KSP 1.0 General Thread + All the new features

[Wjolcz]

A Tweet from Max shows Valentina riding a "Rocket" in an external seat. Would that be considered confirmed external seat launches?

Probably not because theres a capsule there. She came out of it.

[Rus-Evo]

I hope we get a surprise or two..... things not promoted by the devs...... like an extra planet or something!

[basic.syntax]

A Tweet from Max shows Valentina riding a "Rocket" in an external seat. Would that be considered confirmed external seat launches?

External seat launches turn out to be a bad idea:

[smjjames]

External seat launches turn out to be a bad idea:

[dryer_lint]

Well, when being rammed through the atmosphere by SRBs, yes. Lower speeds that don't result in atmospheric heating should be ok.

I'm hoping Ferram decides to surprise us all by releasing a new mod... which reverts the aerodynamics to the old system

[smjjames]

I'm hoping Ferram decides to surprise us all by releasing a new mod... which reverts the aerodynamics to the old system

Which one, FAR or the soupisphere?

SRBs will still ram you through the atmosphere in FAR.

[Alshain]

I'm hoping Ferram decides to surprise us all by releasing a new mod... which reverts the aerodynamics to the old system

Lol, someone might try that but I can promise you it won't be ferram4.

[Daze]

I'm hoping Ferram decides to surprise us all by releasing a new mod... which reverts the aerodynamics to the old system

Squad has said that it would be possibile with setting to revert to souposhere in order to help modders

[Red Iron Crown]

Squad has said that it would be possibile with setting to revert to souposhere in order to help modders

Not exactly. They've said the new aero model can be turned off, meaning none of the new stock model's calculations would be done. This is in contrast to the current stock model which still runs even when a mod like FAR is installed, the results are just ignored. This is important because the new model is likely more computationally expensive. There's no indication the current model will be an option at all.

[stevehead]

I'm keeping my fingers crossed for a much better career mode and science. I love Kerbal Space Program and I applaud the hard work everyone over at Squad has done to make this game possible, but the current career mode and science implementations are poor:

1) Science experiments need to be more involved and fun. Perfect examples are the impactor experiment from KSP Interstellar and setting up orbital research experiments that must be returned to Kerbin in Station Science.

2) Science should not be a currency to be spent, but a level of how technologically progressed your space program is. Also when parts are unlocked should not be determined by how large or expensive the parts are, but based on what technologies you have researched (the most powerful single-nozzle LF engine, the Rocketdyne F-1, was not invented in recent years but in the 1950s!); if I want to build large rockets early on and I have the basic technologies unlocked and required funds, I should be able to build it. I would have liked science to work as follows:

a. For every experiment you conduct, you gain Science XP. Once you gain enough Science XP, you gain a Science Level.

b. The individual tech tree nodes do not all directly unlock parts, but are technology concepts that can be unlocked through funded research (but may have pre-requisite unlocks and minimum Science Level) that may or may not have parts unlocked through them. Examples (basic brainstorming): Liquid Fuel Science (unlocks all Liquid Fuel Engines and Tanks of all sizes, but with initially reduced efficiency), Liquid Fuel Efficiency (requires Liquid Fuel Science and a science level of 10, allows LF engines to have slightly better Isp; this could have multiple levels of unlocks), Lighter Metal Alloys (requires a science level of 5, the dry mass of your fuel tanks is lower).

c. Any effiency upgrades above would be toggleable in the VAB. This would allow you to keep your saved spacecrafts/launchers exactly the same. Upgrading would be as simple as loading the spacecraft, individually upgrading the parts through tweakables, or have an upgrade all button. Obviously the upgrades would not effect pre-existing spacecraft.

3) Limit how quickly science can be gained. It's ridiculous that you can currently unlock the entire tech tree before a Duna/Eve launch window occurs and without ever leaving Kerbin's SOI.

4) Current career mode does not feel like I'm actually running a Space Program. The player should dictate the direction of the Space Program, not contracts. The player should be able to select and plan main mission objectives: focus on probe exploration of the solar system, setting up a Kerbin space station that would unlock further objectives once completed, setting up a communications satellite constellation, manned exploration of the Mun/Minmus, etc. Keep the random survey/satellite contracts for the companies as a way to make extra funds on the side.

5) Most of your funds should come from a budget that increases/decreases based on your reputation. Very low reputation would cause you to lose funds (maintenance costs of running the program are more than what you gain). To prevent the player from just time-warping for long periods of time to "cheat" in funds, have gradual reputation losses over time. These gradual losses would easily be offset by completing mission objectives and contracts.

Edited April 17, 2015 by stevehead

[EtherDragon]

Uhm - thread asplode:

Add all the confirmed things from The Squadcast

[r4pt0r]

#Fixthefairings

[The Yellow Dart]

Just so I know, have they ever mentioned fixing parachute clipping?

