m4inbrain

Okay, not sure what i'm doing wrong, but same thing. I uninstalled/deleted everything KSP (incl. leftover files etc), reinstalled it clean. Threw MKS in there, including the AT_Utils folder, then TCA without its AT_Utils. Ingame, i have all the MKS Icons on the toolbar, no TCA. Then tried copying the TCA AT_Utils folder over, but without overwriting anything. Exact same thing, MKS buttons on the toolbar are there, TCA button isn't. Then lastly, tried copying over AT_Utils of TCA entirely including overwriting files - now TCA shows up in the toolbar, but the MKS buttons are not anymore? Nothing else installed. I can't be that dumb, can i?

Actually, both MKS (0.50.17) and TCA (3.3.3) come with an AT_Utils folder, which overwrite whichever comes first. Downloaded AVC, didn't update anything, so i guess that's fine. Downloading KSP for the third time now, will try to install MKS, then TCA. Question is, do i use the AT_Utils of MKS, or do i use the one out of TCA? I'm asking because they are different in size, so something seems to be different there. On the old installation, whichever AT_Utils i used, made the corresponding mod work, but "disabled" the other. Weird. edit: sorry, misunderstood. Well there's no dublicate folders except the AT_Utils, which in the MKS zip has some more stuff in it (things like "001_AnisotropicPartResizer.dll) - but both have a 000_AT_Utils.dll - different sizes though.

Hey, got a question, how do you guys get TCA to work with other mods like MKS? I don't use CKAN, installed all my mods manually, but if i install both TCA and MKS, one of them will not work properly. If i install TCA first, and then MKS after, TCA doesn't even show up at all? Maybe i'm too stupid to figure out the toolbar, but there's no way to get the TCA UI to show up. On the other hand, if i install MKS first, then TCA, i do have a TCA button in the toolbar - but the MKS ground stuff button is gone. I reinstalled the game (and mods) twice now - i'd really like to play with both. Is there a (very simple) way (i'm old) to modify/edit the toolbar? I tried installing the toolbar mod, but i can't get the TCA button to show up there either. Halp, please.

Then explain to me please how certain things simply made it through. We're talking things that actually make one of the new additions (re-entry heating, feature) completely obsolete. It's not just an issue, the parachutes simply remove the need for re-entry precautions. I actually don't get it then, how can "an issue" that's basically removing one of the new big features be okay to go live? Since i feel the need yet again, it's not meant as an offense - i'm actually interested in that process. No. That's simply not the case. Even if there's some idiots attacking testers, there's no reason to assume all of them are. By that logic, earlier in this thread one of the QA guys said this release he was lazy - should i imprint that on all of you guys as well? I assume we agree there that blanketstatements like that are not helping either your nor my case. The "i don't mean to offend" btw gets added by me because you come off defensive to me. I never said anything insulting or offending in the first place - apart from if you see "critique" as offense, which it seems to. I never commented on how you "should" do things, apart from less rushing. It's actually not my job. I can only "judge" the endresult of all of that. As a sidenote: thank you for giving me some insight into the QA(!) process, it's actually quite interesting. Now a question that you don't need to answer (well you don't need to answer to anything anyway, you know what i mean) - as a QA guy, do you think this release was rushed for "shrouded reasons"? Or do you think (objectively) that this was enough time to "get it done"? edit: man i'm bad at quoting apparently

That helped my girlfriend, and she managed to get into orbit/mun, still gave up on the game. Maybe it helps you too.

You misunderstood what i said. I didn't say "you should've changed stuff instead of dicking around", i said it's important to prioritize bugs that touch the core of the game instead of bugs that you only can reproduce by doing "weird things". I will never launch a surfboard from a flying plane, but reentry etc will happen for me quite often. And that goes for alot of players (not all, obviously, but alot). Take that as a friendly tip, nobody is out "to get you", i said already that i don't want to offend the QA (point taken on that one) team, so there's no reason to get defensive and read stuff into things.

Which still leaves the issue that the only hard thing in the career mode is the start, the more you progress through the tiers, the easier the game gets. It's actually completely inversed to what it should be, right now i lose interest in the career after mun/minmus, since from there on you got enough stuff unlocked to make everything else a non-challenge. Up to that point though, it is. After that point, you will never have fund-problems again, nor be creative to get somewhere/do something. To me, that's not fun, really. At least not past that point.

Just to make that clear.

While your post is informative and all, there's one simple problem (and that's a fact). Bugfinding and fixing was not even done by the time the 48h stream was going, see the bug scott manley ran into live on stream when he lost aerodynamics on his surfboard, when he closed the cargo bays on the launching vehicle again. That's something that i would've absolutely understood if overseen. Yet, that was actually fixed, so apparently that was more important than other issues. Now one can categorize bugs (and of course, you guys do that too) - one hand has the "i'm dicking around with stupid things, somethings not working there" bug, and the other has glaring issues with the core of the game, namely reentry/parachutes/aerodynamics. See the problem? Apart from that, the whole time, people are trying to sell the Q&A team as an entity completely unrelated to the development, that is just plain wrong. Of course the Q&A is part of the development, one of the most important actually. I know quite a few games that got their releases delayed because of a Q&A team that said it isn't ready (one will release in a bit less than 10 days, finally TT), and that's what should've happened here too - but by the looks and sound, the "rushed feel" of things in the game might have to do with the fact that the release was indeed rushed for some reason.

