Vallius

Evacuating all Kerbals Underground Updating kOS software Compressing Space Removing Clouds Aligning Planets Developing new heat shield from Mun data. Suiting up Walt Kerman. Disassembling launch tower.

Why should it be? Hitting water from more than about 70 feet up (~21 m) is about the same as hitting concrete, but has no trouble swallowing up large spacecraft. I was about to make an argument about how impractical it would be for Squad to implement mechanics that only apply to 2 or 3 planetary bodies--but then I remembered air breathing engines.

I speculate (and have no proof whatsoever that this is the case), that they'll release on or before May 4th or 5th.

SpaceX actually had 3 failed launches in a row before they got their first satellite into space. The Antares succeeded in its first four launches. Orbital ATK would be a good partner because they build most of NASA's solid rocket motors.

Better buy it now. I'm sure the price will go up when 1.0 is released, and that's only a few weeks away at most! Maybe it'll go on sale before then, but I wouldn't could on it.

The game could use some second stage SRMs. Believe it or not, they are much more common than people realize.

I shall call it, the U-1ST (United 1 Space Transport). It'll be pronounced "You First". As that's the name that Bill and Bob would vote on for it. Naturally Jeb will be piloting.

They ought to get a voice actor for one of their trailers, like Kevin Brighting (from the Stanley Parable). To me, the overall tone of the game has always felt closer to "Hitch-hikers Guide to the Galaxy" than NASA and the Apollo program. This is the story of a world called Kerbin. There lived the Kerbals who all apparently lived underground except for some big buildings. The only job of the Kerbals was to push buttons, and carry out the orders of their Space Agency Administrator. Although the Kerbals proved themselves to be capable engineers and scientists, their choice in leaders was shockingly lacking.... Because, somehow in their infinite wisdom, they choose the world's must uniquely unqualified individual to help them stumble out into the abyss of space. You.... Oh dear, SQUAD help us all! --er, I mean... Good luck! *mutters* "You're gonna need it."

What is KSP trying to be? I suppose Harvestar would say, "Fun!" I consider it a simulation game. It handles orbital mechanics (and soon other physics) fairly realistically, but was never meant to be hardcore. The game side, where we have the space center, science mode and career mode, make for a fun and quirky game. As I see people get upset about the weirdness of science and career mode, I guess I just don't see what they're after. The unspoken question that people seem to be answering is, "What do you think KSP should be?" Is it logical to use planetary science to get better rocket parts? Not particularly, but it gives players an incentive to explore beyond "just because", which you have anyway in sandbox. * As a caveat, parts in research should really be organized by type and/or general purpose (i.e. landing gear should be available Day 1, and grouped with space-plane wings and engines). Are a lot of the career mode contracts silly and unreasonably restrictive? Certainly, but I think the purpose is to give players opportunities to try new ways of building rockets and space planes. I just enjoy this game, not because it's super realistic or even very logical. (Seriously, the kerbals are brilliant engineers, but they had the insane idea of putting me in charge of their space program? I enjoy the challenges, and I shake my head sadly every time I kill Bill on the moon (Poor Bill). * I agree that strategies aren't very well thought out, and what the heck am I supposed to do with reputation? Why not make it so that your reputation affects the quality of kerbal astronauts you can hire, or be a required currency to upgrade your space center? KSP is by no means a perfect simulator, and not every game mechanic is sensible--but in my mind it is still among the greatest games ever created. It inspired me to pursue (and achieve) my dream of becoming a real-life rocket scientist! How many video games can claim to inspire people in good ways like that?

Unity Code--And magic,of course. Some noted Kerbal theorists claim that it's really the result of strange quantum entanglement, but that's the same thing.

"Gold Edition" is generally reserved for games after the developer is done working on it and all expansions. KSP is approaching 1.0, but AFAIK squad is still planning on 1.1 and 1.2 updates (before they officially do expansion packs).

I'd like that. Tiny text takes a lot of fun out of trying to play KSP on the big screen.

The full release should be, "Kerbal Space Program". No more, no less for the full release.

Actually, I think Kerbal will get great reviews, so long as SQUAD avoids major bugs. I think they'll succeed there, based on how they've done in the last few releases. For me to consider it 1.0, I reiterate the need for fixed aerodynamics. I really hope they add some sort of clouds in 1.1 or 1.2 though. It's a minor touch which (with Astronomer's Visual Pack, for example) do wonders for the game's overall appearance.

Unlike most games, I feel like I've accomplished something worthwhile. I'm even more impressed when I make a spaceplane work (at all) in stock.

Here's my recommendations for prioritizing features for 1.0. Let form follow function, as they always say. 1. Aerospace (and by extension, fairings). This will cause, by far, the largest and most important game-play change, and should not be significantly altered after 1.0. 2. Tech Tree Revision. It doesn't need to be perfect, but this determines the overall progression of the game. New players need to have a semi-logical progression of technology. 3. Part Balance. New aerodynamics will greatly change the way most parts work, so this should be high on the list. 4. Early Career Mode needs to be more forgiving for new players Useful but not critical to 1.0: Improved aircraft design tools, Engineers Report. Reentry Heat, Bigger spaceplane parts Pure Gravy: Female Kerbals, ISRU Parts, interiors for all crafts.

Sometimes I take inspiration from mythology. More often I use a naming scheme based on pure, unadulterated whim. It's hard for every name to be as epic as "Odyssey" or "Prometheus" after all.

Every single time I need to choose a pilot for a spaceplane design, I ask myself, "Now who could I most afford to lose?"

They're extremely handy for docking and landing on other bodies. The Vernier engines are meant for bigger spacecraft (I've usually only use them in the first 3 stages or so for Apollo-like missions).

Since career mode came to include money, it changed my play style significantly in the early game. Now I always say, "I'm a miser with my launch money." (When 1.0 comes out, I'll almost certainly go back to my science save so I can relearn how to play this game.)

Maybe SQUAD could use the part icons we see in the VAB/SPH for this purpose? I suspect that this would increase the load time for mission control significantly, but I'd consider it worth the wait. Heck, they could even use the parts as they are presented in the Science lab. (It's been a while since I played, do they respond to a mouse like the VAB parts, or just as static pictures?)

Make some iteration of Astronomers Visual Pack stock (or at least add clouds to bodies with atmosphere). I can live without actual weather, but this little change makes a huge impact on the game visually.

Gosh, how can I answer. Most of these answers are correct, and none of those statements excludes the others. I wouldn't go as far as to call it a true spaceflight simulator (although 1.0 is certainly a lot closer in that direction. We do explore planets and moons (sort of--unless you're on Kerbin or close to an easter egg, there's not all that much to see). We definitely assemble and design our own crafts (you really should have added "pilot" to that one). You can learn some orbital mechanics from Kerbal, but I had to go to the community to really learn how to fly. We manage a space agency a little bit, but the real focus is designing cool stuff and moving it through the Kerbol system.

Speaking for myself, I'm less active these days, not because I think any less of KSP, but because 1.0 will cause a lot of fundamental changes to my play style (The fact that I'm now splitting time between a real rocket science job and finishing my thesis is entirely coincidental). I want to like spaceplanes, I really do, but until 1.0, they're Difficult, Expensive and Deadly (or DED) to me. The forum is probably less active because there's less motivation to push the limits of KSP with such huge changes in the pipeline. Other than chipping in my 2 Funds on the direction of development, to try to influence 1.0, I don't really want to invest lots of hours in trying big missions. I guess I'm afraid of getting burned out on the start-up phase of a new save.

Yeah, pretty much. Let's just hope my real-life designs are more successful than my Kerbal ones.