Alshain

I agree, but really it needs an overhaul... again. That whole advanced section of the GUI is good in theory bad in practice. It's just not a very user friendly UI.

His concerns are valid. Tossing insult at him doesn't help your position.

@GoSlash27 and @Kerbart A more appropriate list of biomes is here, including all the KSC ones. It also answers the question in the OP

This is a really old thread, and 1.1. added the Next maneuver time to the tracking station so the request is now obsolete.

Hey, if they fix the game I fix my review I don't encourage people to buy broken games. When it's fixed, I will then be able to encourage people to buy it again. I agree Steam is useful if you have an account as it makes managing your collection a lot easier. If you don't already have Steam, there isn't much point... unless you just want to start. I currently have 127 games on my account, which is a small number compared to some people, and only 5 that are not in that list that are still runnable (I may have some really old games lying around, but mostly not functional in modern Windows). Namely Minecraft, 3 Blizzard titles, and Spore (which I bought on disk and regret buying at all). So obviously it's beneficial for me to keep all my games in a few locations as possible. I'd love it if I could get the Blizzard titles and Minecraft on Steam, but I know that won't happen.

My "endgame" usually comes for one of 3 reasons I feel like there is nothing left I want to do (almost never happens). I want to try a new set of mods from the beginning of a new career. KSP has a new version with a feature that I want to start from the beginning of a new career.

Nope, not fixed yet. We are hoping for 1.2 to fix the issues. They've shown at least one plane (a bit eccentric one by @Azimech) that did in fact drive down the runway straight in Squadcast, so that is good news. However, that plane may drive down the runway in 1.1.3 since some do and some don't.

Nobody is "beating up" on Soyuz, I'm saying the Shuttle is not as 'deadly' as the guy makes it out to be. It's track record is about the same as Soyuz.

Watching this video his facts are very skewed. "The Deadliest Vehicle"... well that is only because it's got the highest crew capacity. In fact we have lost cosmonauts to two Soyuz craft as well. It's just not that black and white. Also he blames the design for both shuttle incidents. While that may have been true for Columbia, the Challenger exploded due to the weather and an extreme lapse in good judgement on the part of Mission Control. He goes on to make assumptions that another design (which never existed) would never have failed, as if there is a way he could know that.

Doomed? 133 successful missions over 30 years is what they call 'doomed' these days? Realistically, yes it cost more than it should have and originally it was only supposed to be one part of an entire program, the remaining components never saw fruition. The truth that he glosses over in the video is that our goals changed. It was determined that the moon served no value beyond scientific research and was limited on that as well considering what we had obtained from Apollo was most of what we were going to get. The parameters changed and so the shuttle was re-purposed. However it did give us abilities that we would likely never have been able to do without it. The most notable is the Hubble. Yes we could have launched it on a rocket, but it was a massive failure and it would have remained a massive failure without the Shuttle to aid in repairing it. Without the shuttle it would have been a total loss. The Shuttle was instrumental in construction of the international space station as well. So was it 'doomed', no it was quite successful. It just wasn't what was originally planned.

I never got into Civ 5. I bought it, played a few hours, and went back to the vastly superior Civ IV.

Currently, I'm playing Twilight Princess HD. Before that I played the Strike Suit series. I'm really ready for this KSP break to be over already.

Holding the mod key forces the part to snap to the nearest node rather than attempting to attach radially. It makes things easier. If it doesn't work, try rotating it before you attach it using the WSADQE keys. I've also found it helps to adjust your viewing angle so you are looking at the hubmax from the side rather than head on to the attachment point. For some reason that makes it attach better. You have to understand that once it is attached, the game considered it always attached at that point, even if you move it (with the move tool, you can pick it up and replace it) or rotate it. So if you attach it to the docking side of the port and rotate it 180 degrees, the game still considers it attached to the docking side of the port. It doesn't attempt to change attachment nodes. And don't forget the Sr. ports, those are just outright backward in your screenshot. The texture you see there is meant to represent an airlock hatch from the inside. You will see that on many parts (including the hubmax), sadly they are decorative only and do not function in any way.

Your large docking ports there are on backward. I can't tell if the small ones are, it looks ok from the image but if that one is already decoupled it could have turned around. So it's not docking because you are on the wrong side and it's decoupling from the hubmax because the proper side is 'docked' to the hubmax. It has nothing specific to do with the hubmax, but improper use of the docking ports. Other than that, I would say provide a craft file. There is a chance that you attached the part to the dockable side and then rotated it as well. You shouldn't do that if you did. Hold the Mod key (Alt in windows) and make sure it attaches to the node the correct way, do not use the rotation tool to turn it around 180 degrees.

Excellent. Then I guess they can keep using a life support mod. No need to put it in stock, glad we agree! With that, I'm out for the night!

There was only one mod for both of those and the end results were very much like their respective mods (keeping in mind FAR evolved afterward, so it's no longer the same FAR as it was). Life support there are at least 4 major mods and several smaller ones. Now lets just take those 4, add a 5th option... no life support at all. Lets assume for a minute there is an even split of users (this likely isn't the case, but it's fine for this example). That means at best you get 20% of players that will appreciate the end result and the other 80% will want either a different implementation or nothing at all. Again, there is no victory in Squad implementing life support. Regardless of what they add, the majority will be unhappy for one reason or another.

Honestly the biggest issue is there are so many mods that do this and all of them different. If Squad were to choose just one, or even make their own, then you would still have a huge portion of the community unhappy. Those that don't want LS in-game will be unhappy, those that used one of the multiple mods Squad didn't implement will be unhappy. There is no possible way Squad could win on this. Their best bet is to leave it alone.

I know but that is annoying. I just want it to start that way from the beginning.

The generally accepted reason is that its aeroshell around a Mk1 tank as passinglurker said.. You can see this if you look at the end of it. Personally I think that's not a very good reason.

Not Sony, it's not been released there for the PS4. Also, does the law offer an allowance for repairing the issue rather than simply refunding it? If so, there presumably there is also some reasonable expectation of time to repair it. Such a timeframe would most likely be longer than 1 1/2 months. I don't live in the UK, so I honestly do not know the law specifically, but the typical notion is refund, replace, or repair and Squad is going with the latter I'm sure.

Oh, yes I agree there, but in his image I do believe the Ap is outside the SOI of the Mun (at least it seems that way to me, without numbers I really can't know for certain). So a slight inclination change would push the Pe out above or below the poles of the Mun and the Ap would mean you would never encounter it.

In addition to those mentioned already... Waiting on an update for:

Because you can't re-design everything out there. Are you going to make a new part to replace the KER parts? What about the MechJeb parts? What about the all the other little parts out there from various mods? Your argument is basically "I don't play the game like that, so you shouldn't either". Which is completely faulty. We want a cargo bay because it is infinitely more versatile than remaking every small part in existence. If you are not interested in having the cargo bay and are not interested in making the cargo bay, you have no business in this thread.

Then you will have failed at fulfilling this request. Which brings us back to wanting a Mk1 Cargo bay. I encourage you to go ahead with that idea as people will want it, but it is not what is being requested here.

Are you going to remake every small part from stock and every mod that exists? Sure you can do that, but it seems to me that a cargo bay would be a lot easier.