Claw

Thanks for the point out about the typo guys, but there's no need to pull the thread off topic to a prohibited topic. Thanks, ~Claw

Yes indeed...sorry to say. Official word will appear when official word appears. Otherwise all we can do is wait for Soon to arrive. Cheers, ~Claw

Hopefully you will be pleasantly surprised at how much easier it can be to build an SSTO plane with the SP+ parts.

As a note, it's also been recommended that you recover any space plane type craft that you have in flight before upgrading to 0.25. The space plane parts have undergone significant overhaul and you will likely find that most designs will need to be adjusted. ~Claw

This has been a hot topic lately, so in light of that...If people can keep the discussion on topic and relevant without degrading into demands, pure negativity, and/or personal attacks then it's fine. There's no need to discuss what angers you about what's been done or failed to be done if the topic of the thread is to discuss the virtues and characteristics of specific aerodynamic features. Personally with the introduction of difficulty settings, I've been moving toward the camp of having a checkbox for "simplified aerodynamics" vs. something more "fully featured." Casual gamers can work off a simplified construct that doesn't require in-depth knowledge of things like mach effects and maybe even aerodynamic shielding. While those who have mastered more of the game can up the challenge level a bit and give themselves more nuanced things to deal with. That sort of thing seems more in-line with the kerbal philosophy of slapping things together, and the general open-endedness feel of the game while still providing some progression. Cheers, ~Claw

Maybe something to keep in mind while we wait for aerodynamics is the fact that you can still use the cargo bay. Just because it doesn't fully hide things from atmospheric drag doesn't mean they're pointless to use. I also downloaded the SP+ parts to play with them. I'm one of those people who would build cargo bays out of stock parts just because I wanted to. It didn't do any practical good, and in fact only served to weigh down my craft. Plus there's all those new wing parts, which makes it a bit easier to build nicer wings. Some people still like the aesthetics, while others go for the highest "game allowed" performance. It's all up to you! I will certainly be making some space planes with them. And probably trying hard to think of ways to include them on interstellar ships for storing probes and science bits... Or maybe even on a lander to hide a kerbal rover in! Cheers, ~Claw

This is exactly what I do too, and what I always recommend to others.

It was thought impossible when balancing 0.24 that someone might run out of money, but after release people apparently found ways to really wring out their budgets. Primarily new players of course, but I could see if you never allow reverts and aren't particularly skilled pilot, then yeah. Also realize that Squad has been error-ing on the side of making things too easy or too much money before really balancing things, rather than making it aggravating for the new player. And will probably continue to do so as they add more content. Well, you don't have to go from one extreme to the other. I used to try to do every...single...contract. It did get really tedious and I felt extremely bogged down. Now I set my path, then look for contracts that go along on that path. If not, I might decline a few and see what else comes up. Or if I need a quick zap of cash or science for something, then find some similar contracts and launch a cheap and quick testing vessel. I'm not sure about incomplete contracts. I have that from time to time, but thus far I can usually chock it up to something I've done, so long as it's not the infamous staging problem (but I'm not using 64-bit either). ~Claw Edit: Life support definitely would be a game changer, but I think that's a whole 'nother topic.

One method is to copy your entire KSP folder somewhere else. That way steam does not have access to it at all. I don't use steam myself, but I'm sure there's a more elegant way to prevent an update. (Hopefully some steam user will be along soon.) Welcome to the forums! ~Claw

I think that's part of the idea, players can customize their own gameplay. Combined with the difficulty adjustments, a player can decide how hard this particular area of the game is or how they want to shape their career.

Well, I think that was part of the point with that suggestion. People were talking about the need for something more specific to prevent science farming from orbit. Having a couple of contracts spread across a few biomes would force someone to build a craft capable of hopping and collecting said science. If a player were simply offered a series of contracts to go to the same biome and collect multiple types of science, it might as well be a generic contract that says "Recover or transmit some science from place X." I do also see the fault with the "accept and decline" method also. Maybe if there was some way to package several types of contracts into a single series type contract like the "explore the Mun" concept.