In germany we say "the tone makes the music". Criticism towards the Q&A team is pretty valid, there are some glaring issues which one can not not see (parachutes, prime example - and you have to use them as a tester as well). Apart from that, while i understand your position: it's equally "not fair" to assume that a customer (consider, there's people buying into KSP right now with the release of 1.0) has to somehow point out how to improve the situation. That's the job of the Q&A. It doesn't really matter if they get paid or not, to a customer. If somehow "paid Q&A" is different (since you pointed specifically the voluntary bit out), then it's on squad to rethink the situation. But, as i said. The tone makes the music, but if something isn't correct or was done sloppy, it has to be pointed out as well. Constructive rather than offending, obviously - but nonetheless. edit: Belittleing is misplaced, of course. Maybe it's just me, but i feel that even if you do decent work, if nobody points out your mistakes, you won't improve. Obviously nothing gamebreaking was overseen, but some pretty huge issues - you can't compliment those away. It actually has nothing to do with being grateful/ungrateful. Obviously i'm happy that the game has no gamebreaking bugs, that doesn't mean i have to be happy that there's issues.

Well, i would've liked "minerals" more than "ore", but that's just me, in the end it really doesn't matter if it's called water, ore, kethane, or whatever. "Stuff that makes rockets go", maybe. As a suggestion.

Why would you? I bet you alot of money that nobody would complain if the career actually had a learning curve instead of a wall. You don't need to make the career easy (which is what you imply that i said, which is obviously not what i actually said). You need to make it accessible. As i said somewhere else, my girlfriend (gamer, not rocket scientist) gave up on KSP after 1.0. Saying "it's KSP" isn't even an argument, it's a game. The developers want to make money, and for that you need decent reviews. And just as a sidenote, since you seem to have very selective reading: most of what i read about the career is actually not positive. Starting from a completely ilogical techtree (and people are unisono there, so no "most people like it"), to the said learning wall, to ilogical contracts - well. We're not talking features like aero etc - we're talking about the career and accessability. And KSP got alot worse in those two departments. edit: it's not meant aggressive, might read a bit like it.

In all other games i know of, sandbox is "the endgame". Not the tutorial. And the career is where you get eased into the game by a decent training curve. If all other games do it that way, i don't think it's correct to assume that new players will do it that way. It's counter-intuitive anyway. First you learn how it's supposed to work (career), and then you push limits etc (sandbox).

He's right though. Some things a broken and i don't need to be an engineer to know that. If a single small parachute is enough to decelerate my 10 ton craft at 35g from 2000m/s to 200m/s, with nothing bad happening, i know something's broken. Or, nice example which i can actually prove (by uploading the craft if needed), i'm trying a new SSTO design, which admittedly failed just 20 minutes ago - it stalled, so far so good. It fell towards the ground at roughly 40m/s. All the way from 40km to the ground. The craft at that point had to weigh roughly 40 tons (half fuel, 80odd tons to start with). Wanna go and ask an engineer if that's "normal", or would you agree that that is definately not what is supposed to happen?

Best thing in 1.0 though, as feedback: 100% the battlestar galactica viper-style air intake. Love it.

This is kinda what i think, but there's a huge problem with that. My girlfriend sitting next to me gave up after roughly 2 hours trying. She simply stopped playing and won't start it again. And i can absolutely understand that, kerbal definately lost the "build, launch, explode, yay" feel. It's alot more "serious" now, and that is definately a two edged sword.

Struts won't help you there. You can kinda "circumvent" the problem by using SAS only occasionally. It's the SAS, turning your rocket into

Sorry, slightly off topic: Nathan Kell as in Kell Hounds?

It's in relation, an important information was left out there. It's not "you want all the weigh at the nose", it's you want the center of mass as far away from the center of pressure, to get a stabilizing effect. You obviously can't put all the weight in the nosecone. http://www.nar.org/NARTS/TR13.html That's a good explanation, alot better than i could do. edit: thought so moogoob

Sorry, no they don't deploy earlier - but you don't have to wait until 25k to "tell them to deploy". That's what i meant.

I actually don't use heatshields at all. An MK16 on the top + 2 radial parachutes are all you need up to 3000m/s reentry speed (highest i had so far, maybe it's different for speeds above......). edit: you don't need to wait until 25000m, you can deploy the parachute at 60kms, it'll still pop up.

You can turn off the shaky cam of doom, in the settings - just in case you didn't know. Was too much for me as well.

That's right. It shouldn't happen, theoretically. edit: nice example would be AP-ammo on tanks. They go straight, pointy bit towards the target. They'd be useless if they wouldn't.

Why would you use fins to move the centre of mass? Am i missing something? edit: you want drag on the bottom of the rocket, fins without control authority actually prevent you from turning the rocket.

Fins. I use more fins than struts now. Fins everywhere, on every stage. Looks stupid, works perfect though. edit: have to be fins with control authority though.