Unabled

Cool to see her awesome channel mentioned here. You know she is a self-admitted Kerbaler as well!

Implement Aero overhaul and everything that goes along with that, reentry heating, fairings and whatever else. If you are set on making the next update 1.0, then most of the focus should be polishing. Hit all those things left unfinished, or that need attention. Things like the placeholder terrain scatter you can phase through should not be in a 1.0. Everything should get at least some polish before 1.0. Take your time, you only get one chance...

!!! That is amazing. You have no idea how much this means to me.

I am really liking the sound of everything with this update now, and this is a very clever way to do procedural fairings while still letting you piece it together. Can't wait to see it in action! I really hope interstage fairings are made a thing, I would love every rocket I build to have this moment:

It's certainly not the case for me. I am looking forward to the final stretch of KSP development, and to me it looks like Squad is trying to expedite the process a bit. I can imagine putting out patches in the manner they have been is very time consuming, so they figure they would push for as much as they could to reach 1.0. Do I agree? Well, I trust that they know what they are getting themselves into with this and they obviously think they can pull it off, so more power to them. It does concern me however. I'm concerned that KSP will be a 'rushed' release lacking enough polish to cause people to skip it. KSP has rekindled my love for all things Space and has broadened my perspective on everything. I follow all the latest space & science news, joined the Planetary Society, and the beauty is I understand and appreciate all of it. I'm not worried about KSP going 1.0, I know nothing for me will really change understand Squad will keep updating the game for a time. I'm not worried about my own KSP experience though, I am worried about others'. To put things into perspective, I'll share my experience with two recent games: Endless Legend This was an Early Access game that runs on Unity(sound familiar?), I'm not sure for how long but it caught my attention. I did not want to purchase it because I was becoming fed up with all the early access titles saturating the market, but I followed it. The beautiful aesthetic caught my eye. Endless Legend is a gorgeous game to behold, but I still didn't know what it was all about. I forgot about it until it was later released to glowing reviews and that sold me on it. I'm glad I didn't pass this up; it runs smoothly, loads quickly, and just is an overall wonderful experience with the senses. Rome Total War 2 Not an early access game, but I think one that was released too early. I bought this without really paying attention to the reviews just because I enjoyed the first Rome so much and Shogun 2 wasn't too bad either. That was my big regret as it was a horrible mess at launch. The poorly optimization, graphical glitches, and confusing mechanics/design drove me away. I haven't been back and could care less to try again even though I hear it's better now. Do I think KSP will be like this? No it's already far beyond that mess and a lot of Early Access games, but it still needs a lot of Polish. I have a nephew who loves all manner of open world sandbox games: Minecraft, Space Engineers, and others. I thought: Great! I was led from Minecraft straight into KSP, maybe I can get him interested in KSP so he can learn some things? Get him interested in a career path maybe? Well. That was Summer of last year and to date He hasn't broken 20 hrs in KSP; the least hours of all 6 open world building type games he has. This confuses and concerns me. This is also not the first and only time this has happened. I have two cousins with similiar interests as me in these types of games and even when I bought KSP for them, offered help and Scott Manley videos, neither have accumulated many hours. Bottom Line My concern for KSP comes from it being not as cleaned up and beautified as is mostly expected for a release, and having potential buyers skip it because of that. KSP is not just a game, but an experience that I truly wish everyone could have. For all of us, KSP is great, but for those unaccustomed it seems KSP is just not quite there yet. I hope I haven't destroyed my family's ability to enjoy KSP by introducing it too early, and I hope Squad will not destroy potential new players ability to enjoy it by doing the same. You only have one shot at a first impression, make it the best one possible.

All I needed to see. While I think its still a lot to pull off in one update and jumping to 1.0, you guys obviously feel its doable. So be it. Go get 'em, can't wait to see what Squad pulls off.

Agree 110% Get KSP as polished as can be.. Not saying add a bunch of extra stuff, there doesn't even need to be more planets. Polish what's there, and implement Unity 5 when available to allow KSP to be more presentable at 1.0 to reviewers who won't be so kind to 1.0 as they have been to previous versions.

