basic.syntax

HarvesteR was thinking about the problem over the course of three weeks / devnotes, looks like it needed more bake-time in the oven.

Just looking at the words, two instances of words starting with the same letter (e e, d d) ?

Post #1000! Seems an appropriate place to cross-post this, from reddit (link) (Note: the post quoted below is in reply to a detailed, interesting observation that is also worth the read. Click the link above to read the below, in original context.) By KSP_HarvesteR, 2015 April 11Very well put! There is an ongoing paradigm shift with software development and distribution these days, and it's fair to say we are caught right in the middle of it. The line between unfinished and finished software is getting increasingly more hazy. In our case, for what it's worth, there is a purpose in the 1.0 version tag. It means our departure from the Early Access program, to be counted as a pblished title. And this is worth stressing: it means nothing else but that. Moving out of Early Access should be good for both us and players. It helps define the extent of the game and manage expectations, and it also puts us in a more established category for games (many gaming 'hubs' still don't accept Early Access titles as eligible). As for the future, post-1.0, I'm looking forward for that quite a bit. For the first time in the game's history, we are looking at a phase of development where the pressure on us isn't an order of magnitude greater than the previous phase. Looking back: Before we went public, there was pressure from the uncertainty of how the game would be received. After 0.7.3, the pressure increased tenfold as players now expected more features and more quality. After 0.14, the pressure increased even more, as the game was no longer free and we had to match the expectations [of] a payware product. After 0.19, as we moved to Steam, the pressure increased tenfold yet again, as the number of players started to simply explode, and we were now being put up on a scale against multi-million AAA games. As we neared Beta (and entered it), pressure increases yet again, as everyone becomes frantic at the idea of the game reaching an end in development (which is untrue in our case, see the start of the post). Now with 1.0 looming ahead, the pressure is at an all-time peak. Even though we know full well 1.1 is going to follow jsut as 1.0 followed 0.90, this release is fraught with an impending sense of doom and dread, which stems from that same notion you wrote about, that once software reaches 1.0, it's burned to disks, wrapped in plastic and trucked to stores. Needless to say, that is an obsolete way of looking at things, especially with EA software like KSP. However, because like I said earlier, we are caught in the middle of this ongoing paradigm shift, we justcan't rid ourselves of the expectations and stress associated with going 'Gold'. On that same token though, 1.1 promises to be a much deserved period of decompression. I am very much looking forward to it. Cheers

Auto-select, or auto-place a command pod? (Extending the abilities of the hint popup, which appears the first time you enter the VAB.) New hints with arrows pointing at various UI controls?

I can't compete at this level... you guys are doing a masterful job at coming up with stuff that requires serious thought. But, here is my contribution to puzzle of the day (less serious thought required - but also - space!) In the list below are names and dates that, when grouped appropriately, represent a number. Your answer should state the appropriate name or date and (importantly) the number, that plugs into the equation below. Tereshkova Nikolaev Grissom Popovich Shepard Bykovsky Glenn Schirra Titov 1969 March 3 1981 November 12 [ ] + [ ] = 4 ----- EDIT 1: (thanks Slashy!) Something is odd about these names. Titov (2nd Russian in space) is not part of the answer I was looking for.

(I started with .23.5 - ARM) I read a lot of stuff before I figured out Science. I learned that you didn't need a full rocket, or go anywhere! You could just launch a command pod... and then right-click on it, crew report, eva report - for your first little bits of Science. The game needs a Science UI, to consolidate the myriad ways of gathering science. But that is probably more than a 2 day job, it would tie into a lot of parts, and most of them can be copied many times on crafts.

Some people changing their minds on the subject shows how this poll thread was a product of its time. An announcement of moving from the first beta straight to "1.0", created a huge shock. (I was surprised, too.) At that time, you had no idea except by the results of past updates, if Squad might be able to deliver on their goal statements in the "beyond beta" article. I looked at what they had done, and given time, I thought they could do it. "They are not shipping .90 tomorrow, and calling it 1.0." - post 151. I'm on the record with a Yes vote in post #124. I'm looking forward to next Monday

Sorry, but, very unlikely to be that. The idea was covered halfway back in the thread.

