Bedwyr

I searched as far back as page 85. I interpret the 6.2 release as not having an extraneous "blizzy" icon (just stock toolbar). Is that correct or am I misunderstanding?

Sure. It's just easy for newbies to miss the whole contract thing. (That and realizing KSC is upgradeable).

Because contracts are so critical to career mode and because mission control is a smaller building behind the assembly building and particularly because I've seen many youtube videos where people have missed the MC, having the MC flash or having a bouncing alert icon would help provide a pointer to critical game functionality.

If you guys are interested I saw another interesting design a few years ago that might make quite a FAR design challenge. Met the designers from the US Navy too. http://www.dodlive.mil/index.php/2013/02/armed-with-science-saturday-top-tech-the-flying-transformer/ This would be a pretty extreme challenge though. The rotor half flips 180 quickly and stops turning very precisely at the correct angle.

Ditto. Your comment Bakase: Demonstrates pretty clearly you're not willing to be diligent in your work. You were asking for it. This isn't a take-it-or-leave-it playtest phase. It is absolutely the opposite of what Ferram needs right now. I recommend dropping the mod for the time being and wait or go back through and read all 50 pages you don't want to carefully, make sure you're testing the right things and giving the right information. I don't have the time right now to do that, so I won't be testing this. Neither will I be asking for ETAs or lame queries. I'll be waiting. Patiently. Quietly. Help the right way or join me here on the floor and be quiet.

To be clear on RoverDude's behalf, nuFar is still very much an unfinished work. It's hard enough to shoot a moving mod target, let alone mod developers trying to create a spanking new simulation engine. I would anticipate any kind of compatibility verification for most mods (B9/etc) would have to wait until FAR devs are confident and have got their system pretty well settled and released.

Just to be clear by the thread title, firespitter should be considered compatible with 1.0 up to 1.0.2, correct?

Thank you e-dog.

Thank you so much for this.

KSP: 1.02 Windows 32bit Problem: "Stage Only" fuel is the same as total fuel for the vehicle Mods installed: Kerbal Engineer Redux - v1.0.16.6 Reproduction steps: - "Stage Only" checked or unchecked with Resources panel pinned. - Otherwise unknown. I've observed that stage-only appears to work correctly in some cases but I haven't yet narrowed down the conditions under which this occurs. - Also unknown whether KER has any effect. I've not tried to reproduce with a vanilla install yet. Possibly related support threads: thread 1 thread 2 Images: Vehicle Fuel total: With "Stage Only" selected Question: I don't personally need assistance, but is this enough information to submit a new bug to the bug tracker? I've not found a related issue in the public database. I can try removing KER to verify behavior, but even then I'm not certain of the conditions under which this happens.

I'm absolutely ignorant right now about how things are working out so please pardon me in advance, but do some of the control issues Darkway has in point 3 have to do with coffin corner and normal degradation of performance at higher and higher altitudes? (The point about fighting to keep level flight at higher altitudes and high speeds triggered that memory of the phenomenon.)

Ok thanks. I figured it was and I don't have KSP open in front of me to find out. I'll leave this question open for now as I'm trying to configure a 360 controller. Trim is integral to airplane flight and will be bound to my joystick one way or another.

Normally Alt + [WS] adjusts pitch trim. - Is there a place in the game settings to bind trim controls to a gamepad? I haven't yet found a setting for it. - Does Alt also work for Yaw [AD] and Roll [QE] trim control? Thanks

Eh, I don't quite want to throw up my hands on that. I'm not that active on here, mostly lurking till this week's release. Forum culture's hard to do, but KSP's is positive and active enough that it's worth working for. So I think it's worth calling out (gently... with some judgment and not at the person, but what they're writing) a bad attitude and trying to help redirect it. Sometimes a "dude... not cool" can really do wonders. It's not about belittling the posters being over-dramatic, but persuading that they're not helping and that there's a better way to go. It doesn't work all the time, but sometimes it helps.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/115072-Devnote-Tuesdays-The-Late-Edition See note on physics bubble. I don't know if it's far enough for two objects to fly to surface from a low reentry altitude, but it's a thought.

OP: Engineer here. I think you overstated your sentiment. You're excluding people in your post automatically that might have something to contribute. Constructive feedback with data is always welcome. I would have dialed back the exclusionary language a fair bit. i.e. - Go after the bad posts, not the posters. (And of course people should not misrepresent who they are. That's just wrong. For example I am an engineer in aerospace, but I'm not an aerodynamicist. Mostly work with navigation and such.)

Congratulations on your accomplishment. I'm astounded, flabbergasted, shocked, and delierious about all you've done with the game. Well done you guys. Well done. Agencia Espacial Mexicana should be proud of their countrymen for promoting science, spaceflight, and fun with such aplomb.

Minor thing but easily fixed. The Steam Store version needs a new image. It's still displaying the "Beta Than Ever" plate. Y'all (Squad) want to celebrate your 1.0 release everywhere right?

Also, don't forget about the larger 22km physics range. Maybe you could break them up into two heat shielded modules part way through reentry with their own parachutes. That would be interesting to flight test with a probe core on the Science Jr/Service Module combination.

Well, as I said in another thread, it's the newbies I'm worried about. Not the old hands. Are solutions like unlocking the probe core or mounting a second MK I upside down obvious enough that newbies feel they can get over that particular barrier or is it difficult enough that they get overly frustrated? I couldn't possible know that, only speculate. But it is something I'm concerned may be too high a barrier for a lot. Maybe I'm underestimating the newbies. I don't know.

Yup, that's my opinion as well at this point. I'm not worried about me or the old hands at this. I'm worried about the newbies and their frustration levels in the early game.

Do the particle effects clip against each other more than they used to? Or maybe they're spaced further apart? They looks to me as sharp as shock diamonds. Maybe it's just me. edit: regarding this as answered. The effects are the same.

Gotcha. I'd seen the new screenshots for nuFAR and it looks pretty dang cool. Area Rule gives me a quick mental frame of reference for what to expect from the systems and is in no way a dig or complaint.

Depends on heat effect percentage in settings. Is that still true at >100%?

You're absolutely right, it is something that makes intuitive sense that way. But the case against that (I'm not taking sides right now, just elucidating) is that there's a heavy gameplay cost. A new player will have to do all that paperwork and manually figure out how the thing works and only afterward have the tool that would have helped him learn the maneuvers. So from a pure gameplay perspective, the inverse is true. It's better to have the assistance as the player is learning and then remove the assistance as the player gains skill at doing orbital maneuvers. But then you're violating the intuitive technical progression. The two are in conflict and you (the game designer) need to choose what weight to give to which approach.