I only mention this because I heard them mention 2 or 3 times recently that they fixed a clipping problem with the flag plant animation, like clipping is a terrible thing (and it is pretty ugly) and that that example was unbearable/had to be fixed, yet I have never hear a peep about the worst, thus far untouched clipping issue in the game: radial parachutes. There is no good way around it, at least with stock.

If you want to have a docking port on top (which is most of the time), you are forced to use 2 radial parachutes, but you can never get them far enough apart to prevent the opened chutes from clipping each other. Could they give them some kind of over-sized collider, so that they bump into each other and spread out when deployed, making it look vaguely realistic? Is there any other way they could fix it easily? That problem has always been something that made me say "it's still in development. it's still in development" over and over to myself as I play.

[HafCoJoe]

Just so I know, have they ever mentioned fixing parachute clipping?

I only mention this because I heard them mention 2 or 3 times recently that they fixed a clipping problem with the flag plant animation, like clipping is a terrible thing (and it is pretty ugly) and that that example was unbearable/had to be fixed, yet I have never hear a peep about the worst, thus far untouched clipping issue in the game: radial parachutes. There is no good way around it, at least with stock.

If you want to have a docking port on top (which is most of the time), you are forced to use 2 radial parachutes, but you can never get them far enough apart to prevent the opened chutes from clipping each other. Could they give them some kind of over-sized collider, so that they bump into each other and spread out when deployed, making it look vaguely realistic? Is there any other way they could fix it easily? That problem has always been something that made me say "it's still in development. it's still in development" over and over to myself as I play.

Hmm... that's been a thing bugging my mind for a while. I hope it's fixed before the final release at least. And maybe possibly at the same time being able to use parachutes on the ground (A.K.A. realchute)

[Majorjim!]

Just so I know, have they ever mentioned fixing parachute clipping?

I only mention this because I heard them mention 2 or 3 times recently that they fixed a clipping problem with the flag plant animation, like clipping is a terrible thing (and it is pretty ugly) and that that example was unbearable/had to be fixed, yet I have never hear a peep about the worst, thus far untouched clipping issue in the game: radial parachutes. There is no good way around it, at least with stock.

If you want to have a docking port on top (which is most of the time), you are forced to use 2 radial parachutes, but you can never get them far enough apart to prevent the opened chutes from clipping each other. Could they give them some kind of over-sized collider, so that they bump into each other and spread out when deployed, making it look vaguely realistic? Is there any other way they could fix it easily? That problem has always been something that made me say "it's still in development. it's still in development" over and over to myself as I play.

Well there is a mod that does that. Made by a single person so yes its entirely possible.

- - - Updated - - -

#Fixthefairings

T H I S

[Mister Dilsby]

Aha, the whole ROUND-8 thing was just to distract us from their REAL purpose, giving us crappy fairing separation!

...well, it worked on me. I too would prefer two-piece separation but I'm not ready to blow up the forum over it. The Great ROUND-8 Revolt was over a functional part; this is over the nature of a cloud of non-persistent debris. I'll put this in the category of "gee I really wish the cargo bay doors wouldn't clip through my wings when they open" and play on.

[Superfluous J]

Yeah the fairings coming off in pieces is just not important to me. In fact it may end up looking pretty cool with them symmetrically flying off in a kind of sphere.

[Red Iron Crown]

Yeah the fairings coming off in pieces is just not important to me. In fact it may end up looking pretty cool with them symmetrically flying off in a kind of sphere.

I suspect the stock warfare crowd will make fragmentation bombs.

[Guest]

I suspect the stock warfare crowd will make fragmentation bombs.

You have just given me an idea....

[ItsAPotato!]

To Update: I believe it was mentioned in the Squadcast last night that the fairings would NOT be procedural

[Daze]

To Update: I believe it was mentioned in the Squadcast last night that the fairings would NOT be procedural

But they are...

[Nemrav]

I think it would be in reference to "not like the procedural fairings mod", they previously said they were procedural out of necessity. they simply won't function as the current mod does it...

[magnemoe]

To Update: I believe it was mentioned in the Squadcast last night that the fairings would NOT be procedural

However if you look at the faring separation picture one feature does not look like fixed fairing modules like KW or novapunch fairings.

You see an bottom segment, then two segments who looks pretty much the same except that the upper is a bit shorter and has yellow inside. Why use two different parts here?

Also if using fixed parts they can look at the KW and Novapunch code for how to do separation

Instead I think they generate fairing parts after you draw the fairing as shown earlier. 3rd faring has the same yellow inside as the top one as its has some tapering.

If this is true you will also only get 6 parts on separation if you use an straight faring who tapper out at bottom and is pointy at top, you might also get an separate nosecone.

[Warlord]

This sounds awesome but could you make landing gear adjustable soon?

[Superfluous J]

http://i.imgur.com/c4Jub1i.jpg

You see an bottom segment, then two segments who looks pretty much the same except that the upper is a bit shorter and has yellow inside. Why use two different parts here?

I don't think they're separate parts. I think they have a very tall texture and are using different parts of said texture. note the top "yellow" piece has evidence at its top of repeating the same pattern that the bottom pieces have.