I lose my rover so easily due to exceeding the speed limit and discovering the downsides of sideways travel... as real as it is to bump into things, doing so could make travel in some places quite a chore. If we had more to do on the ground, if "biomes" offered more kinds of science activities that required in-biome travel, or new science / resource extraction in particular places that were closer together (perhaps the new fine print contracts?) then adding collision would become a more important "feels missing" part of the ground-travel package, for more players. New or expanded game features would give us more reasons for ground travel in a small area, and justify this for me. I don't think we will get all of that, in a week I'm hoping for something inspired by KAC. But whatever it turns out to be, if the huge list of bullet points from last week's Devnote is any guide, it will be appreciated.

Thanks nyrath, for finding that blog discussion thread! Sadly... it's sad. After many years of trying to get it made, and then stress from early backers wanting to see more for what they put in.... reach may have exceeded grasp. I don't think it was intended to have much in the way of conflict or explosions; the documentary style may have made it a hard sell to any studios the idea was shown to. It would have needed a ton more FX and green screen work to fill it out from 5 minute trailers, to 90 or 120. The longer a project drags on, the more likely older work might need to be reshot. Actors become unavailable, or more expensive. I don't really know, just casting ideas about.

Maxmaps talked about it in a Squadcast. But to perpetuate some ambiguity, even with the revelation of boys and girls, some things... we may never know. (See this comment, over on reddit )

This seems appropriate

The way they wanted to do a delta-v display was apparently not trivial, because as of March 20, it was not likely to make it into 1.0.

Just look back at the .90 release, as a guide. They may not lift the embargo until the day before everyone can play with it. Releasing a flood of 1.0 videos any earlier, would be torture

Perhaps the next Devnote Tuesday: "By now, you may have noticed the new _____." (That is, if you have taken time out from running the new resource drill in every possible situation, hunting for RoverDude's "Easter Egg" :) )

The OP is getting out of date, lol. A bunch of smaller in scope, but very neat stuff has been added to the game in the last 2-3 Devnotes. But, I suppose the entire thread becomes obsolete very soon: Squad will publish a nice change-list article, and we'll "get to work" in a new 1.0 discussion thread.

My favorite free flash video downloader that works in Firefox... wants to section the Twitch archive stream into 1.5mb chunks. SO that one is not going to work I don't see why an interested volunteer could not cross post / upload the temporary archive of Squadcast to YT. I think the worst that would happen is a DMCA notice is issued and that content gets blocked. Does YT ban accounts on first offense?

Towing Notice - (You may not start a flight thinking it is appropriate, but some of them will end this way, lol.) Missing Planet

I also wondered about different possible interpretations of "we" in HarvesteR's explanation. While it is possible to program for all sorts of combinations and outcomes, if previous features (and complaints by experienced players) can be a guide: they also don't want new players to get confused by a bewildering number of controls and options. I really don't know how much customization stock fairings will have, we've only been shown a few screenshots, and today's short video... is very short. Only 6 days to go

This just posted, an ultra-short video showing the buildup process (link) but only about 2 video frames devoted to separation, because the rocket was still under high acceleration, lol.

I agree with this Video games are "interactive entertainment." Max sits down with his favorite drink, and shows he enjoys playing the game. He isn't a core developer like HarvesteR or Mu with intimate knowledge of KSP inner workings. It is an interactive live show: he takes audience suggestions on what contract to accept, how to tweak craft and why this or that idea isn't working. I find some of it cringe-worthy, but I think its cool that a member of the KSP team is out there playing unscripted, perhaps bringing in some new players, and having fun with it.

I would plan on it being expensive. You can check Shapeways or Eucl3d for an idea of costs to put those items together, and perhaps just go to them directly for the parts you might want more, out of that set. (I hadn't checked shapeways in ages, prices on some smaller figures are under $30.)

This says the exterminator has been busy -

I recall some comments that Squad have other ideas for uses for "ore." Thinking of it as water may not work in the long run. The "other uses" might appear in later versions of KSP, but for 1.0, "ore" will just be processed into the various fuel types.

Maxmaps didn't refer to mods, or even use the word "procedural" in his SQ comment about the fairing separation picture. Move to 58:30 in linked video.