Wooks

Welcome my friend!

It looks like the site is down, can't download :(

Look at the upper left corner, there you'll find the ingame mission time or elapsed time, it clocks 30 seconds on the mark. If you get green numbers in the clock it means that the ingame clock is running at "real life" speed, one second ingame is equal to one second "IRL". Normally you get this running ships with low count part on a decent computer. Yellow or red numbers means that the time inside the game is running slower than "IRL", each second ingame elapses depending on the time it takes to calculate the graphics. This happens with higher count part or slower computers.

Excuse my ignorance, I downloaded the .zip, how do you install this?

An auspicious beginning

Maybe Mechjeb in a separate tier? Dunno. Hoping to update my entry today.

The important part of your statement: IF

Can we please keep this thread on topic guys? For all the new guys and girls joining the forums (and some old ones): It is frowned upon in the "Challenges" section to complain about how difficult is to complete a challenge because of hardware limitations. Why? because more often than not the challenges are designed to push the very limits of the game, bordering the unplayable in some cases. If you can't complete a challenge because your computer can't handle it, then don't do it, search for a challenge more fit for you... or even better, try your hand at creating your own challenge! What's not frowned upon is to ask for more details if the OP is not clear enough, for example: altitude limits, speed limits, how many parts can I use, mods allowed, how much time to complete, etc. Remember, you are joining a community that has been playing this game for a long time, we challenge ourselves just to see what we can achieve beyond the normal scope of the game. These challenges are just for fun, we are here just to have a good time trying to break the game or our computers, whatever comes first. Just have fun, try to be civil and don't forget to be kind.

Are East / West circumnavigations allowed?

I'd say that this thread has fulfilled its usefulness, eveybody spoke their minds and that's it. Better to close it?

As I said before, an issue SQUAD needs to work on: time management, scope of updates, Q&A workload. The era of "not time for this" has come to an end, is time to put the man pants and start weeding those minor glitches and bugs while working on the rest of the bigger issues. I agree with you Lord Aurelius and DeltaB, despite what happened at v1.0 launch this game is awesome... heck it has been awesome from a freaking long time, I've been around since 0.23 and wow, just wow, what a game.

More or less the crux of the issue. I would love to see more people discussing this instead of the already trite "let's defend SQUAD from online bullies", I do believe SQUAD needs to learn a very important lesson with the v1.0 release about time management, Q&A, scope, hype building and community management.

I'm not assuming anything pal, I'm working with what has been said in this (very, very lengthy) thread. And lets be clear, the process to test v0.1 after release obviously didn't worked, is not news to anyone. I can only hope for SQUAD to learn the lesson and rectify their ways for future updates, basically "do what you did for all updates up to v0.90".

I agree, we need to adress the internal testing and QA process, what's done is done.

I wholeheartedly agree with a small team tackling experimentals, and it certainly worked fine when the releases where rather small and controlled with a lot of wiggle room timewise, but this release was different in scope and size compared to those versions. I believe the issue here is that SQUAD tought they could pull this v1.0 the same way and it just went over their heads, too many changes in such a compact time frame, a rather small team of testers focused on testing all the new mechanics and features, and certainly not enough testing of the finished product before releasing into the wild. Is a little bit pointless to keep repeating that this should have been v0.95 now that the cat is out of the bag but, hey! here we are. I agree with this too. It might seem like v1.0 was tested properly... from the standpoint of the handfull of testers that did it in a breakneck pace over a bunch of rushed weeks. Is clear now that v1.0 needed either more testers to work out bugs in such a hurry, or more testing time with the current batch of testers.