basic.syntax

Cross-posting some Reddit comments - (Relevant posts that Maxmaps has replied to, in sequence.) KSP on the PS4 confirmed! Maxmaps Aaaand we can finally talk about what I've been being cheeky on the devnotes for literal months. Woo! Iamsodarncool Max has tweeted extensively in the past about how consoles are bad and why the PC is such a great platform for something like KSP. I expect Sony is paying them to do this. Maxmaps They aren't! I've tweeted about bad practices in console gaming but we would never jump into something like this if we didn't believe in the platform. Sony have cleared any doubts or worries we may have had about it, and have treated us well. Plus, it works really, really well on the DualShock 4. brunothemad This has potential to greatly expand the audience, which I think is awesome. But 1.0.3?! Maxmaps We're thrilled to grow the KSP family, of course. And 1.0.3's doing pretty well so far. I won't give a date to avoid disappointing but we hope to not keep you waiting much longer.

Max is chattering away on Reddit atm - (relevant posts in sequence) KSP on the PS4 confirmed! Maxmaps Aaaand we can finally talk about what I've been being cheeky on the devnotes for literal months. Woo! Iamsodarncool Max has tweeted extensively in the past about how consoles are bad and why the PC is such a great platform for something like KSP. I expect Sony is paying them to do this. Maxmaps They aren't! I've tweeted about bad practices in console gaming but we would never jump into something like this if we didn't believe in the platform. Sony have cleared any doubts or worries we may have had about it, and have treated us well. Plus, it works really, really well on the DualShock 4. brunothemad This has potential to greatly expand the audience, which I think is awesome. But 1.0.3?! Maxmaps We're thrilled to grow the KSP family, of course. And 1.0.3's doing pretty well so far. I won't give a date to avoid disappointing but we hope to not keep you waiting much longer.

I think it is the same thing Max was keeping quiet about, for the last two weeks. Max is the Producer, so he could involve himself in business partnerships to improve the game, or merchandise - any sort of deal. Per last Friday's short Squadcast, Max may be on vacation this week, and thus be letting Kasper (who publishes the Devnotes, anyway) inform everyone. I also think r4pt0r is onto something. He is consulting an ancient manuscript, that may only look ancient because it came from the future - but was sitting around in a cave, for a very long time

Parachute deploy time can be adjusted with one of Claw's fixes, to reduce the G-shock. Changing part masses is a complex balancing job, with ripple effects. How much heavier would the engines have to be, to allow that particular design to fall engines-down? Laie brings up Eve, indirectly a concern for different atmospheric densities. Would one mass number work for the original 3-symmetry design, but not be enough to prevent reentry flipping, in a 6-symmetry design? Would the decreased TWR be acceptable, in liftoff scenarios? Would thrust be increased to maintain TWR? Would that cause different unintended balance problems? (I don't have answers.)

I re-listened, the relevant time mark for heat comments starts at 11:55. I think OWK summarized it correctly. Mu speaks carefully, the general thrust seems to be that skin-based heating is a replacement system. A new heat system doesn't exclude the possibility of a return to the original heating mechanic of the ISRU parts, and may even make it more viable. But nothing has been said, that's just my speculation.

It's mildly funny that the first lander falls with the lighter part facing down, while the second with the Science Jr, falls with the heavy part facing down That's an oversimplification, however. The first is broad, with three 1.25m parts arranged radially, and should catch more air flow, while the second is narrow, dominated by a single 1.25m stack. Both of these landers are too small to visually accommodate airbrakes, but, they are a useful tool for stowing - and later deploying - drag, where you want it. It might help you, on larger designs. For rocket reentry use, I disable all control axes in the VAB, remove them from the Brakes action group, and toggle them with a custom group.

Best excuse Good luck with the job, OWK!

Apparently, the word "thousand" is not one of the ten hundred most common words. Gazing at this gives rise to a terrible pain in all the diodes down my left side.

This logo for the Canadian National Railway was commended in a comment about various corporation logos, as being a perfect fit: just looking at it, you can hear a train going around the track.

Ars Technica has joined the list of sites commenting about these great photos... they don't have much more to say about it, though.

I like this solution. That's working with the Aero system, instead of advocating to change it I've fought similar minor reentry battles with my own craft. Often SAS+reaction wheel+retrograde can track craft properly engines-down, all the way - give that a try. But the slightest maneuver off retrograde will (I think properly) lead to a flip. Additionally, with Claw's work-around/fixes, you can adjust the parachute deployment time, to reduce G-shock.

