WWEdeadman

I usually only use it for docking, but on very large craft it can also be useful for turning. And of course I have RCS-landed entire interplanetary ships on Gilly...

I usually start over after an update. Apart from that, I start over when a modded save gets to the point where it randomly breaks the entire universe. Or when I get to the point where I've done everything I set out to do in that save.

Just thought of another one I say a lot: "I'd do this legit, if it wasn't for the games engine slowing my game down to 0 FPS with a big enough ship."

"I'm sure that's how NASA would do it." - 5th Horseman, while doing something the Kerbal way "Oops" - Me, at least once in every KSP video I ever did Also of course the always fitting "We need more boosters!" and "We need more struts!", or like I like to put it "We need MORE POWER!" (Tim Taylor style)

Since this is 1.0 I think it would be silly to not focus on bug fixing and balance. A full release is expected to work, without annoying bugs, and with well balanced gameplay. I'm still not a friend of jumping from beta directly to release, but since you will do that, I think delivering the best possible game in therms of performance and gameplay balance should be ranked higher than new features.

Did it as soon as 0.90 had released. (Full coverage of the process available in this playlist. (stream 3 is the one) )Pics here:

Well, one could watch my "best of" compilations on my YouTube channel to definitely see them all (and a bunch of stuff from other games, which is why I won't post a video here) Other than that: Anomaly on Eve: So, apparently a chunk of texture didn't load there. The great NaN-Virus outbreak of 2014: The risks of landing on Jool: Apart from that I remember randomly loosing a Wing on Eve, in a 100% stock save, and a Science-Lab rover randomly exploding on the Mun, for no reason.

I still love the "You consider sending missions in pink EVA suits to reduce cleaning cost" part of the Duna materials bay report.

All of the above?

Well, I wish I could re-answer. My score is 6.1 by now. Mainly cause I finished actually getting everywhere with at least a probe, and I got a Kerbal back from Eve's surface. Also I now use RemoteTech FAR and Deadly re-entry in my current save.

Everything. I've done all of this, at least once, without ever using an autopilot. I actually never even installed mechjeb, or anything similar. Mostly cause I don't find it fun to watch the game play itself.

AMD FX 6100, overclocked to 6 x 3.9GHz Radeon HD7970 16 GB 1600MHz DDR3 RAM I only have problems with really high part numbers. Like, stuff I wanna land on Eve and bring back, and such. And that with a bunch of visual enhancement mods.

9 km for stock, but since I'm currently playing in FAR I start pretty much right away.

Jool, cause I always fall through (We need a Kerbal equivalent of the Twitch Kappa emote, btw...) But seriously, I guess Tylo is always hard, because of high gravity and no athmosphere. Only landed a probe there once, and crashed another one before that, though. I'm sure I'd get a manned landing/return done quite easily. In terms of returning, Eve is definitely the worst. I only managed to get a Kerbal back from there once.

This. And if squad won't implement that, there needs to be a mod for that.

Yeah, with the new atmosphere there should be an all over re-balancing. And AFAIK they're doing that. I, of course, have no idea what changes exactly they are doing, but an all over re-balance is in the works, for all I know. And specifically to the Ion-engine: Yes. The Ion Engine, even with the incredibly over the top exaggerated power (compared to the reallife one) it currently has, is absolutely useless, from a money efficiency and a time standpoint. No one will spend 3 hours "burning" that damn engine, and I surely won't waste tons of funds on Xenon gas, if I could use a nuclear engine instead and have that be cheaper. (Although, even the LV-N can make for a pretty useless engine, if you have heavy payloads. Almost the same burn times as the freaking ion engine, sometimes)

None of the options apply to me. I only use it if I think the game is being unfair, or I'd need to be re-do something completely boring, time consuming and uninteresting, like flying a plane half way around Kerbin.

0.22 - got the game, did my first Mun and Minmus landings/returns, and sent my first interplanetary mission to Eve, and got Jeb stuck there forever. 0.23 - First interplanetary landing with return, first SSTO plane (that also went to Laythe, got back into orbit and then stayed there, cause I had planned on a different return vessel) 0.23.5 - First time using mods 0.24 - Finally landed at least unmanned on every body in the Solar system, manned return mission from Eve successful 0.90 - First time using mods to make things harder/more realistic (FAR, DRE, Remote Tech, Real Chutes)

Well, only counting my steam hours I'd get to about 10 cents. I estimate I actually played at least double my steam hours if you count in modded installs, so I'd say <5 cents.

That's why I keep reverting on in career. If I have no Idea whether it will work, I just try it out, and revert if it doesn't. Changing to another save every time would be annoying as hell to me.

Well, my essentials are: -Kerbal Engineer -Kerbal Alarm Clock -Environmental Visual Enhancements (I really don't like not having clouds.) -Trajectories Also I'm currently using: -FAR -Deadly Reentry -Real Chutes -Distant Object Enhancements -Procedural Fairings -Remote Tech -Precise Node -Planet Shine -Active Texture Management (cause career is broken on x64, and modding x32 without ATM is crash central) Stuff I also like, but don't use right now: -Better Atmospheres / Astronomer Pack (both are packs for EVE, cause I like my game to look awesome) -Cool Rockets -Hot Rockets -Texture Replacer (most of the mods I like are visual enhancements... xD) -Kerbal Attachment System

Seriously, I couldn't give less of a you-know-what whether ships I designed in old versions would still work in the next. If they shouldn't be able to fly, but still do in current stock, like that box-shaped thing made from wing-connectors Scott Manley did once, then they definitely shouldn't work anymore in the new version. Anything that looks like it should fly, like pretty much any half way realistic aircraft/rocket design I ever did, should still be fine, since it literally has no reason not to work. That's not "backwards compatibility" though. If they'd make it so that anything that flies now still flies in 0.91 they would essentially not change anything about the aerodynamics. To put it short: Any plausible designs will still work anyway, so why would they even mention that?

Yes, Minmus is visible in the sky from Kerbin, even in Stock. With Distant Object Enhancement it gets even better. (You literally see every single planet and some of the moons with that.)

I didn't have any problems with the 64 bit community hack in 0.23.5, and neither with the 0.24 64 bit version. I never really played 0.25 much, especially not with mods, so I don't know about that, and I of course don't use x64 on 0.90 because of the career bug, but "avoid it like your life depends on it" is pretty much the overreaction of the freaking year.

Currently x64 (on windows) is broken so much that you couldn't progress in career mode at all. So if you want to play career you need to play 32 bit. All together 64 bit is considered unstable, and has random unexplainable crashes happening, as well as some bugs that are exclusive to the win x64 version of the game, like the career bug I mentioned before. We all hope that it will get better with the next Unity version, but we'll see how well it works when Unity 5 is a thing. For now I'd say don't use 64 bit KSP on windows.