klgraham1013

Thumbs up. Oh dear. Your right. From the company that went 1.0 for speculated similar reasons, this actually makes a ton of sense. Whether or not it would actually be deserving of the 2.0 moniker. I think my percentage chance of Squad jumping from 1.9 to 2.0 just increased exponentially.

This is the least acidic fanbase I've been around.

...or just do what Easy Vessel Switch does. Hold alt and click of the ship you want. This is another one of KSP's UI elements that really shouts "we didn't know what this game would become."

Indeed it has. These days, we barely have any idea of who works at Squad, and those we do know, we have little idea what they actually do, or what they worked on. Times have definitely changed.

Am I wrong in thinking there must be a way to get around Unity's issue? Do you absolutely need to use Unity's built in code? Can you purchase a license to the source code, and modify the code to your games needs? Are we really so trapped behind engines in game development? Also, I'm under the assumption that Squad isn't forced to change the version of Unity it's on. Surely Squad saw incoming problems while developing on the newer version. Could they not stop and go back?

I'm no expert, but is any engine actually suited for KSP? I've never really been in the #BlameUnity camp.

Probably this. ...but who even knows. The money's going to run out eventually. I just pray we're not stuck with a version that has a nasty new bug that wasn't able to get fixed. Hopefully they see the end coming and can prepare with a few bug fix only releases. I'd hate for KSP to have the carpet pulled out from under it. I really can't wait for this, honestly. A game built from the ground up, knowing what it's going to be, and what the visuals should look like, and higher minimum specs. No more talk of potatoes and they're inability to run X feature so it shouldn't be in the game. It could be brilliant.

...or things that fungus/mold/mushroom's need either really. I vote for trans-dimensional ghost cucumber.

Quoted for accuracy.

Neither do I. I love concepts like the simplified resources. Liquid fuel, oxidizer, and all that. I think maybe I have garnered a reputation for being in the realism crowd, but the only realism mods I actually use are life support and a larger solar system. I just feel that if you're going to defend a decision based on game play. You have to explain that decision, and not just use the term "game play" as the reason. I believe probes most likely weigh as much as they do because in early KSP, there wasn't really much difference in using a probe or a Kerbal. Since early Squad wanted Kerbals to be the focus, they increased the weight on probes, making it less likely for players to quickly choose probes over Kerbals. This is only speculation, of course. With the inclusion or Kerbal skills and communication systems, the differences between probes and Kerbals are becoming more evident. Thus, the weight of probes may need a second look. I was just using it as an example that simply conceding to Squad might not be the best idea. It just so happens to be the most obvious example.

If you say so. The only thing I'll say is, as I've (albiet quite slowly) started my own balance pass on 1.3.1 (as it seems I'll be on it for some time), I've gotten a closer look at some of the numbers chosen. Even if you use "video game" as an excuse, it's really hard to justify some of them. Even video games should have a rhyme and reason for such things. If you think Squad is faultless in this area, that's your opinion. I just can't seem to justify why a Mk3 Crew Cabin costs 54x more than a Mk1 Crew Cabin and is the 2nd most expensive part in the game. Even from a game play prespective, all it does is transport Kerbals, which, lets face it, don't actually have a lot to do in the game. Let alone 16 Kerbals in one place. There is very little "video game" reason for it to be that expensive. Many parts have far more game play value, and are far less expensive. The only reason I can conclude is...

No, because... Jokes aside, I'd actually call this an excuse and not a reason. Debatable, as it's one of the most simulator-ish space games out there. Really, there's only one other I can think of that's in the same ball park.

Graphic...options. Yes we do.

This is obviously art. Don't be so uncultured.

It's almost like the toy solar system was a bad idea, and had far reaching and unexpected consequences.

They should add variants to wings to separate standard wings from reentry rated wings.

I mean, it's not exactly a hard basket to end up in. Just ask linux joystick users. Agreed.

Because Squad had to put a number there, and opted for the "I guess that seems okay" approach. You should take a look at the rest of the parts. I'm doing my own 1.3.1 balance pass, and some of the numbers are pretty entertaining.

It's actually kind of amazing that transparent parachutes and weird swimy z fighting didn't get fixed in 1.6.1. And thus it was spoken. For it was the truth, and the truth was sad. "Blame Unity." - Squad probably

I mean. Squad hasn't been afraid of breaking mod compatibility before. Holding out for one person (Is it one of your hundreds?) seems odd.

Yes.

You're probably right.

Perception is reality. Probably not the best idea to have one of the longest broken pieces of your software up front and center. They should really get rid of it.

You might be out of luck. Kraken knows I wish Tracking Station Evolved made it onto 1.3.1.

The disappointment reached many of us.