NP, I skipped over / didn't read your #4 post until now. This topic was one I remembered... in the OCD list of bookmarked dev comments I have

Maxmaps ran into traffic and was late starting or early finishing the most recent - it was just half an hour. He has not had much to say in the last two SQ's. He is under a heavy NDA regarding something cool that he'd like to share, but until that lifts, he's been rather tight-lipped, to avoid leaking info inadvertently. NDA's protect all sides, in case the deal does not go through, for whatever reason. Per the Devnotes telling us three developers are out on vacation, there hasn't much more to talk about that isn't in the written in Devnote Tuesday postings. The 1.0.3 patch has been in testing, but we are waiting for developers to return (hopefully this week) and see what might need adjusting, based on the testing. Finally, Max announced he'd be going on his own vacation this week, no official SQ is expected - there's a small chance Kasper might host it. Mods: I suggest a merge with Squadcast last Friday? (6/12)

HarvesteR's past comment about this issue.

Placing the Small Landing Gear on another part, such as the Small Hardpoint, or M-Beam 650, helps close the gap in distance between different gear heights. You can help yourself find KSC from orbit, by planting a flag Putting a flag at each end of the runway also helps with lining up landings, from a long distance. Contract location visible on flight: good question! Check out this mod. Bugs: If you are not aware of this, check out Claw's fix-and-workaround collection, here.

I cut my global science multiplier to 40% via new game setup option, that choice increased the value of the science lab, which some say is overpowered at default levels. I'm running three labs, staffed with scientists I rescued - never had to "hire" anyone. I don't like to timewarp just because I can... might miss an interesting contract. I have 3 ships at Duna waiting for a return window, and flights going to Eve and Jool. Low science multiplier does increase the "science grind," but doing flights "for science!" doesn't feel boring, like grinding for money: needing to take every lame satellite contract. I left funds at default, did several tourist flybys, was able to afford to upgrade all the buildings that matter to me, and have always been able to afford to launch with any parts I have unlocked. I'll probably have it all unlocked when the Eve flyby and Duna guys get back.

According to a Squadcast statement, something has definitely been improved, most probably in terms of Aero or heat management. They haven't said if fairing separation choices are included with what was "fixed." Squad highlighted a clamshell fairings mod on a recent "modding Monday" post, which has caused some folks to lose hope for fairing separation choices in Stock. On that question, we are still in "wait and see" mode. If QA/Experimentals feedback has been good, few things need adjusting by the Developers expected to be returning from vacations Monday, and there's no need to do another round of testing, I think we could see 1.0.3 by this upcoming Friday.

The VTOL is a lot of fun to mess around with, Nova. HarvesteR made the Learstar, new in v1.0. (For the story, link in my sig.)

A lot of old games have continued years after the "expiration date," due to dedicated players and modders who keep hope alive. KSP won't be any different. But to speak to the OP question, games thrown on the mercy of dedicated modders to extend and support, rarely see code rewrites & modernization, with the same or better quality than the original team of developers could deliver. Whatever quality problems some see in KSP today: modders don't have access to KSP source code. Not having source code puts a limit on what can be fixed or extended. New content could be created, but as years go by, it would look increasingly dated.

Nice words that offer hope for a great future - but too soon to tell if the end product will be better than a copy of current wheel behaviors (Squad's primary goal in a port: just get it all working, first.)

I've seen problems, too, but a temporary connection for fuel transfer shouldn't be a problem. Just hit F5 first.

Fuel transfer on the ground isn't impossible with stock parts... Put a big tank on wheels, with The Claw.

This particular problem has melted away. From the 1.0.1 patch notes: I have a feeling it may return, if RoverDude's 1.0.3 present turns out to be heat management parts

Based on comments in the most recent Squadcast, 1.0.3 is in testing while the developers are in their second week of vacation. IF nothing needs serious tweaking and another round of testing and adjusting (which I'd encourage them to do, considering the complexity of the parts aero/heat balance effort,) I think we could see the patch toward the end of next week.

Indeed. To clarify, I didn't mean to imply I thought one caused the other, just that the scene change memory leak in .90 would often "help" me end the KSP session, which I might have done anyway, to restart KSP, because GC stutter was getting bad. Some details are in my post #9, when I was commiserating here during v.90.