now and can report i've hit a super grindy wall. The first VAB grind was not too bad but 4.5 Million to upgrade the science center is a bit on the rough side. Ive got satellites and stations at most of the nearby moons/stations and and basically just using contracts to do science, combining missions to do big money pulls from missions... etc. It makes more sense for me to decline contracts until i find "aquire science at XXX planet missions" and jump to my already orbiting satellite/lander to perform the science.

The rest of my missions are similar to "build a station supporting a ridiculous amount of kerbals with 6000L of fuel for around 200-400 cash.... and land it on Pol or some planet with atmosphere (ie. you need heat shields + massive stability to survive rentry)". They're not impossible missions, but the reward is hardly worth the insane amount of effort .

I do like hard mode, the skill tree is tottaly fine now, and the challenge is welcome, but I think they need to do some playtesting themselves on career hard to get a feel for where these walls are to adjust them. The variety of missions and lack of good paying missions is pretty crummy right now.

[Career Mode Progression and Game Design Analysis]

Here are some of my version 1.0 observations and suggestions with regards to Career mode on "Hard", default "hard" settings. My conclusion is that there are a few minor tweaks that can be made that will have a large positive effect on the progressive challenge of career mode, and smooth out some of the difficulty spikes. I will say that I should probably try this out on "Normal" difficulty to compare and see if I encounter the same difficulty spikes. Counterbalancing that is the fact that I'm already an expert player, so I may not see difficulty spikes on the lower difficulties whereas a new player might. Not sure what to say other than to compare notes with the community (you guys!)

Good early game

The first 30 minutes of gameplay seems to guide the player well, and gives the player enough money to be able to experiment and fail. This is because of the huge money influx from all the World First altitude, distance, and speed records. The Flea booster might need its thrust toned down a bit, though. I launch with 20% thrust to achieve around a 1.5 TWR on my first couple of crafts. 100% thrust yields 11 g of acceleration (too much for a beginner's first launch).

It is reasonably easy to unlock the set of 15-20 science nodes of General Rocketry, Stability, and Survivability. Game progression up to this point seems well thought out, and smooth. Once the aforementioned nodes were unlocked, however, I encountered the first difficulty spike.

The first difficulty spike

The next logical step at this point is to achieve a stable orbit, but this is best achieved with the Terrier engine in your upper stage, which is unfortunately locked away in a 45 science tier.

During beta, the old tech tree had the LV-909 in the 15 science "Survivability" node, which facilitated the player making orbit at this stage of the career progression. Instead, I found I had to use 6 FL-T200 fuel tanks on a Swivel engine as the upper stage, which is not efficient at all when the player has such a light payload in early game (usually just a Mk1 Command Pod and a parachute). While I could make it work (as an experienced player), it was a harder design challenge during a point in the game where you want the challenges to be gentle on a new player. Admittedly, I am playing this on "Hard" so what should I expect? Duh, right? I will say however that the old tech tree had the LV-909 in the right place whereas I don't believe the new tree does.

This is also about the time where tourism contracts are appearing, but the Mk1 Inline Cockpit is also sealed away in a 45 science node. Stacking two Mk1 Command Pods on top of one another just looks completely silly.

This is also about the time where Kerbin survey contracts are appearing, but the Aviation node is sealed away at 45 science, too. What's worse, some of these contracts want surface reports, which requires precision landing. Planes are harder to design than rockets, and a new player probably cannot precision land an early plane on rough terrain. Not good contracts for a beginner to take.

No, at this point in the progression, the game should probably be nudging a newbie player in the direction of getting comfortable with making orbit and getting a Mun flyby down, followed by a Mun orbit. This is where the second problem arises:

The Mun difficulty spike

There are three, maybe four key tools that a newbie needs to achieve an early-game Mun flyby successfully:

1. The Terrier engine in the upper stage
   
2. One launchpad upgrade
   
3. Patched conics
   
4. Maneuver nodes
   

Unfortunately, the player does not quite have all of these things by the time the Mun is the next target. Ironically, it is the expert player that is able to overcome an early Mun mission because s/he has memorized the correct phase angle to begin burning prograde, already knows how burning prograde will affect the shape of the orbit, and can eyeball a Mun intercept without patched conics. AND the expert player further has memorized when to burn retrograde for Mun orbital insertion, and when to burn prograde again to leave Mun's SOI retrograde with respect to Kerbin in order to successfully return. This, at a time when a newbie player needs to learn these valuable skills. As an expert player, I managed to handle this Mun flyby, but I immediately recognized the problem with this game design:

When you teach someone to ride a bike, you put the training wheels on first, and then take them off once the learner has gained sufficient skill. I have found KSP to be doing this backwards -- without patched conics and maneuver nodes it's like trying to learn how to ride a regular bike with no hands first, and once you have mastered that you get the handlebars and training wheels.

