basic.syntax

Plane parts were in sore need of work, but now that we have them, I wouldn't be too surprised if we see some overhauled or new rocket parts in a future large update. Yes they were. It was needed: in previous versions, science points were so easy to get, you didn't need to go farther than Kerbin's moons to complete the tech tree. I think a combination of launch hangover, and mad scrambling to track down reported issues... I think a patch is in our near-future.

Squad has selected one path, I think intending to reduce complication for first-time players: the box says this is a rocket building game. So, here are the absolute minimum parts you need to get started in rocketry. With kerbal characters. I think it starts in a reasonable place, and 1.0 has improved things a little with some new branching. Nerfs to science points and new branching have helped with the .90 and earlier problem, where you didn't need to go farther than Kerbin's moons to fill out the tech tree. (I haven't really gotten into a career game yet, so I don't know by how much that might still be true.) I'm just explaining what I think happened... I like tater's ideas.

Yes, that type of UI bug has been around for a while. In the VAB it's possible to unintentionally select and remove craft parts, when clicking to adjust the staging sequence - the parts buttons in staging click through to the craft, if it's behind them. Mousing over UI buttons should be changed to focus them, and block click-throughs to craft parts.

Squad HQ is probably as busy today, as it was the day before release. Something will happen

I knew I'd seen words implying changes to eliminate asymmetric flameout, could not remember where: found it in this Squadcast summary: The linked video is no longer available, so I wasn't able to review the quote.

LoL @ Robotengineer I want to step back and say... I didn't see this coming, at least not with the kind of detail it has. I am both blown away by, and scratching my head with odd satisfaction at a new game mechanic to unravel. I'm going through learning pains, and the heating system may need some tweaks or UI help along these lines, but... wow. Congratulations Squad!

Perhaps you mean early tier / just starting out? I also thought this, but, I thought it unlikely to happen by the time "tier 0" would be ready; it would need a new UI and animation rigging work, to put Kerbal characters in the driver's seat in a polished, believable way.

Awesome - Thanks! I'm OK with this.The experienced player in me wants more gameplay, more parts... but the new player remembers first starting out in 23.5, and being overwhelmed by the "what does this thing do?" huge parts count. I intentionally went Career because I knew it would channel my KSP education, a few parts at a time.

RoverDude, a thread started up over here about ISRU convertor heating, I was wondering if you had seen it. It has some questions, and player's detailed observations of heat mechanics... as they understand it.

I've written way back in this thread, that this - or a limited version of this idea, would go great with the new "tier 0" and the beginning career node. Because "tier 0" was delayed again, the idea seems possible again. The new RT-5 was a step in this direction. I'm guessing it might not happen, if arguments against it involve marketing & branding: Squad may really want new players to see Kerbal characters involved, from the first rocket. (Counter to that: they are always visible... wandering around the VAB, trying to be useful.)

Sandwiching between fuel tanks does help slow down exhaustion due to heat buildup, but yeah. I'm also looking for & experimenting with heatsink strategies to keep one running full time... without help from an Engineer.

I would side-attach, x3 or x4 symmetry for balance, and put nose cones on top of them, to help with the drag. In .90 and before, nose cones didn't do a thing except look nice, now they actually do something. Also watch your speed, drag is higher closer to the ground... if you were going at max thrust, try taking a slower approach.

Agreed. It would be nice if SAS could be adjusted to use a more analog approach to moving the rocket nozzles. You can see the nozzles being pointed instantly from maximum right, to maximum left.

"Floppy rockets" can be caused by high speed in atmosphere... The new, higher drag forces push on rockets in new ways... may require a more cautious approach, not necessarily a bug. It's discussed by various posts in this thread.

Just tried the stock Kerbal X in sandbox, it handles very nicely, following the advice above. Got to orbit with fuel left in the main stage, landed on the Mun on first attempt, with only 150 LF left in the lander. IDK yet, if that will be enough to get back to Kerbin... Edit: Nope... I wasn't efficient enough with the intercept/orbit/landing. Taking a revert.

<< Changed my title on April 2

I like the sound of your version of horrible; that gives a functional reason to choose them, or not. The mass difference doesn't seem very much, except to very light probe craft. I would like to see some other, different changes to give both parts a role, where this no-retraction change might be worth the trouble, due to another benefit besides slightly lower mass. Such as: higher heat dissipation. Then they have a greater role as passive radiators. And/Or, make the cost difference really noticeable: 380 unshielded, 760 for shielded. Even with that, I'd be disappointed that no retraction might result in part loss, during aerobrakes and probably still end up leaning toward the shielded ones, if an aerobrake was planned.

I'm not so sure the pressure problem was not thought of, since some engines have had Kerbin sea-level ISP nerfs. Other engines may be better suited for EVE at sea level. (My opinion, have not tested.)

Claw is updating his set of quick fixes, with stuff for 1.0, including help with Fairings - (I have not tried these, yet.) Bookmark this page.

Ore / resources have been tuned so that it doesn't make much sense for lighter craft, due to the parts being heavy. It is intended to help heavier craft or distant missions to places like Jool, where you might want to refuel, land, and lift off from different moons with the same craft multiple times, making it worth setting up.

Science progression was too quick before... contracts gave too much science, that was nerfed. Now the emphasis is on science parts. (I'm echoing AmpsterMan) You could increase the Science percentage payouts in new game setup, to reduce the feeling of grind.

I do notice the increased braking power of parachutes at high altitudes. I think it gives Drogues a place... Just enough drag to turn your craft intended-side-down, not as much of an airbreak higher up. 'Chutes could be activated at low altitudes. I never used to use drogues... now they have a place! I Landed the Mk1-2 command pod with 2.5m heatshield, and only two radial drogues... popped chutes at 4000m falling at 250m/s, quickly slows to 35m/s for the rest of the way... hit the ground, everybody lived (IDK why the heatshield part didn't explode, the stats say crash tolerance of 9m/s. I tried it twice.)

I was literally in shock at the explosion, it was well-timed and unexpected. The mood was restored a little with pass-the-blame to sandwich guy, but it would have worked much better if sandwich guy had dropped said sandwich, swept all the food wrappers from his desk to reveal an "in case of emergency" button on the console. Some kind of deus-ex-machina to save the pilots, even if pod recovery wasn't shown. You'd still have the laughs from the pass-the-buck routine, and know he screwed up.

Is something specifically wrong, that you would call a bug that must be addressed - or, is it more along the lines of a balance question for the entire system? If it's a balance question, changes of that sort will emerge over a longer period of time, like perhaps the next regular release in 4 months or so.

Fuel cells: Engineer's report says they store, but don't generate - electric charge. Edit: Additionally, the Engineer's report doesn't understand why you might have a fuel tank with no fuel user (a fuel cell.) It just looks like fuel cells came into the build without some hooks for the report. This is minor stuff, not a hotfix-type item. (A "hotfix" is usually reserved for severe performance bugs, stability, crashing, or in cases of completely broken functionality.)