running

When compared to other games that were 1.0 where I payed full price for.... KSP is nothing short but a miracle. I very rarely encounter crashes. Performance can always be better but is really only a problem when you start building huge things. Yes it slows down with each item you add, but it doesn't become problematic when you are just doing career mode kind of missions. (al depends on your hardware ofcourse.) Other bugs... I play the hell out of this game. The number of hours invested is ridiculous for someone with 2 kids and 2 jobs. Yes I sometimes notice things that aren't perfect. But I'm pretty sure the guy at NASA doing the same thing has probably more issues than I do. So on bugs and stability I'd say it's ready. On features... most items are in there that you would expect Some graphics could be nicer. (But is that a pass or a blocking issue... highly subjective.) Maybe some more planets etc. (But adding a couple of planets can be done quickly.) Movable parts could be added. (There are mods for that.) Objects outside the 4km bubble in atmosphere just disappear, making it very hard to accidentally destroy buildings. I think some features do need more depth. (Strategies and Kerbal experience could use more work.) It's hard to say how many work here can be done in one release. but 0.90 is not 1.0 yet. Balance is kinda linked to features. We can currently set a lot of options in the career mode. When you start giving the features more depth, you might need to work on the balance instead letting players tweak things in career mode. (Think of the new player that has no idea what the importance of science returns is.) This tweaking of balance will quickly result in another update or two (depending on the internal testing before releasing.) So it's almost ready, but I don't think that the next release will be the one. probably atleast 1 or 2 more released would be needed. What reviewers think of the game?... I don't care, I've already bought it, I'm have my own opinion, don't need someone else's. What poor reviews would mean to squad (revenue) I don't know, bluntly... that's their problem. What 1.0 could mean for me? Every update I start a new career mode, finish it and start a more difficult career. I (nearly) finish that one and loose interest in the game until next update. 1.0 suggests the next updates could be just maintenance... so it might not pull me back into the game. Having played out career on 1.0 means I'm done. I'd be back when we get close to 2.0. In short I'm happy with the state KSP is in right now, I don't care about a alpha, beta, released label. I would not call it a finished product yet, but if Squad wants to but promises to keep up the good work that's fine with me.

At \\127.0.0.1.\c$ you can download KSP. You can also upload a copy there. When the manual says to left click, is that my or their left?

I've deorbited one on top of KSC. But that was before recovering for cash etc. I'd expect you can recover the parts attached to the asteroid.

FYI So welcome to a Dutch guy from the Netherlands

In the 0.90 list of features, Kerbanaut experience appears to start playing a role. I applaud that as I would like to have some value added to my Kerbals. A training complex fits into the picture. I would shy away from "Essential" and use the word "beneficial" however.

First of all: I realize that this is something I would like to see. Maybe I'm alone in that but I honestly don't think so. The game I was playing fanatically before I installed KSP was XCOM enemy unknown, so that might explain the following a little bit... I'd really like to see some kind of progression in my Kerbonauts. I want to have to think about who I send on the next mission... maybe an experienced pilot and a fresh co pilot. Feel the pain when I loose an experienced mission specialist due to an unforeseen explosion. Gaining something by taking the effort to bring all my kerbals back from a mission on a far away moon instead of just one with the science reports. I already play KSP like that but it would be great to have something that validates it. Now there have been suggestions along these lines before. have Kerbal skill have an influence on rocket performance, science returns etc. I'm not 100% sure how to implement the effects of experience into the missions. I don't like the idea of random explosions, magical better fuel consumption rates and other things that work better when a computer does the work instead of a lump of biomass. In a lot of cases it's the player that does the piloting and it's the player that gains experience. I think the ones that make most sense are the science returns and possibly reputation. A minimum experience level (total of kerbals in the module/rocket) to operate certain modules (the lab, the bigger capsules, instruments etc.) In my mind this is the one major feature that is still missing in KSP. If squad can't/won't implement it... would there be a mod that can provide this?

download speed from steam 0 bytes/s. However I did see a counter strike zombies free to play... so I downloaded that instead.... Should kepe me busy while I wait for KSP update to download

The short answer: Everything is relative. So if you use mass as the deciding factor... how would that hold up in another solar system with a much larger or smaller star? Let's just call everything that orbits something a satellite.