No, the building upgrades should instead act as GATES that the player must unlock before seeking greater challenges, and those gates must be timed with the player's progression. Here's what I suggest: patched conics and maneuver nodes should be immediately available in the tier 0 buildings, but only work in the Kerbin system. In order to get patched conics in the neighboring systems of Eve and Duna, the tracking station and mission control must be upgraded. There's even a good excuse to explain this: the tier 0 radar dishes on the tracking station aren't sensitive enough to work at long ranges, and upgrading them gets you patched conics farther out in the system.

Tech tree logical progression suggestions

Parts seem to be a little bit too scattered at the moment. For example, the Rockomax Brand Decoupler (2.5m decoupler) is under "General Construction", the Poodle and Skipper are in "Heavy Rocketry" without any 2.5m fuel tanks at all, and the 2.5m fuel tanks are in Fuel Systems. The problem with this is that parts from three different nodes all must be used in concert, or else none of them are individually useful at all.

Instead, I suggest thinking about what the player might be trying to achieve and grouping those parts together. For example, "the player's objective is to begin using 2.5m rockets" so the first node contains the Skipper, a 2.5m fuel tank, a 2.5m decoupler, and a 1.25m -> 2.5m adapter. The Poodle can be locked away in the next node, and the Mainsail in the next. Actually, Squad did a great job with the Aviation node in following this line of thinking, as well as the resource scanning and ISRU progression at the end of the tree.

Proper progression is most important in the early game when the player's options are limited, however. You can get away with some poor progression later on in the tech tree because by then, the player has plenty of different contracts to choose from and complete. Early to mid game, though? Whew... No, this is where it needs to be MOST polished.

Another example of poor tech tree placement is the Micro Landing Gear in the Survivability node. At that stage of the career, all of the engines the player has are physically too long, and the micro landing gear doesn't reach past the bell nozzle! I'm better off using makeshift girder landing legs, but this is not something a new player would be expected to try. Instead, they are given a counter-intuitive part.

Another example is the science lab being grouped with extendable ladders. These are in no way related from a player intent point of view.

Okay, enough tech tree bashing. Let's get back to contracts.

Rescue contracts

In order to pull off a successful Rescue from Orbit contract, the player needs:

1. Maneuver nodes
   
2. A lot of delta-v to execute rendezvous, which requires...
   
3. An upgraded VAB
   

The first rescue contract I accepted was in a high orbit (almost at Mun level) and was inclined. This meant I needed not only 3,500 delta-v to get to LKO, but also another 2,400 to correct the orbital plane and execute the rendezvous (I tried my best to launch into the right plane from the get go but still was off by 5 degrees) . Now I'm no slouch -- I've got a manned Eve return and Jool-5 under my belt, but I honestly can't eyeball an orbital rendezvous with a ship without maneuver nodes.

In addition, early game is tough because you have limited parts to work with. If I need more delta-v in early game, I can't just bring out the big guns (Skipper to Mainsail to Rhino (KR-2L), etc.) like I usually do. Instead, I have to use clusters of Reliants (LV-T30). This means more engines, more tanks, more radial decouplers, more nosecones, and struts to keep the radial bits stable. I quickly run into the VAB part limit.

My suggestion is to wait until later to start offering rescue contracts. Perhaps the player also needs a cheaper VAB upgrade to bump the part count restriction up a little, as the first upgrade is both too expensive and too much of a step in allowed size and part count -- we need an intermediate step between them.

Okay, this is already getting too long, so I'll stop here. What do you think? Have you noticed anything similar? Or do you think I'm just on "Hard" and should shaddap about it?

Originally I would say i saw you're point of view 100%. Now after a 2nd day of KSP (on career hard) I'm sorta digging it more. I managed to do a pretty extreme orbital rescue, without an upgraded VAB and no maneuver nodes unlocked yet . This was pretty hard (for an experienced player) but not impossible! At this point my perspective sorta shifted. Yes the buildings are grindy to unlock BUT career mode is actually "HARD" now... I have to really be careful with launches, and my space program can be put into the red if i don't managed funds wisely. I need to very carefully pick my next tech, which items i want to unlock, and REALLY think hard in terms of which facility upgrade i need to do next, because facilities are not cheap! I'm also VERY protective about my Kerbal pool, losing a scientist early on has caused me no end of pain, and motivated me to attempt more orbital rescues in hopes of rescuing one!

