basic.syntax

In regards to more planets, they consistently drop the hint "not anytime soon:" Reddit AmA

There's a lot of virtual ink already spilled on this subject, with many tips and advice. I'd take a look at Helpful 1.0 observations

Edit: deleted incorrect comment about physics warp. I'm not sure why "send anonymous data" prompt is appearing again and again. It should be possible to (permanently) enable/disable it, from the main settings menu, General options, "Show stats tracking dialog on startup." Edit: If both of these settings are not sticking, I wonder if it might be a weird interaction with windows file security policy. If that was the case, you also would not be able to save craft files, or any configuration changes. That would stick out more, I'm sure you would have noted that. So, IDK.

A reddit poster produced a graph showing how the contract pool is filled with trivial / significant / exceptional, based on reputation score.

Thanks once again Based on what I heard in last week's special SQ, I thought there might be a bit more about 1.0.3 plans. But Mu and other travelers probably lost most of the week to travel and jet lag

It's incredibly packed / well-done. Nice place to visit, but there's little free space available, for my extensive collection of 20th century antiques

It's looking more like this is still an issue. Fuel flows were specifically named as changed for 1.0, intake air assumed to be included, but perhaps not, or some other problem is getting in the way, idk. See pix in this post by LordFjord, he has made a mod/fix that reassigns intakes... follow this thread for info.

They didn't share their rationale for adding cost scaling in the announcement, so we get to speculate about it (devblog link) Contracts provide a relief valve for the costs: stranded Kerbals are grateful for your help, and will join your space program, for free Edit: I think more like: the logs say the average user has trouble getting into orbit, and so more effort has gone into basic UI work, like the VAB info panel, which saw more developer work in the last go-around, expanded to an "engineer's report" to help players with the most basic rocket building difficulties. Given time, I think Stock could end up with some KAC-like features.

I like Kerbal Cost... knowing it has the outlet of 'rescue' contracts. You might pay for the first handful of helpers, but the work of fetching them from wherever they are stranded starts looking worth the trouble, as hiring costs increase. Stuff getting more expensive, and other kinds of resource scarcity leads to (hopefully interesting) choices. I wrote in one of the long 'overhaul everything' threads, about XCOM: Enemy Unknown gameplay choices: you would like to do three different things on any given turn, but, you only have enough resources to do two... or one. If you can't 'have it all,' you need to think, plan and choose what's important. Dittos underlining "World's First" contracts. It's neat to get out there and do stuff, and be rewarded for these discoveries or achievements, without 'waiting for instructions.' I don't think it can be extended to repetitive contract types, however, without some additional thought about exploits: One could simply spam satellites around the highest-paying planet or moon, to print funds. I think repeatable contracts need to be randomly assigned... while the current contract scheme is in place. Speaking of exploits... 5b about multiple mobile labs. You could rationalize this as a 'space program manager,' putting your scientists in competition with each other on the same samples, I suppose, and they came up with new discoveries independently. But, I don't think it's good to leave it that way, given what I just wrote about resource scarcity pushing (hopefully) interesting gameplay choices on the player. I will try to un-read that, lol. Tech tree is much better, but still needs balance work. Thanks to the code overhaul, it's easier to move stuff around. But gallons of virtual ink are and will be spilled, probably forever, agonizing over how the stock parts could be organized. Action groups: A new player wouldn't know what they were missing out on, if they started out in career mode. I think giving access to 2 to start with would be helpful both as a sample of a game feature and its utility. (That logic could be extended to any other game feature that is completely un-available to the starting tier... I don't think it applies equally to everything, needs thought on a case-by-case basis.) I think the service bays are neat. Just the right size for snack storage. Bill (or is it Bob?) is always going out there, to fetch a cookie. (Val just laughs privately. She packed all her snacks in a carry-on bag.)

Mods: folks got to climate worries, because the OP story links SLS program changes, to possible cuts in earth science programs. It was inevitable That said, check out this article today on Ars Technica Solid fuel boosters, not liquid, will likely launch NASA’s giant SLS rocket

dV info display postponed out of 1.0 (expected v1.1) - work was in progress, but not ready for 1.0. Reddit source

@panzer1b: it's a sandstone-like material, with the drawbacks that you note. Handle with care. On other hand, the material supports great color and fine detail. Published April 10, this article talks about the business side of how EUCL3D got started. It has a few nice pix of printed models.

