basic.syntax

It was a hard game in .90, and the changes may make it seem a lot harder in 1.0. SAS may seem to jerk you around or overcompensate b/c of increased gimbal range on rocket engines; this can be adjusted in flight when it becomes a problem, by right-clicking on the engine and decreasing the gimbal range percentage. Flying is harder due to drag effects pulling on you. Make gradual turns, sharp ones can get you in trouble. If you've been flying at max thrust, try going slower. Take a look at this advice thread, the aerodynamics stuff may help, and many other questions and answers are scattered through it.

You can find problems with every component, but the sum of the parts adds up to an amazing experience.

I've been surprised by the amount of work some folks will go to, to be disruptive.EVE Online has the CONCORD "space police" to take someone's ship away, if they shoot you without cause in so-called "safe" high-security space. The illegal shooter also gets a criminal flag for 15 minutes, which heavily restricts what they can do. Most will wait it out in a station until they can shoot someone else, if that's what they really want to do in life. Some who like to interfere with mining ships in high-sec bypass that: instead of shooting the mining ship, they will spend crazy amounts of time doing nothing but bumping into a mining ship, (this causes no damage) maneuvering around and around, pushing it out of asteroid mining range. Blasting a ship is pretty fast, this bumping stuff takes time and effort. It isn't against the game rules, and has spawned endless forum threads. When several of them band together in a group to perform this ship-bumping activity, they can be fairly effective. I think KSP multiplayer intends to be more cooperative than competitive, with different servers and game types. I wanted to point out the work some slightly bent people are willing to do, if it will annoy others... they'd learn to orbit ...but if KSP multi is run across many independent servers, I don't see grief play becoming a problem.

They've said several times that the move to U5 will be done as part of a big update after 1.0 settles down. Here's a post about it, in the right discussion thread.

You may already be aware, or if not... perhaps wish to follow - these other threads I've seen about heat management: [Guide] New temperature rules for parts in 1.0 1.0 heat dissipation? PSA: Nuclear engine overheating [1.0] HeatWarning - technicalfool mod work-in-progress to give audio & visual warning of overheat condition

Do you have Engineer Kerbals helping? They give a big bonus, as RuBisCo is reporting. The system was not really meant to be run "unmanned," tho I certainly tried it that way, to poor results.

Bug fixes are ALL a "patch" or "hotfix" should do. I like the Mad Rocket Scientist's small outdoor train picture... get onboard that train, and it will get you to the patch-yard where (hopefully) the worst of the worst bugs get fixed. It won't be a cure-all, some problems will inevitably take longer to reach, and need a bigger train to carry.

Thanks for the clarification, and many thanks for everyone's efforts to help make KSP as good as it can be. Edit: [...snip...] Thx, TriggerAu

I learned something from it: it's possible to attach more than 1 SRB, to a single radial decoupler. I confirmed it in the craft file! I have always used one decoupler per engine. Edit: (The general thought being each part should only be attached to one other part, unless it looks like it's designed for more. I have branched multiple engines on a single decoupler before, by using girders and a quad adapter.)

It was something interesting I discovered on my own, but I'm not a new player anymore. It's a fairly complex craft for stock, I might be afraid to mess with it when just starting out with KSP. I think the "why doesn't this work" question would likely be encountered on-orbit, not at a critical time of craft operation. It's not "broken" until you activate the stage with 4 O-10 engines, and wonder why you don't get very far. Hopefully the player notices the upper right resource panel says that it has lots of monoprop, and from there right-clicks the tank. The next big hurdle for a new player, is realizing the red circle-slash icon is a button you can click. (Maybe its covered in a tutorial, I haven't done any of the new ones.) Some landers descriptions/info tell you that the launch vehicle isn't included; the Kerbal 2 is a "trainer" rocket not meant to get very far. But, the Leastar A1 description is a bit sparse for what it can do: "SSTO is overrated, payload capability and comfortable seats are all the rage these days."

Having flown this and wondered about it... I just checked action groups... mono tank is not listed there, just front winglets and then elevons in various combinations. I don't see an obvious method to enable turning on tank valves by action group. Selecting tanks doesn't display any action group options. The craft has 4 0-10 mono engines; I think the craft designer doesn't want us draining that tank un-aware. If so, that idea should probably be mentioned in the craft description.

I think its fair to wonder about other ways of arranging the tech tree, and Squad may move parts around in later versions. But one thing that is not likely to change, are manned missions as the first steps in Career. I think we have to write our own backstory about all the cardboard tubes and sounding rockets that lead up to the first "RT-5" flight in 1.0 career.

Taking that further, I heard a story on the radio about memory research, that said memories are not really, or always "original" - they get rewritten every time you remember them. Personal experience points to the occasional selective /wishful memory. I watch a movie I haven't seen in 10 years: "I remember that line.... but not said in that way. It was so much cooler in my head!"

Was kind of expecting to see a PC Gamer review by now, but they don't seem to be rushing it. Nice. PCGamer launch day announcement.

Does need *powered* rover wheels to count. I think even one wheel connecting with the ground would satisfy the contract check. Sorry for your trouble... been there Its a word-choice vs. player expectation issue. Players see the object 'small landing gear' has wheels, but, the contract doesn't accept it. Worked the same way in .90

in this case, picture = 103.14159 words

They have two teams: I think your concerns are generally addressed. The QA team is a small group internal to Squad with high knowledge of the game's inner workings. The close-to-100 "Experimentals" team is drawn from player volunteers, with less expectation that they understand the game's inner workings. Take a look at the "A Peek Behind the Kerosene Curtain" linked by TriggerAu for a more detailed explanation. Some players wish for the "Experimental" stage builds to be thrown open to anyone: a third level of testing. That is where your comment about weakly documented bug reports would apply. Players do have access (link in first post) to a bug reporting site.

Sounds like a known issue for 1.0 - check this thread to see if you agree. (I think a fix has a good chance of making it into the planned 'hotfix' patch - just my opinion based on that linked thread, tho.)

What engines are below these tanks? Are any parts beside strut connectors, attached to them? A screenshot would be helpful for someone trying to reproduce the setup.

Yes - Check this thread. Kerbal hires being expensive is a game balance / design choice. I've seen it brought up in other threads, along with this good and probably intentional work-around: rescue contracts. They're quite grateful for the pick-up!

The new parts, systems and overhauls in 1.0 are much appreciated; looking forward to what balance tweaks v1.0.1 might bring. Thank you!

I just wrote on this topic elsewhere ...after reading this I was also reading with interest - Flowerchild's thoughts on these subjects, in the BTSM thread. There's a good exchange starting about here, with Arsonide responding on the next page... contracts, tech, science - its all tied together, and a lot of work to build something cohesive (echoing tater discussion,) while only editing one part of it.

Squad clearly wants to put the focus on Kerbals first: they give the game its character, and make it a game (as in: an entertainment.) Seeing their goofy expressions gives the broader audience additional reasons to play, much more than a dry simulation would. KSP would not have gained nearly the following it has, without these interactive mascots. It's very unlikely that Squad would change the career game to "unmanned first."

dV readouts feature needed more work and has been delayed, but it should appear, in a future update.

Please be aware that by cross-posting this tweet here, it does not mean every problem listed in this thread is on Squad's list for their planned hotfix. Hopefully, someone on the test team is vacuuming the thread for problems that Squad doesn't already have in their internal bug-tracker.