Perhaps i'll flip back after another day Hang in there, give it some more time! I've done a return to the mun, and saving pennies still to upgrade the VAB and trying to rescue me a scientist. This is a LOT slower than hard mode in .90 and older, but try to take it as an ongoing journey, don't worry about maxing the tech tree in a weekend like you used to

[How to increase framerate of KSP while screencasting?]

Best way I've found to date is turning your game's resolution down as far as it'll go, turning off anti-aliasing, and turning off V-sync.

I'm afraid your hardware is limiting your options. Time for an upgrade (2.4 Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo - Passmark Score) You're CPU is probably maxed Turning down gfx settings will only go so far, and reduce the load "mostly" on your GPU, your bottleneck is likely not your GPU, but your CPU.

[Re-Entry Heating And parachutes]

Absolutely. Parachutes should be susceptible to heating and turn in to a fireball if deployed at too high a speed.

Fixed!

[So many tourism contracts...]

I've had no problem building early-game craft to deliver tourists to orbit (three pods/tanks in parallel)... but these contracts really do pay out horribly. Especially the ones requiring reaching orbit, considering that the difference between "sub-orbital" and "orbital" is nearly doubling the cost of the rocket.

Agreed.

The ones with 4 kerbals wanting to go to different bodies (between the group) is also not worth the risk/reward. Ie. Some want to orbit kerbin, some the mun/minimus.

[WOW! Any vanilla hard difficulty career mode players get to the mun yet?!]

http://i.imgur.com/SFSueYR.png

This ship got Jeb and payload of Science Bay plus 2 Goo Canister into low Mun orbit, with plenty dV to spare. I could probably land upper stage, if not for the lack of landing legs (and i was not going to risk my only experienced pilot trying to land on engine bell). I don't know why you people consider reaching the Mun hard

Pretty sure you're not playing on Hard OR you grinded a lot to have the funds to upgrade your launch pad & VAB.

The craft you have there is well over 30 parts, so you'd need to have upgraded the VAB, which on hard mode is quite a steep price.

I don't have KSP here at the moment but the launchpad and VAB were something like 150k and 350k to upgrade to launch you're craft there. Other buildings are also very steep (think the science center was something over 500k?)

With that said, this is hard mode and personally I kinda like it, but i do think the building cost is leaning more towards grindyness vs difficulty for building upgrades. The tech tree, income from missions, etc are pretty challenging and fun as is I have to make real hard choices for my tech trees because science isn't so easy to come by now, and a botched launch can leave your space program in financial turmoil for some time!

[(Fixed in 1.0.1) Fairing panels are massless (and it's mass is NOT added to the fairing base)]

Sal_vager, thats a nice spin on it but I'm going to rephrase this another way:

Fairings add increased mass (based on the size fairings) to the fairing base. Players are penalized for the mass of the fairings after ejecting them, since their mass still exists in the base. The bigger the fairing the more noticeable this penalty is.

Perhaps this isn't a bug, but it should maybe considered as an oversight and plans be made to revise it?

[Heat mechanic and our Sun (Kebrol)]

Not away, but perpendicular to the sun. Max area away, as in 180*, would mean an equally large cross-section point towards. You want the big flat bits pointing towards space 90* from the sun.

And polished shiny bits towards sun, and dark rough bits in the dark ... that is if reflectivity is modeled.

Since were nit-picking, area facing away from the sun doesn't necessarily imply 180° away. Perpendicular can be considered "away" as well. Also if you're going to use an asterisk you should always include a footnote with it :]. (Just being cheeky!)

<Fist bump to NathanKell/>

[What happened to the SRBs ?]

You need to factor cost into the balance equation from career mode before evaluating the extent of nerfing done

[Tail connector A exploded due to overheating.]

Okay, I'm seeing the same odd behavior with this design, which only has the tail connected to a single fuselage tank -

http://i.imgur.com/dh6iC3Th.png

This looks like it may be an unanticipated bug/"balancing oversight" with the new changes (it's probably behaving as designed). I'd throw these screenshots into a Bug report Seems like it may need some balancing work by Squad!

[Tail connector A exploded due to overheating.]

http://i.imgur.com/5HIKHo5h.png

Tail connector is always the first piece to overheat, despite the fact that it is stack-occluded by the mk1 cockpit and fuel tanks.

I would recommend going to debug mode to see what's going on as stated above. The tail connector im guessing has a very low mass, and it's receiving heat from two sources. It also probably has a low drag value, meaning it's going to be shedding less heat into the air (Just guessing, haven't tested). This results in it potentially overheating quicker than the parts around it. It may also have a lower thermal tolerance vs the wings around it.

It's entirely possible the part may need some balance tweaking too, so do check what's going on in Debug to be sure first before believing our speculations.