Apollo91

Hey all. I'm an OG from 0.13, bought the game after 0.15 came out in July of 2013. So, I can't transfer my game to steam. I currently have the base game plus making history. I really want to give breaking ground a go and am excited to spend the money on it, BUT Can I buy the expansion on steam, and use it despite having the base game and making history through the KSP store? So many features have steam integration (especially making history) and I'd love to be able to do the things that integration makes possible, most notably playing peoples missions. Just wondering guys. Also this is my first post in a while, if this in the wrong place take it easy on me

I always like it when KSP shows up in an unexpected place, and I've seen Kerbal coverage shared here a couple times. So when I saw a KSP article on The Mittani in the middle of all the Goon war coverage, I thought I'd share it for other KSP peeps to check out! https://www.themittani.com/news/ksp-11-and-switch-unity-v-imminent Interesting thing here for those that don't follow EVE: EVE is an MMO where wars can cause a lot of permanent destruction, and there is a HUGE one going on right now - so its pretty cool that in the middle of a very busy news cycle, another gaming community takes the time to share some KSP news! What other places have you seen KSP news shared recently? I'm curious to see how far the 1.1 buzz goes!

While it's true that launchers and craft will not perform the same, the big deal is in two places - kerbals and infrastructure. I've been planning for isru my whole .90 save. I want the benefit of that infrastructure - it is after all just tanks. And my tugs will still tug, even if the twr and dv values change slightly. I think getting the kerbals over shouldn't be too hard, I'll have to manually add some stuff to the persistent.sfs to make them match the new format but other than that they should be alright. I'll probably lose my research history and contract history but I don't really care. I might also start mostly over, just copy the kerbals and "respec" myself an amount of funds and science equivalent to amounts spent on research and upgrades plus my current purse. TL;DR even a partial transfer is better than none at all.

I'm hoping to bring everything over. It shouldn't be too hard to start a new save, and edit the ships and kerbals into it by hand. I've already identified a few potential pitfalls in doing so and thought of solutions.

I sure do hope I'm not too late for this party. Anyoo, to me personally I would say bugfixing is an absolute must, but I have to wave a red flag here about resoures. Everyone seems to think that it isn't important, but of all the features on the table at the moment, only the aero refinements rival that. Without ISRU, Engineers are near useless. Without ISRU, interplanetary travel is not indicative of the modes being proposed by ACTUAL interplanetary missions (mainly recent Lockheed and SPaceX proposals.) Without ISRU, space stations have VERY limited value. ISRU is also the big goal after mastery of the solar system. What do you do after you land on Laythe? Once you've experimented and planted your flag, Duna is useless. Everyone thinks, naturally, "Live and work there, in some way that benefits my future goals" - like pulling fuel out of the ground. Without ISRU there is no 1.0 for me, not when this is a part of the product that has been pushed since a .jpeg was released a long, long time ago. I'm actually somewhat astounded that everyone else in the community is so uncaring about this feature when it ties so many parts of late-game career progression together. TL;DR ISRU is a must. I would sacrifice aero for it. And I believe strongly that a .99 update before 1.0 is a great idea. Don't worry about giving us your bugs, Squad. Us EA folks paid for them - we want to help!

