m4inbrain

Sorry for the off topic, but you seem to play a different Assetto Corsa than me. edit: apart from the fact that you seem to pull numbers out of your nose, just because something became "common", doesn't mean it's okay. I learned in kindergarden already that it's not okay to poop on somebodies desk just because another kid did it. I'm fine with the release so far, but that's on credit. Squad has definately some work to do.

Me too. One plane, that works. Incedentally, it's the one i made 20 minutes ago in 1.0. IIRC, i think scott manley (or dasvaldez?) said that tanks drain equally now, not from the furthest to the nearest. Which, again, makes planes easier to build and fly. Arguing that planes are harder to fly in air than in soup though.. Well.

Fueltanks are variable in mass too, you know.

Use AV-R8 Fins. Makes the aerodynamic model pretty much moot. And don't use SAS/deactivate it every now and then to get the wobble out of the rocket. edit: @caelib

The question was, are other people a bit underwhelmed. Yes, i am. I was looking forward to 1.0, and it's still fun - and even though this thread is bursting with armchair-warriors trying to defend stupid things, it has to be said. I can certainly launch rockets etc no problem (fins being best friends now), made my first mun and back so far - but after the game crashing three times on me now (stock install, obviously), i think it's time to take off the rose tinted goggles and look at what we have realistically. Do i like it? I certainly do, and i will prolly not close the game (well.. voluntarily at least) for at least another couple of hours. That being said: some things are really stupid and should've never gone live like that. Heatshields? I just came back from the mun, all i needed was three parachutes to land safely. I arrived with some fuel to spend at kerbin, fired retrograde until roughly 2500m/s, then fell straight into the atmosphere. Guess what: the nose-parachute acting as a drogechute is enough. It's actually all you need, my ablative shielding was still at 200/200 after landing. Meh. If you take the re-entry out of the picture, all you really have is nerfed engines, some new parts (most of which i couldn't play with yet, so not commenting on those/the ressource system), a new aerodynamic model which makes planes fly easier and creating the need to put fins on your rocket - and that's about it. It's not a bad release by far, but if somebody asks me: is 1.0 everything you wanted/expected? Sadly, no. It's not.

Was fun, need to play!

Thanks, have to watch.

What anime is that? Oo

Stuff! So much stuff!

I don't even know what that means and i'm still hyped!

I will have fun with the release client, and as long as squad is hurrying up fixing the bugs, i'm fine with a buggy client. But, that being said: this is because i think KSP is one of the very, VERY few gems of the concept of early access. They got some credit in my book, that's why. To argue "when was the last time you got a perfect release".. uhm, what? It's absolutely stupid to argue "well, EA and other cashgrabbers throw crap into the market, so it's fine for others too - that's just how it is". No it's not how it is. It is what it has become, and that is partially because people use that one single silly argument over and over again. Maybe it's my age, but i certainly remember better times regarding this pest (buggy clients, cashgrabs).

Yes. In a real life asteroid mission they won't refill their tanks in 6 minutes though, so that's kind of a moot point. To me, KSP is still a game, with no real connection to reality. Especially considering the crafts i build.

Actually, since i can't check and i seem to generally miss when people say the numbers on stream - how heavy is the stuff?

Well the ISRUs will make capturing asteroids easier now though by quite a margin. Not trivial, but you don't need to bring deltaV to capture it, you can just in situ mine it now. It's not really bugging me since i'm not a fan of asteroids anyway - but i can understand if somebody is not happy with that.

Yeah, was gonna post that too - that seemed a bit excessive. edit: was actually two containers, 600 ore units in roughly 1:30.

No we won't, i live in the UK, and i think it'll be tuesday for me. TT

Oh wait, i thought it only goes up to max. 10%? I remember on KSP TV yesterday someone said 6% already is pretty decent. Might've misunderstood then.

Still far from what i would consider "too op/cheating". Although i will say, it'll probably more fun with life-support mods, to take the "infinity" out of the whole thing. But that's just me.

Just a button in the options for "advanced information" or something would be amazing.

Actually, DasValdez used it yesterday on his own stream. http://www.twitch.tv/dasvaldez/v/4370369?t=4h57m07s There he activates it. edit: rereading, i might have misunderstood what you were looking for.

As i said, my opinion on that is, since one doesn't need to use the ISRU stuff, who cares. It'd be different if all the engines suddenly go to 4000 ISP, because you actually need to use them, but that's not the case. I certainly will use it, because i think it's awesome - especially with TAC LS it'll be fun. At least i'm hoping.

IIRC (don't quote me on it), i've read in this forum that asteroids have finite ressources, so i assume that goes for planetary bodies as well.

That's what i think, too. It might be "strong", but if it turns out too strong and you don't like it - simply don't use it. The Alt F12 Menu is a "built in cheat" as well. That's the beauty of singleplayer-games. Who cares. edit: to point that out: the ISRU stuff is not implemented in a way that you actually need it. It's not a requirement for anything, it's just an addition. That's why i don't really understand the discussion.

Same issue here, trying to stick the pW to an Mk2 cargo bay. Indicator is green, if i click, the item on the cursor starts to wobble a bit, and then the game goes down to 0.5 fps or something. Got NEAR installed as well. Although, i got the same error with B9 and tweakscale (couldn't attach the TFE731 Turbofan Engine to anything, the engine would stick to the cursor after the click and then again down to 0.5 fps). I uninstalled Tweakscale though, so that shouldn't be an issue. edit: hm, doesn't seem to be a pWing issue - if the game gets to the point that the pWings "get stuck", any item will crash the game. Hm. edit: somehow doubleposted in a single posting.

It's either me, or you are jumping from operator break-even to REL break-even as it fits your argument. Let's clear up. You say: REL needs to sell 38 (there's no 37,5) units to make a profit on their development. I say: rubbish. You don't even need to be an economist to see that. And i assume that i talk to an intelligent person (considering where this thread is located), so i also assume you pretty much know that it's rubbish. But to be clear: you have a company, developing a vehicle based on technology that doesn't yet exist. The UK government already showed interest in SABRE. Do you actually think that all REL has to offer is 38 units of their product? They develop new technologies, in case of the SABRE, pretty marketable ones too. That's why i said earlier, i doubt that they need 38 units to break even. They would need less. How much less i can't actually tell, but i at least know that i can't. If you now go ahead telling me "launch costs irrelevant for REL" after you just told me: Which is directly tied to launch costs. You didn't give me an estimate, so i assume you just used the 6.6mil figure. And yes, obviously it's important and directly tied to RELs break-even. It's actually the single biggest questionmark. How fast can a skylon amortise itself for me? Can it be done in 10 launches? 20? How many? Based on that, companies would buy skylon. You didn't give me any number to look at there, so i'm pretty unsure what to think about that. edit: and yes. They would sell more, if they amortise quick enough. That's how an open market works. Without knowing how quick they make their money back, after how many launches, years - or in your case, even dismissing it alltogether, you have zero basis for your argument. edit2: to be even clearer: i actually don't think that skylon will be feasable at all. I'm just a bit annoyed by how much rubbish gets stated as facts. Like the 38 units, the 6,6mil launch costs, etc - these are numbers that aren't even properly predictable by full fledged economists, let alone in a science forum. These also are the numbers you'd need to know to dismiss skylon based on an economic reason (next to others, but for starters).