basic.syntax

I wouldn't be so sure. I think the caption was made by a player asking the question - would Max use a question mark? Another picture had a caption: "Fairings separation in 1.0 looks weird." I don't think Maxmaps would write that. I will take a wait-and-see approach, but my feeling is the illusion of terrain being rough comes from shadows that are in the texture map.

I thought the support beam made sense, and with its intention for small utility items. Some folks will want taller versions of these, if we're going down the road of putting arbitrary craft stuff in them like micro rovers. (b/c Mk2/Mk3 cargo bays have various lengths.) Thanks for your work, RoverDude!

Quoting myself, as their seems to be some renewed doubt about the decoupler ejection force bug.

That's the picture showing new in-line utility bays with various science and utility parts... it does look a lot like a goo canister, next to a Z-400 battery. The similar-shape radial monoprop canister is even bigger, so if it's not a new part, it does look smaller than it used to be.

That makes so much more sense than what I was thinking. They would not add complication to parts, if they don't really need to. Max said in SQ that higher tier parts (like Mk3) would have higher built-in tolerances for heat. The "ablative" heatshield is intended for parts with lower heat tolerance. So I'm thinking yes.

I did get the impression that heatshields would record "wear" by some method, since he said after an aerobrake comment in SQ "unless you are hyper-efficient on how you use them... not going to be able to use them more than once." Max opened the floodgates of post-1.0 speculation by saying that they have ideas for other things to do with Ore, but for 1.0, it will only process into the various fuel types.

Around 36:00 into SQ, after the 2nd or 3rd time his craft-of-the-day had unceremoniously self-destructed, he talks about it and said he believes it's been fixed, but wanted to check to be sure, and might let folks know with a tweet or other posting. He was really appalled over the situation and let the craft spin out of control, for all to see. If Ted checks this thread again, and could help with the question, forum readers would appreciate it

I believe that's a narrow-band scanner for pinpointing the best mining spot. Revealed in a previous Squadcast. There's a larger one for full surface scans. (It's shown folded up, in pictures on that linked page.)

The impression I got from Feb 24 Devnote Tuesday below, was that they MIGHT split along more than 2 vertical lines.

External seat launches turn out to be a bad idea:

I'm a bit disappointed that announcements we've all been waiting for seem to start in Twitter. You can't use the official forums as a sole source of KSP information. I think we will be compensated by the usual detailed release notes. (Ex: .90) Long-format postings come here, 140char stuff shows up over there. Whether agree or not, the question was hashed over and answered in this thread.

I think folks wanting prettier pictures should pin their hopes on the Unity 5 game engine update (though it may take 6 months, new U5 features provide the best place to overhaul the look of just about everything), this update is more focused on gameplay features, than effects.

Nothing new about trailers and ads looking 'better' than the product you get. A hamburger can look amazing in an ad, each item artfully placed *just so*.

They've been reaching out to other gaming audiences, to spread awareness and find more customers. Squad is very happy when videographers and streamers for other games announce they are going to spread the word about KSP with their audience.

...but, you posted twice about it I, too, enjoy my time 'away' from KSC, and thus my tolerance for minor graphical problems, as long as intended game mechanics work.

Agreed. But I wouldn't worry, they thought of interiors for tier 1 and 2 VAB, they are different from the fully upgraded version. Different and less shelving racks on the sides. No trucks running around. Darker color scheme.

@5thHorseman: Cool. I think the numbers came from players. (Also, it could get confused with Kerbal skill levels - five there.) I re-read the entire "barn raising / razing" thread, and didn't find a Squad source for the idea, no one was correcting these speculations: @Sandworm: Oh yes, they have a release date in mind. Maxmaps has been policing himself hard to keep from leaking it, in the last couple squadcasts.

I agree Tier 0 is quickly upgraded out of, but... not having the "Tier 0" means another round of career mode complaints about the expense of upgrades. We kind of need Tier 0, even if its quickly done with, not completely polished, and creates a threadstorm about unprofessional, misaligned textures floating over something somewhere... just for the math benefit of spreading costs and parts limitations over 4 levels instead of 3. Gameplay vs. polish argument

@5thHorseman: ok... how long ago, do you think? I started looking, and found this..., suggesting ideas for upgradable buildings go "way back." Another intermediate upgrade tier could be on the same level of possibility as GP2.

Me 2, but, typo? I was expecting just one new tier, a new foundation for the three in v.90.

While one could criticize Squad for seeming to "rush" to meet a ship date (with this news of dropped or delayed features,) at the same time I think they should be complimented for not sacrificing their quality goals for those features, in order to meet a ship date.

One interesting comment I picked out from listening to SQ (around 18:00): Internal QA took longer than they expected, but because they took that time, Max said the wider 'experimentals' phase is going "swimmingly" so far. (I think that means Squad is not seeing a lot of bug reports about new problems) They have scheduled "a bunch of time" for Experimentals, but, they may not need to use all of it. But, "hope for the best, prepare for the worst." Discussed around 31:10 - Sad to hear that the new "Tier 0" buildings might not be ready in time. Max did not say they are definitely "out" - but wanted to prepare us for the possibility. On the other hand, I'm happy that Squad is not tying the artist to his desk 24/7, to meet the ship date.

From time to time, code does get overhauled.

Agree with OP. I've seen a few videos of Space Shuttle designs with 4 S1 SRB's on a quad adapter, and done the same many, many times. I think v.90 Mk3 parts lead to heavier stuff than the v.25 "NASA pack" SRB and its SLS-focused parts envisioned. Helping Hcube - If other readers haven't seen it, check out the "Make SRB's better" thread.

Not quite 8. Squad announced the "experimentals" phase on April 2, saying "The builds will soon be in the hands of..." Devnote Tuesday on April 7 revealed some last-minute goodness, and then finally, reports of experimental builds appeared.