I'm one of those people who loves to play games with permadeath. So, obviously, I have quicksave\quickload off on my career save, and I play with all the "hardcore" houserules, such as no "simulations" in sandbox and no debug. But this is the first time I've ever actually lost a Kerbal I really cared about. I already lost Bob on the far side of the moon, underestimating how much fuel it would take to land. Jeb's death though, smacks even harder of hubris. He was my pilot for the first trip to Minmus. I had a contract to do some EVA work in addition to the general exploration contract, and my rocket had performed unexpectedly well - so well, in fact, that my transfer stage was still half full on landing. So instead of dumping it, I landed a while from the EVA site on the engine, figuring I would just jetpack myself to the top of the cliff. Back in (0.16? 0.17? Not sure, whenever EVA and Minmus first existed together) I used to jetpack people 15km a hop, and I got pretty good at it. So I thought I would do just fine. Immediately I figured out something was wrong. First, EVA zones are really small, and I was doing a lot of hunting around on my way down trying to stay in the zone. When I landed, I had 2.10 mono left in the jetpack. I was sweating at this point - I was 16km away from my ship - farther than I thought I would be. I was cursing myself silently - there were "above such altitude" hovers on the contract as well, and I could have done those first and burnt that transfer stage. Had I done this, I could have landed on the landing legs, which could probably handle the incline on top of the cliff in question, which probably would have been no more than an 800m hop to the EVA site. Why did I push so hard? As I lined up Jeb to the 16km marker, I let the question drop and assured myself that it didn't matter if I had used more than half the fuel; I would be more efficient on the way back because I wouldn't have to hunt around, I had a clear target. So I started the hop. I almost thought I had it, until I started the landing phase. I ran out of fuel at 600m. As Jeb fell I flailed for solutions - put him on his helmet! - but not, there's no fuel - and was left with nothing to do but watch as he fell to become one with the dust of Minmus. So, today, I am trying to recruit some candidates to replace Jeb. I figure I'll do this by loading up my Kerbin exploration airplane - small, high performance, very Kerbal safety! (ie you die in it.) No Kerbal seems up to it, they all freak out, all the time. So my question to the forum is - have you killed your Jeb in a no-quickload game? And what's it like carrying on without him? Are there other Kerbals who can approach his level of fearlessness? Has anyone figured out what combination of courageous\stupid makes a Kerbal fearless? I fear many KIA's in the quest to find out for myself :\

The title says most of it. In all my previous installs of KSP, I gave the program full permissions. I very rarely run KSP from the program files directory - in fact, I haven't since about .19 or so. Usually, when given permissions, the saves generate in the proper place (the"saves" folder) and the ships in their respective folders. Then, I ran into a problem. I ran 23.5 without permissions. Everything saved just fine. Then I ran it WITH permissions. Some very strange things happened. It seems when you run things one way, then another, things get confused, and had elements of both save files. Not necessarily a bug report, but pertinent to the task at hand. When I DL'ed .90 (direct from Squad, no steam) I decided to stick with no permissions. Everything ran fine, saves saved and loaded. I have since upgraded my computer to Windows 8, on a new hard drive (new motherboard, the works). My old hard drive is now my E: . The problem is, when I look at the saves folders and ship folders, they are empty! Without permissions, KSP must have used some sort of temporary folder for saves (they worked, after all) but the folders themselves are bare. Does anyone know where Windows shoves my save files when KSP doesn't have admin permissions? I would very much like to play my career save with my upgraded equipment and can't until I track that file down.

I leave W\S as they are for aircraft, but I make W up and S down, Lshift fowrard and ctrl backward in EVA. I don't know why, but that seems more natural.

I feel like the only one that doesn't know what the "decoupler bug" is. Can someone send me some knowledge? Also, I have a relatively low end computer, 4ghz dual-core in an AMD3 socket with 4gb ddr2 ram, with a Geforce FX 550 TI plugged into it (thank goodness my GPU is backwards compatible with PCI\Ex x16 ) and x64 is running like a whole new world. Framerates I haven't seen before, even though I've bumped the settings up. Haven't really gotten into the large-part-count territory just yet but I'm seeing massive improvements already. People on the forums seem convinced that if you have a low-end computer and don't use enough mod to hit memory limits there are no positives to running x64 but my experience, whatever their technical genesis, is the exact opposite.

I remapped to the arrow keys, that way I can still use the translational controls if I need to. haven't had to yet, but its KSP so you never know.