I love these threads! Some really great ideas in here, it might not be a bad idea to try summarizing some of them. I really like this idea of linking the tech tree with building advancement/upgrades. In addition to the ideas Squad already came up with for what upgrading certain building would grant, having tech unlock with certain upgrades would possibly make more sense and simplify some of the things that will need to be unlocked/upgraded. The way I look at it, they already have size tiers of parts, so why not link them to building tiers? Start off with all your tier 1 buildings at KSC and upgrading the VAB gives you the upgrade up from 1.25 size rocket parts. Upgrade the SPH to unlock the different Space Plane parts topping out with the new MK3 parts. Upgrade the Science Labs to unlock maybe different power sources like solar panels, and batteries as well as more science experiment parts. Makes sense to me, plus it gives players a bit more of an option to move down the tech tree as they see fit. As far as Science/exploration goes? I think it can be a big problem to solve, and I hope that Squad focuses on it after .90. Adding more interesting features/terrain/ whatever to planets and moons will be number one. Exploring flat terrain isn't going to be very interesting no matter what they do. The Mun is a great example of a more interesting place with the Rilles and Craters everywhere, but its just one step. Adding more experiments that reflect the Kerbal Universe I think are very important: For example the Temperature and Gravitron Parts...You can activate them and watch as they change depending on where you are and what you are doing. You can actually observe change in your environment and get active feedback on that. For me, it is quite a different experience than being told what is happening to the Goo by a text box. Now sure, you do get some different text based on where you are, but I think it would be better if it were a bit more 'visual' Lastly, I think making the contracts a bit more specific might help some too. Something like: Kerbals Scientists are interested in the Munar Poles, and would like you to investigate and explore (Specific location/Biome). Even listing specific experiments to conduct there. I think this could even provide a bit of a narrative to the experience as well if done right. Speaking of narrative... After playing Buzz Aldrin's SPM, I realized how neat it would be to have a News Ticker of sorts to highlight the public's thoughts on your progress and accomplishments/failures. I very much like the idea of having Reputation link to the Public's interest in your space program. (As Technicalfool Posted) Having Rep degrade due to inaction or a lack of new things being accomplished could be a way to make the world come to life so to speak.

Really like the diagram you posted! From this wiki page on Life Support Systems : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_Life_Support_System "Oxygen and water were rechargeable for multiple EVA's from the spaceraft's environmental control system...Lunar surface EVA times for the first four missions (Apollo 11 through 14) were limited to 4 hours... For the extended missions of Apollo 15 through 17, the EVA stay time was doubled to 8 hours" Sorta branching off of that: I was thinking about that get out and push exploit for the jetpack fuel when I thought of just having a separate EVA life support. If you could just get back in a capsule and start fresh again, then whats the point? Well make it so you only have so much EVA support in the capsule to begin with. (This would probably be more for if there were no life support in the capsules). With Rovers you could bring more with you and yes as long as you were sitting in the chair of the Rover, your Kerbal's EVA pack would be using the Rover's extended EVA tank or some such. I've been trying to think of more in game reasons to have Rovers, like storing collected rock samples and maybe carrying science experiments, etc. So many ideas!!!

Hey, thanks for the reply! Now I was just including my thoughts, really jumping off of TW1's awesome post, but you bring up some good points! I wasn't trying to compare maneuver node/ apo times to something like a life support time, if it came across that way it was not intended. I was just trying to provide an example of how we can almost estimate how long a mission will take and how certain moments in time have already been mapped out in the game for us. I was just trying to convey how if something like life support were included, it might be best to have it be time based instead of just a gauge of some percentage that you can't really plan much with. Now you are correct, life support would be like a time limit that would start at launch, and put that way it does sound like a major downer. Now I guess you could try to launch with only fifteen minutes to an hour on board if you wanted to--but I was thinking something in the realm of days like what TW1 had shown. I don't like the sound of a time limit on missions until I think about this one thing that doesn't sit right with me: As it is if we return a Kerbal safely to the surface of Kerbin, we are awarded reputation and everyone is happy. If a Kerbal dies, we lose rep points, and everyone is sad. If we strand that Kerbal on the Mun or in Orbit for years with no rescue and no support, no one cares....? From the perspective of the game world, this doesn't make sense to me. I think that for neglecting a crew member, you should be punished just as much as if you turned them in a green smear on the surface of the Mun. Otherwise what reason is there to have probes in the game at all? Now I don't know if the crew should just die the instant you run out of life support, maybe start deducting Rep points for every couple hours without support. Wait even longer then maybe they eventually die? I don't know, but it seems silly that the game world doesn't seem to care. Again this would ultimately be best as just a more challenging difficulty option for those that want it, and not a default option.