One of the comments below the review brought up the sun orbit statement. Not the best review I have read. I think a review should focus on what is included in the box, with maybe a few lines mentioning that good and interesting mods are available, but not go into so much detail about how they work. I think something as feature-packed as mechjeb, deserves its own article

The moving dots on the orbit line... are very small. They could be made larger. I've found myself squinting and staring at times. At first, its very frustrating. Some players handle "why isn't this working?" frustration better than others. Once you figure out the problem, then hopefully, an "Aha!" moment occurs, followed by "I know I'll be able to do this the right way, next time."

I've been gradually leaning toward regex views, on the question: I think extended numbers information could be hidden behind various "advanced" buttons, (and in career mode: Tracking and R&D upgrades) so that it doesn't bury noobs under a "complicated mess of windows and words that will frighten and startle." I think that quote excerpt is what worries Squad. Adding the option into stock, to display extended info, would definitely appeal to more experienced players. The early resistance on this question is eroding. dV info was delayed, not canceled outright. In my view, the culture of continuous updates Squad is entering makes it nearly inevitable that more UI work will be done, and more info provided in stock.

You're welcome. It became so long, that I didn't think it would fit in a forum post. Oddly, it has page views so I know people have seen it, but no one has made comments about things they said or didn't say. Folks don't make many comments on blogs, compared to forum posts.

Here is an older quote about the shelved original plan for ISRU, which refers to "end-game content" - (but does not mention any specific ideas) I'm not worried about KSP going the cheap DLC route, they answered that in the recent reddit AmA. They don't like it. A paid expansion (and they have no plans as of yet) should contain significant amounts of new stuff.

The tweet is Maxmaps way of saying "vacation week" is over, the visiting crew has flown / is flying from Mexico, back to their homes around the world. KSP work starts again, this week. Mu talked about a few more Aero tweaks (Quote 1) (Quote 2), those are what I expect (at least) in the next "hotfix" patch. Edit: When Unity 5 was brought up in the last squadcast (see my sig, text search recommended due to length) Samssonart was the one who had the most to say about it. Just general stuff, nothing exciting. I have a feeling he is the developer who was first to start experimenting with KSP builds on U5.

I think it's awesome that KSP has a development future. Sales and reviews have been good. They've said multiple times now that they want to hit the books over the next cycle, and upgrade to Unity 5 for v1.1. I think it will have to feature some graphical improvements, although they have said nothing along those lines, yet. Unity 5 offers physically-based shading: metals that look more metallic, as they interact with light sources. To get best results with that, other games I've been following talk about the need to revise their texture maps. Sprinkled throughout the recent all-hands Squadcast were thanks to the community for supporting KSP, and positive statements that they aren't done yet, it will continue to improve.

Ratcheting up the "simulation" side of KSP with 1.0 was bound to be controversial. Before you needed mods to make KSP more technical... now you may need to find mods to go in the other direction. KSP has a 'new normal' - it will take time to get used to.

Attempting in-physics recoveries was one of my favorite .90 activities & frustrations. I've been doing more forum reading or writing lately, than actually playing. Thanks for this great overview, it inspires me to 'get back in there'

Couplers give one-to-many connections, in a single part. They can be "worked around" at a cost of adding parts to a base part, like the modular girder segment or cubic octagonal struts, to create more node connections, up to the symmetry default limit of 8. Depending on what is attached to the new nodes, strut connections may be required to brace / keep it together. I wouldn't object to the stock game adding coupler parts for 5/6/7/8...

I just tried this with a simple "24-77"-engines-in-symmetry-around-tank design in both 1.0.2 and v.90. This is -at least- a bug with the display of the thrust vector. It is shown going straight down in .90, with the same symmetrical design, and off at an angle in 1.0.2 edit: Oops, read right over sal_vager post #4 writing the same thing.

So true. The 'score' isn't as important as the words backing it up. In the late 90's, Computer Gaming World (print version) famously resisted review scores. They had writers. And they wanted readers to... read, and make their own judgments. PC Gamer and its ilk pushed large, glossy screenshots and scores. (Sigh.) One of these is still in print.