You are indeed correct. He did say that here. However, he further had to clarify the timing here. ~Claw

I will also point you at this thread, it will help you with providing a bit more info: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/92230-Stock-Support-Bug-Reporting-Guide Is this on 64-bit? This problem sounds familiar, but I haven't been using the 64-bit version myself. ~Claw

That makes sense and hopefully it'll move that way now that the structure of contracts is in place. This would also create a lot more very specific contracts with the new biomes. Then maybe there could be a mix. "Recover or transmit a gravity scan from the surface of Duna's lowlands." Now you have an extremely specific science goal and location. With maybe the inclusion of other, more generic contracts such as "Recover or transmit science from Duna." Now you can pick which you would rather do. I think having just the specific example would limit the amount of science farming that can be done. However, if both types of contracts are available, people can still chose. Maybe that could even be tied to difficulty setting somehow. ~Claw

If you have any installed, you can also turn on some lights. The kerbals have some built into their space suits. While you might be too far to illuminate something with them, it might help you to spot the lights in the distance. Either that or wait till you are on the day side. I think the tags auto hide after you get close enough. I don't know if F4 brings them back at close range. Also, the markers on the nav ball can help out. Good luck, ~Claw

Just to clarify, the shielded cargo bays aren't final. I believe there was a statement that went out about them likely not being ready in 0.25. Cheers, ~Claw

While I agree with the open endedness, I also appreciate that some people need "motivation" to get out there and do stuff. That's part of why I like the idea of more biomes (as one example). Some people don't leave the Kerbin system because they WANT to build a ship that can hop around. Not for the sake of science, but for the fun and challenge of building a mission capable of hopping around or exploring a lot of areas. Without the "need" to biome hop on other places, there isn't really a need to leave the system. Nor a real need to drag a science lab along, etc. etc. For a person with an open sense of goal building, they don't need this "motivation," but for others it can make the game feel more expansive. Is it going to be a perfect addition for everyone? No. But it also doesn't cause any limits on those who "don't care." There are lots of reasons to have lots of different elements in this game. Personally I hope they continue on the track of a progression based "choose your own adventure" style of game play. Something like procedural planets or a scalable solar system would fit right in with that. At least for the moment in development, I like the idea of more biomes for what it adds and it can become. It continues to open up more game without closing off other parts. ~Claw

I was slow to read this because it includes mods that I don't use, however I think you might be running into a stock bug that's causing problems. Based on this, which I don't even think you were pointing at as a problem: So in some instances the game has a problem when detaching two controlled objects at a time off of a root parent. What I mean by that is that you are creating two new children with controlling parts (not just debris) off of some central piece. The game has a bug where it NullRefs back to one of the other parts (I'm not certain on the details). You can check if this is the problem by pulling up the debug log (ALT+F-2) while you stage off the side tanks. If you see a NullReference warning, then that's your problem. The fix is to decouple the parts one at a time. That will prevent the initial NullRef, and presumably prevent the other cascading problems. Hope that helps. ~Claw

True, by my response is aimed at "there's all ready too much low hanging science, we don't need more biomes" type of comments. If there's too much science or cash available, you can scale it. That's what I'm saying, not a universal "fix all." What you propose are also good ideas (failure modes). As is adding things like procedural planets. Personally I don't think simply scaling the planets changes the challenge any differently than scaling science, other than forcing people to build bigger rockets. (So now I have to grind longer on the planet to unlock bigger parts to get to orbit.) Yes, it definitely is a challenge to build bigger rockets, but I could say it falls in the same vein of "making it harder by adding some grindy-ness." An alternate view of limiting science means you'll have less technology to explore those harder to reach places. Creating challenge in this game is a difficult task, to ensure it fits in the openness while providing the same "do what I want" feel. Also, a particular change in difficult isn't going to necessarily be welcomed by all. There are a lot of really good ideas out there and unfortunately there isn't a magic bullet that will make everyone happy. More biomes isn't high up on my personal list, but I'm still excited to see how they come about. We might see more missions like the long term Laythe project. I'm also hopeful there might be some sort of scansat or ISA type satellite to scan the planets and locate biomes with. Cheers, ~Claw EDIT: Yeah, this too. I would also prefer this myself. That's why I more like the idea of procedurally generated (randomish) things. I prefer things to explore, build, and look for rather than "make it hard!" But again, that's what I would want but it might not suit everyone.

