Yellowburn10

I believe there is an equation to figure that out, but I'm not smart enough to know what it is. And anyways, all the engines are getting a rebalance, including the aero spike, so there's no way to know for sure.

As most of us know, ISP is the fuel efficiency of an engine. The higher, the better. In the real world, a rocket engine can produce more thrust in a vacuum because it can burn the same amount of fuel more efficiently than if it were in an atmosphere. In current KSP, as you enter space, the thrust doesn't change, but the fuel consumption is lowered, giving you the effect of a more efficient engine. (If anything here is wrong, please feel free to correct it.)

Wait, release candidates as in, when a stable candidate is confirmed, Unity 5 will be officially released?

Does anyone else have a satisfactory feeling with the fact that the last part was posted at the beginning of the 100th page?

So, what you're saying is that if I had a ship with enough parts to start lagging my computer, this would fix it?

At the rate at which they are at right now, and what they've said about the development so far, I'd say sometime around late April-early May would be my guess.

As you may have guessed, I'm familiar with the fact that KSP runs on Unity, and that we're all waiting for Unity 5 to be released so that KSP can become a better game with it. But what exactly will this "high and mighty" Unity 5 be able to do? The most I know about is that it can fix x64 for windows, and a couple things about the physics engine, but that's about it. Can someone fill me in?

If they don't call the atomic engines "nukes" they are missing an opportunity here. I'm interested to see what parts they will add heat shields to. Like, if they put them on command pods but leave them off fuel tanks and engines, that means less recoverability of those parts.

I'm willing to give squad the benefit of the doubt on this one. They seemed pretty confident in what they were doing based on what they said in the devnotes. I only wish we could have more regular dev updates per week.

Yeah, I pretty much predicted that Tuesdays would come out on top. After that, I predicted it would go to Mondays, then either Fridays or Wednesdays. I haven't heard of too many people that enjoy Thursdays the most.

You know, with almost 70 pages of discussion about this, I feel that we've discussed almost everything we could about the post, and more. We're "beating a dead horse," so to speak. ...I'd post a gif but I'm on the mobile version ATM.

This is just a bit of curiosity that struck me one day, and I wanted to see for myself what everyone would choose. For me, Devnote Tuesdays and Modding Mondays come in pretty close, but I seem to like Tuesdays a bit better. It's just a whole day to see what the people down at SQUAD are working on and anything that's happened to them in their lives. Post your favorite day and why you chose it! P.S. This is my first official poll, bear with me if things aren't quite working right

This is what I like about our community; most of the people who chose "no" did so with valid reasoning, and because they care for KSP and it's developers, and not out of hate for the announcement. Sure, a bit of flaming may have started here and there, but it hasn't heated up to anything too serious. Of course, the "yes" side has shown it's valid opinions as well. But there are still some questions that many people still want answers to, like: "What's the motivation to jump to 1.0 besides just getting out of ErAc?" "How are you going to make sure everything works without another update?" (e.g. 0.91) "How will this update's development cycle work compared to other updates?" Etc. etc. Well, Devnote Tuesday is tomorrow, perhaps harvester or someone will shed some more light with these questions.

What's even more impressive was the biggest number of members active at one time, back in December, no doubt to buy a ticket for the .90 hype train.

I don't think the problem that people are discussing here isn't so much about it's current flaws, as it is it's potential flaws. Like, any potential game breaking bugs the mountain of new content might have, and that it won't have any other updates to back them up or fix them before official release. Of course, we don't know if that will actually happen or not.

The priority I think should be the cockpits, then the crew cabins. I say it plural because the inline mk1 cockpit needs IVA too.

If your saying that multiplayer needs to be in 1.0, they've said multiple times that it will be a POST 1.0 addition. But I understand what you mean otherwise. 1.0.1 and what not may have fixes for potential big bugs, but we'll see

I agree with a lot of this stuff actually. But the main reason why people say "it's not ready" is because they don't want squad to get bashed on by critics. But squad said if they get bad rep because of this, then so be it. They know they can do better than that. I get the feeling that squad is trying to prove something to us, that they can actually do this and not screw it up. And really, with the game as it is currently, they could still recover even if they do screw things up.

This is a little off topic, but I have a question about the new aero. Will the new lift model calculate lift for ALL parts, not just wings? Go fast enough with anything and it will lift up from a slight tilt? I know before it only calculated lift for wings and the fuselage for mk2 parts, but I haven't seen much evidence that this has changed for 1.0.

Now, keep in mind, a number of features they've mentioned we're already in the works before the announcement. Aerodynamics have made good progress already it looks like, female kerbals have been in the works for a while now, landing gear and the barn were almost done for .90, and a few other things I may have forgotten that were partially worked on. This will cut their work time down significantly, down to the possible 4-month time.

I believe they said in the "beyond beta" blogpost that they said this update will take longer than the others, and saying each update takes about 2-3 months, it's a pretty safe guess that it'll take a month or two longer than the others.

1. I think we can all agree a unity 5 update is a bit overdue, though. If one of the main reasons of them waiting was for unity 5, they might of gotten tired of waiting. By the looks of it, they can survive without it for now. 2 and 3. Yes, they have a history with the bug and features, but bugs are almost an inevitability with new features. But they are taking a longer time for this update, quite possibly the longest ever, which gives them more time to flesh out any bad bugs.

Dude, this update will be in development for several months or more, way more time than any other update. Anyone who says what the game will turn out like when it's finished, that's just their theory.

May I ask why people are talking about a buggy, crappy quality, unstable version of KSP 1.0 when 1.0 has only just been announced?? Honestly, I'm about as confused as you are as to why squad decided to do this, but this is just jumping to conclusions here. We really have no idea how 1.0 will turn out until we actually have the update in our hands.

Since I've never played spacebase, I wouldn't know how that went down. Also, I wasn't saying "if Minecraft can make it, so can KSP." I knew KSP couldn't bottom out even if 1.0 turns out to be a flop (well, technically it could if it went super bad, but I doubt that's gonna happen), I was just trying to find an example more people would be familiar with where a game has come through.