What if ... our simulation/universe is as similar to the simulating universe as our world is similar to a game of Poker? (As in Poker being a universe with laws etc.) You don't even have the means to begin to describe the "real" universe from within the poker universe. Hence it is impossible for those inside the simulation to make any claims about the "real" universe. Perpetuum mobile for instance could be a everyday, common thing in the "real" universe even though our logic says it can't be based on the rules inside our simulation. Even what we call magic, could be a real thing with mana as it's underlying resource etc. In that case, the extremely high power computer needed might be quite easy to construct. Some questions: - What constitutes a universe... is KSP a universe? is GTA a universe? is Poker a universe? What defines what is and isn't a universe? - Does simulation imply it resembles the real world? or can you simulate something that is completely made up (or with a very limited amount of reality) (Is world of warcraft a simulation? or does it have to be something like Flightsim?) and the big question.... What if I was able to prove that we are all inside a simulation and we ourselves are in fact simulated? What does that change? Are you going to go on strike, demand the "user" installs mechjeb to make your life easier? Or perhaps change certain parameters? Do you think you can Neo yourself outside of the simulation and make the changes yourself? Maybe we should setup a simulation, let some sentient being evolve and then show them it's a simulation and see how they react?

This is basically the computer simulation variant of the head in a jar idea. How do you know you are not just a head in a jar hooked up to a computer simulating all sensory input? There is no way of proving this is or is not the case. If you want to simulate every single particle in the universe you need some big computer. However just as with KSP, you only need to simulate in detail where you are looking at. (No need to simulate the sound of a falling tree if there is nobody to hear it.) We know that observing something does impact what we are observing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat) We know simulated universes exist. KSP is one of them. We can have a simulated universe inside a simulated universe. If fact we do have several games that incorporate mini games the character inside the game can play. Playing cards inside GTA for example. If our universe is a simulation, that means that all our laws of physics are made up. "Reality" could be something completely different our simulated brains can't even begin to comprehend. So trying to apply any of our logic to it would be cute/hilarious to the observer. And mind you the simulated universe we are in could be full of errors. (They left out the Brojinacs in this simuulation for example, can you image that an entire universe without a single one of them?) A lot of stuff isn't implemented yet. (that's why so much tastes like chicken) and sometimes the whole thing crashes and has to be restarted from the last save. (Which is called Déjàvu in French.)

I've captured an E type and landed it on the science station at KSC. Attach rocket with lots of SAS. When fuel is spend, ditch the tank and engine but keep the SAS part attached. Repeat as often as needed. For extra power also use RCS. First prio should be to get it into orbit. Then you can start working on decreasing the orbit and adjusting the inclination. If you want to land it.... attach small modules that are basically just a bunch of parachutes. You can bring up a lot of these modeles on one ship that then launches them one by one at the astroid. (use the small seperation rockets. reduce the fuel load and output, so it's like a homing missile that you can shoot at the astroid. Or make small ships.) Then try to deorbit and open the parachutes at the right time.

That's the ultimate goal, a fully selfsustaining colony outside of earth. So if something bad happens on earth, we as a species would survive. Possibly even recolonize earth at some point. But.... we don't even have something like that on earth itself. Even the most isolated tribes of indians in the amazonian jungle are still in possesion of items that came from outside. If there would be no more incomming supply runs from earth, any base you'd be able to build in our life time would at some point fall apart. Mars has the most gravity. 38% of what we are used to as compared to the 17% on the moon. Now if you are not planning to ever visit earth again, either one might be fine though. With only 17% strapping some pieces of cardboard to your arms might allow you to fly inside a habitat dome.

Jeb decided to bring back a sample for the science guys. (They won't be asking him to do that for a long time I'm sure) That's 84 parachutes

Or like the original Elite game manual states: Anyone that can't dock to a space station without a docking computer doesn't belong in space. (Need to go home to look up the exact quote but that was the general message.) And now I must go and checkout this revamped version of it.

Sovjets used mechjeb for docking with MIR too? You might want to raise a bug against mechjeb then.