I agree. I like the open endedness of this game. Where I get to decide how I want my space program to progress. I think I like the contracts scheme for that reason. If I don't like a series of contracts, I don't have to take it. I don't know if a similar sequence of contracts would be included for new biomes, but if they were procedurally driven then the potential is much more open. Also, realize that difficulty settings are on the way. So you'll have even more control over how you want to challenge yourself. If there's too much science for your taste, you can scale it down. Now there's no need to "hold yourself back" as a means to keep it from being "too easy." That's the beauty of an open ended game. Personally I also think it makes much more sense at this point to make things "a little too easy to get" rather than error on the side of making it too hard. I think it's bad to have a situation where "most people can't do XXX because it's too hard." All that being said, gaming balance is definitely an important aspect. But on top of that, it's also hard to spend a lot of time to make it a good balance for the mass player when things get all jumbled with each update anyway. Cheers, ~Claw

Yeah, this is a kind-of well known problem although not really documented anywhere in particular (as you have said). There are 3 general ways this can happen: 1. Symmetry within symmetry - When you place symmetric parts on a parent, then grab that parent and make symmetric parts with it onto another parent. I do this a lot and it's not a problem if you're careful. 2. ALT+F-12 clipping in conjunction with symmetry. - This one is more dangerous. It can happen without symmetry, but it occurs much more often when symmetry on. 3. Use of Undo (Ctrl+Z). - I pretty much never use this because it's so unpredictably buggy. Based on how your craft looks, I'm guessing you made use of the ALT+F-12 clipping option. Debug clipping can be problematic and sometimes when clipping coupled with symmetry when you are applying things to one node. When removing parts and putting them back with these options enabled, sometimes phantom parts are created that don't appear attached to the craft (i.e. they are far away), but the are technically connected by the internal part structure. That's why you get floating engine pieces that are firing. Also, sometimes using undo while there's a part hovering off to the side can cause similar events where parts become reattached even though they are floating off to the side. Unfortunately, once this has happened it's a mess to clean up. And with phantom parts, you can't always be sure you got rid of them all. What I usually do if I'm going to make use of these kind of options is to save periodically with different craft names. Then you can use the load screen to let you know if something weird is happening. When you bring up the load screen, it tells you how many parts the thing has. If it's indicating a change of a lot more parts than what you actually added, then you might have a problem. With multiple versions, you can backtrack without losing too much ground. If I do make use of option #2, I will turn on clipping for the minimum amount of time necessary, then turn it off immediately. I've had a lot fewer problems this way. Hope that answers your question. Cheers, ~Claw

Congrats

It might possibly be a place holder for future features, but (as others have said) right now the NUK generators don't decay. Cheers, ~Claw

If you don't want to destroy the ship but are looking for "cheats," you can edit your save file. Make a copy first and use a plain text editor like notepad (do NOT use word or wordpad). Search for your kerbal's name, then scroll down a little where it says "LAT" or "LON". Pick one of those numbers and add 0.001 to it's value (in other words, increase the lat or lon slighly). This will move him a bit away so that when you reload, he won't be stuck in the ship anymore. Cheers, -Claw

Pictures, save file, or a .craft would help. You can see this thread for help on how to provide that information: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/92230-Stock-Support-Bug-Reporting-Guide Welcome to the forums! ~Claw