I'm glad to see how many pro "life support"-ers there are in this thread! I think it is something that shouldn't be left out, to me its one of those fundamental things you have to deal with when you travel in space. Space is beautiful but also hostile, and any time you spend there is limited. Everything you need you have to take with you, and time is kind of a resource that needs to be managed with space travel. The longer the trip, the more stuff you have to bring to sustain you. Representing this in KSP is something I think worthwhile. Life Support Life support should be like a time resource. This would be the easiest way to at-a-glance determine how long of a mission you can achieve with the resources you have. Time is already a big part of KSP: we have an estimated time to Apo, time to encounters, time to planned manuevers... etc. Of course planning tools would have to be expanded some to make it easier to manage. This would be that dividing factor that makes really gives probes an advantage over crewed missions; you wouldn't have to plan those nearly as much or manage them as much, increasing that feeling of accomplishment with a crewed mission. As far as how to add it to ships, well I liked the idea of adding a tweakable option to pods for life support, you could increase or decrease depending on how much time you needed or how much mass you wanted to save. For the really long missions to the outer planets a life support part would probably be best to add, or just have the other modules like the hitchhiker module capable of carrying even more. Similar to how Squad had originally implemented the EVA prop fuel as being limited before changing it back to unlimited, I thought it would be a neat idea to make an EVA life support resource that would be unrelated to the ship's life support just to take the concept of limited time a bit further. If life support on ships isn't possible, at least a type of EVA life support. Doing this would give more of a reason to take a rover with you, because then your time on surface during EVA would be limited and could bring extra life support with you on the rover. Eh, just ideas. Random Failures Regarding failures....Yes I think I'm on the side that random failures are maybe not the best idea. Failures relating to the playing pushing the ship beyond limits is one thing, but things just failing just because I don't know about. I was all for the concept, but after having played around with Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager and failing a mission that had 90% part reliability and 88% of a problem being resolved has been beyond frustrating. It's forced me to reload saves which is something I rarely do because it just felt like there was nothing I as a player could do to fix this, and the punishment for mission failure was too great at that point. HOWEVER, I do like the concept of having missions controllers there actively working to help a mission succeed and having that feeling in KSP would be incredible. There would just have to be more options available to resolve issues as they cropped up, or have any issues that do not result in a total mission failure at that point, just maybe reduced capabilities. With the difficulty options, there almost isn't a good reason to not include such things to further flesh out the KSP experience for those that would like it. I hope Squad doesn't dismiss it entirely.

I stumbled across this short clip describing the upcoming Rosetta comet landing attempt. Here I have landed on the Mun multiple times, emulated a Curiosity like rover landing mission to Duna, but have yet to accomplish an asteroid intercept. After watching this clip I really hope Squad can not only add comets, but figure out a way to let asteroids and comets freely rotate as you approach without being stopped by timewarp. That would be a very challenging mission I would love the chance to attempt!!

Great interview. Really good bit on how to handle the community's expectations vs. Squad's plan for KSP. Liked what I heard about how the Kerbal experience thing went down, so good to hear that community reactions are taken into such consideration but are not a driving force of development; I couldn't have asked for a better way to put that.

Can't wait to see what these upgradeable buildings will add to gameplay. I'm thinking some type of part gating... I am hoping they become the new tech tree. Upgrade a building, unlock some parts.

After pouring over all 55 pages of this thread...I like these ideas the best: So some of the options that I have seen: Add an experience system that gives Kerbals something like character levels: Tiers of experience that lead to more EVA activities from just tethered EVA to full on RCS pack EVA. -I really like this idea. I remember reading about the ability to train Kerbonauts, and I think this would tie in well with this type of system. If you have the money/facilities/rep whatever it would cost to put a Kerbonaut through a type of training, have that result in increased EVA capabilities. -Could possibly have increased EVA movement based on a Kerbals 'experience' and familiarity with moving in EVA. Add a system that just logs your Kerbonauts accomplishments: awards medals, increases reputation based off popularity, etc. -If they cannot come up with a good way of implementing some type of experience 'perks' this is what it should amount to. Just have the game keep track of what the Kerbals do. Include "active" perks: have a 'give her all shes got!' option to over-thrust engines risking overheating or other damage to the engine/ship. Yes this would require more work implementing. -I can't think of many more 'active' perks, but I like the sound of the concept. Some sort of trade off would be nice to have with some but not required. Have Kerbal Crew positions: Sort of like the lab requirement of 2 Kerbals, have a requirement of a Pilot, Commander, and Specialist/scientist on certain missions. -I don't know if that limit should be a hard limit or not, and if you can still fly a mission without an experienced Pilot or Commander what penalties would that result in? Should it? -I do like the sound of being able to train a Kerbal to handle one of these positions.With all of these, I like the sound of having those Kerbals that have more experience give more reputation for their missions. This would just be a reflection of their popularity to the public. (How cool would it be to see Chris Hadfield in a high profile mission?). Of course if you lose those kerbals, it would mean a result in a big hit. On the flip side, probes would essentially be REP neutral because a robotic probe typically doesn't garner as much attention (unless you complete a higher profile mission with it like curiosity). Probes should ultimately result in less science/capabilities to give crewed missions more of an incentive. I also like the sound of being able to train Kerbals. It seems like training your personnel would be a big part of handling a space program. We could assign Kerbals Swimming pool simulation for EVA experience/Jet pack familiarity. Maybe assign Kerbals time in the G-Force simulator to increase their tolerances? Of course doing anything like this would greatly expand the feature, but man does it sound cool.