I agree with everyone on the lack of a "satellite" mission type. That was what I thought the bread-and-butter of the contract system would be, and the lack of it just makes the whole seem thing off. I would very much like to see a mission that says "build a satellite with XY components and put it in orbit AxY inclination Z around planet P for T length of time." But what would be really awesome is if the contracts were smart enough to build on themselves - say, after you put the satellite on its orbit, if it had science equipment the contract engine would automatically use the science equipment at regular intervals, and automatically generate a mission to the satellite to rearm them. This would be easy to do, though it would require a flag on the ship in the code as "that missions ship" or some way to "forfeit" a ship to a contract. This would be cool because it would be that "service the satellite" mission type many in this thread are asking for, without the break in immersion that spawning random satellites\stations would create. A similar thing would be to have the satellite require X amount of communication bandwidth, and have the satellite be visited periodically to refill it's procedurally-emptied fuel tanks (which were a requirement of the original place-the-communications-satellite contract.) Lots of possibilities here - with no random spawning. I hate that about the rescue kerbal contracts... I would also like better exploration contracts. Namely, not having flag placement be the contract trigger. That's great for a first-steps situation but afterwards doesn't work. What would be better was if you could spawn a mission Kerbal that the contract tracks, and say "bring tourist X to planet Y and have him take steps on the surface." This would not only emulate the space tourism industry, but would be a convenient way to make sure that a transportation system was used to travel to that planet again - and what a win for those reusable guys, eh? And lastly, atm it seems that when you unlock a science tier, you get to unlock all the parts for free, without paying any funds. Maybe I'm not noticing the funds get subtracted and it's doing it automatically but that is very disappointing. I would definitely like those unlocks to cost funds, that way you need science and funds to unlock parts. Also, their listed unlock prices should be raised.

Also, keep in mind that the LVT-30 is a starter engine. Later engines, the ARM engines especially, might be a lot more expensive; but the fuel is going to stay the same price. Also, the update hasn't dropped yet - for a reason! They might very well be hotly debating this very thing over pizza later today.

Actually, I just ran the numbers and it's even worse. The FLT 200 costs 425, holds 90 fuel and 110 oxidizer. From the video we know that each unit of fuel is valued at .8, and each unit of oxidizer is valued at 0.18. This means that each fuel tank costs (425-{(90*0.8)+(110*0.18)})= 149.6 empty, with 275.4 funds ate up in fuel. Since the tank is returned for 266.56, and the fuel in the tank is worth 275.4 on its own, that means a full tank will return about 541.6 funds. I thought maybe that the price of fuel wasn't included in the price of the tank; but upon adding all the costs of the individual parts together I did get the 3147 funds the rocket said it cost in the VAB, so fueling isn't an extra expense. Most likely this will get fixed when this gets pointed out, and the devs will make the return 80% of the EMPTY value of the tank. Indeed, the cost in the VAB should be the empty cost as well, and the fueling cost should be separate; after all tweakables mean that that tank won't always be full so why should I pay for a full load of fuel? This all means that the 3 FLT200 tanks that were on that ship were carrying 826.2 value in fuel - about what the engine cost, yes. But the total rocket cost 3147, of which 826.2 is just about 26.2% or so. Yeah, that's a lot higher than SpaceX, but considering the fact that both tanks and engines in KSP are overweight in comparison to their real-world counterparts and not as effective, that's pretty much to be expected. The really interesting thing about this is that the 80% return on recovered vessel parts will finally, finally, give practical gameplay value to those returnable-spaceplane-with-screwy-engineered-refueling-truck guys. It's about time the devs threw them a bone considering how hard they work to make those crazy contraptions\infrastructure work, especially in stock . Might have to build something along those lines myself, now...

I'll have to watch the video again, it looked like everything was returning 100% when I watched it.

I think .24 is going to kick that up for all of us. I built a huge ship once, but by the time I built it I was so burnt out I never sent it anywhere (and a new version came out requiring a new save). Now with funds, there's actually a reason to build a freighter and just clip a bunch of landers to it, and run fuel all over the place. It will be a lot cheaper that way, to just have a ship dedicated to making runs between stations in high planetary orbits. That way, each time you get back to Kerbin, you can land a bunch of landers (and get their science\contracts), launch a bunch of landers on cheap rockets\spaceplanes, clip em on the freighter and send it out to whatever planet you just spammed contracts for. I'm geeked for how much .24 will change gameplay in this regard specifically. EDIT ninja'd