It's a sandbox game (atleast at the moment) even the carreer mode is very open ended. You play as you like and you set your own challanges. If it's too easy you should set more ambitous goals. If it's too hard you should lower your standards. The only limit is your imagination. Having said that, there are plenty of things that could/should be implemented in the future, stuff like contracts/missions, money/budget, training/experience for your Kerbals, finger painting your rockets etc.

Ok so I only need to check that the moon is still in orbit every 4 days to have an advanced warning that it's comming down. Thanks! that will save me some time.

Looking at the chart.... Eating 1 banana... is 2 the dose of sleeping next to someone. I don't eat banana's... hence I need to buy a bigger bed... right?

My son makes crayon drawings of rockets and space stations and asks me to build it in KSP.

Not just props such as blasters, control sticks etc. But also sound effects. Maybe the Buck Rogers earth should be what the galactica found in the end... I'd watch that.

more than one location = rover, not base. Temperature and seismic activity over time makes sense as valuable data, but that can be done with a (small) probe. A (manned) base would be required if you are doing something there that takes a lot of time and room. Having your crew sit around for a year to wait for a launch window for the trip back, mining for resources in significant amounts, a permanent military presence because the other guy is also doing that. Of these items the need for life support to keep a group of people alive and well for a longer period of time seems to make the most sense to me but Kerbals have no such requirements at the moment. So that leaves mining for resources (either as fuel for the trip back home or for profit.) For the fuel part there already is a popular mod. Making a profit from mining would be tricky in real life and currently in KSP everything is free. But yeah, after building several bases on Mun, Duna and Dress, it would be nice if there was a reason to do so. My bases on Duna and Dress had one functional reason and that was that each part contained a little bit of fuel. So in the end all that fuel was used to refeul the rocket for the return trip. But I could have solved that more efficiently than with a huge base.

lol rage quitting KSP.... I take a break when I don't have any creative ideas and sometimes my missions almost feel like work. At the moment I'm retrieving 3 kerbals in orbit around Jool, the entire mission is not that special, but I feel I should bring them back. The science returns should max out that specific career game. The only part that makes it remotely interesting is that the ship orbitting Jool is huge and I'm over enginering the pickup ship. I could also try to refuel the ship orbitting, but that would mean several missions just to haul the fuel. I've postponed doing this for 2 weeks orso, played something else for a while. The the past few days I've been working on this. After completing the mission I think I'm gonna build something... maybe a huge space station. Or one of those ships I've seen pictures of that resemble a ship from a movie or something. (It doesn't have to actually resemble a movie, just look like a scifi spaceship instead of something NASA could have build last week) At some point I will probably quit playing KSP just like any other game, but like some of the other good old games, I will probably revisit it years later, see if I can still get it to run etc. Or start playing the remake of that game I loved to play in 2013/2014.

Evolution as described here is obsolete/irrelevant for humans. Ever since we developed "culture". It's our culture that evolves. Having language, books and now the internet, our cultures evolve faster and faster. Cross "breeding", assimilation etc, between the cultures is extreemly common (even though the news reports often suggests it's not.) A better word for it than evolution might be revolution. Any physical type of evolution is so slow in comparison that it has become completely irrelevant. Our last significant physical change was I believe the ability to drink cow milk (and that's not entirely completed yet) Next change will probably be more resilent to pollution either chemical or radiation.

How do we even feel about letting them use Mars instead? We might not be using it right now, but in our future, we might want that for our selves. It would be a shame to find Mars to be stripped of it's resoruces and over populated with aliens. I don't think we can stop them, but if they ask, we should decline. However politicians usually don't have a vision longer than their own term. So we'd sell them Mars.

If you embark on such a long voyage... I'd assume you have terraforming capabilities. (Big risk that climates etc. change and the planet you set out for is not what you expected it to be.) Mars could be a viable alternative for them. They wouldn't even need to ask, it would be hard for us to prevent it and trying would just inviting trouble. They might not be armed right now, but start messing with them and they will make it a priority. Looking at us they probably will make it a priority anyway. But looking at the time scale of things happening in the universe... any other intelligent life form we encounter would either be far superiour to us or far less developed. In either case there would be little to trade that would be benificial to both parties.