Alshain

They could have had pink flying monkeys on the console version, but they just don't. If you have a feature request there is a forum right here. However be aware new features take development time and well, we all want stuff. So Squad has to decide and prioritize and right now, that ability has not been at the top. Their reasons are their own. You are misinformed about Squad "leaving something out". They left nothing out, except keyboard and mouse support for some reason, but that is another issue entirely and I suspect one that will be corrected (though I do not know that). You are misinformed if you that you seem to think Squad intended to give consoles something extra than PC doesn't have. I can say with a fair amount of certainty that if they do give you scripting support, the PC version will get it as well, and likely first. I certainly do not think consoles shouldn't have modding, I'm just telling you that you should never have expected it to. I think the conversation has been pretty a civilized discussion. I certainly haven't felt I was the victim of flaming from anyone, I would hope nobody thought I was trying to.

Again, you are misinformed. Fallout 4 has scripting mods and that capability was explicitly added by the game developers. No explicit modding capability has been added to any version of KSP, ever. They just leave the access to it's members public so mods can access it, something a console will not allow you to do. The good news is, they just hired the developers of two mods that add an explicit scripting ability (Module Manager and Contract Configurator). We don't know that means they will be adding that function to the game, but it is very suspicious at the least. Also, the console version of KSP has a lot of the popular mods in the base game. About 80% (very rough estimate on my part) of the parts that exist in the game today were from the most popular mods, that along with many features that were directly or indirectly taken from mods. Of course those also exist in the PC version. If you were under the impression that the console version would have something more than the PC version then you developed a false impression all on your own.

In fact it is the game they are selling on the PC. The mods are not part of what Squad is selling or have ever sold. They certainly enjoy that the PC game can be modded, but it isn't part of the game they sell. You seem to be misinformed. Sony and Microsoft (and Nintendo) do not allow mods of the type on their systems. To the console makers, these type of mods represent a security flaw that would potentially allow users to commit acts of piracy on their systems. Mods require code not written by Squad to be able to be run on the PC, code that the console developers would require to be certified (a costly venture no mod maker would do). Squad didn't leave anything out because they didn't add anything like that to be left out. The PC modders are simply taking advantage of the more open architecture, in a few cases perhaps Squad has gone out of their way to not hinder their efforts, but they didn't add modding into the game through any conscious decision.

If anybody is interested I just added a patch similar to the one @Snark mentioned to my database. I agree, the thing is silly.

You didn't. In the sentence that followed that you made an assumption that not disclosing their financial state indicates a good financial state. I said that was a fallacy, because it is. Keeping your financial state private is a common practice whether it is good or bad. There is simply no way to know. I'm not arguing that point, only your timeline of events.

Nobody but Squad knows their profit margins. There are many reasons to withhold that information that has nothing to do with how much they are making. I hope they are doing well, but I can't say that they are. I'm going to have to correct you there because you are wrong. The desire to hire more QA is not an indicator that there are none already.

It depends on what you call "good business reasons". The reason for doing it is because the test team is lacking. Not that the test team isn't doing their job, it's that they aren't enough. Software development takes a lot of testing. I used to operate by the guideline that whatever it takes to develop, it takes 3x that much to test. So a week of development is nearly a month of testing, Not just time either, 5 programmers means 15 testers. (This assumes there is no possibility of automated testing, in a game that would be very hard to do). Squad doesn't do this, they rely on their customers to do their testing. Because they are an indie company, depending on the person that may or may not be an acceptable business practice. However, that is how it is. EDIT: And Squad isn't the only company that does it either. You have to understand and accept that if you choose to buy an indie game.

Happened to me at 1.1. The save file didn't corrupt but I couldn't keep the game running long enough to progress anyway.

Free speech only applies to the government anyway. Free speech means they can not fine or arrest you, it doesn't mean you can't be fired, shunned, or socially exiled.

The patch is coming, please read here. The good news is that despite their jumping to soon on the releases, historically Squad does fix the problems eventually. That's more than I can say for some companies, I have games on my Steam list (prior to the refund policy) that have never worked at all. Whether that comforts you any or not, I can not say, but as an experienced player I feel confident they will make it right in time.

@ChillingCammy I feel your pain, but historically this has been Squad's release model, those of us who play on the PC have been there, we are just a few steps ahead (and a few steps back with 1.1). Despite this, the game still sells. Those who have been here will recall I predicted the console launch would be problematic, but yet it pressed on and people still buy it. It's a good game, and I have no doubt Squad and FT will fix the issues, but jumping the gun on releases has always been an issue with Squad. I personally only have a Wii U, so don't even have the console version yet. I suppose that is a good thing in a way, after seeing the problems, but somehow I doubt the Wii U release will be flawless either

Traction in itself should be material dependent IMO, they should use biome mapping to apply a traction coefficient based on what you would be landing on if it weren't digital pixels on a screen. Grass is slick, so less traction. Sand/dirt has more traction, cement and asphalt even more still. There there is regolith which would behave closer to sand/dirt. I would think if VPP takes traction from the game (which it should since we have sliders to adjust it for some reason) and since biomes are already fully defined and detectable, then you should be able to do this relatively easily (of course the runway would require tier detection as well). I would think that even mod could do this relatively easily, though I wouldn't want to start on it until 1.2. Of course other factors make up the full traction effect, like the mass, and the wheels. If they did that, there would be no reason to have an artifically bumpy runway. Real dirt (or grass) runways aren't near as bumpy as the Tier 1 runway. Even dirt can be flattened pretty smooth.

I kinda disagree and agree. The feature would be nice (especially on consoles since you can't just copy the files out of the save folder) but I disagree with your implementation. What we need is a more versatile load/save dialog. In the last Squad cast they talked about new header lines in the persistence.sfs. They need to do that for craft and allow us to tag and filter our saved craft rather than archive them somewhere. Then you could even tag it as archive and remove it by filtering archived craft, but it's much more versatile than you describe. Ideally the tags would be text we create ourselves rather than pre-defined tags and we could filter by any one of them. One tag could be "stock craft" for example and replace the whole cheat menu option (at least in sandbox).

I'm a bit surprised you guys were brave enough to show that (I know if I were in your shoes I wouldn't have been). I'll have to go watch the recording.

That might possibly explain it.

Are you asking for reasons why it isn't being downloaded or are you asking for constructive criticism on the craft itself? I'm going to assume the latter since everyone else is commenting on the former (and it's good advice there). 1. The space shuttle wings are extra mass that shouldn't be necessary for anything. If you need stabilizing fins, you can go way smaller, but a craft like this probably does not. 2. If you are set on using the 4 radial liquid boosters, you should asparagus stage and get more bang for your buck. Personally, I dislike asparagus staging as LFO radial stages are expensive and unnecessary but if it is what you prefer that of course is more important. 3. Your thrust to weight ratio is 2.48 on the launchpad. That is a little high, it's going to make it hard to turn in the atmosphere. Depending on your preference 1.2 to 2.0 is where you want to be (I like 1.5 personally). If you are going without mods, get the TWR using the formula Total Thrust / (Total Mass * 9.81) Your mass can be seen in the engineer report, your thrust in the part catalog for the engine (5 mainsails, so 5 * 1379) 4. I don't really see anything that needs that much battery... or really any battery at all. That's just extra mass you have to lift and land, given you aren't staging them away so it makes you require more parachute too.

Oh I see now, I don't know why that didn't click when I read it the first time lol.

It doesn't work so you want it to be stock? That makes absolutely no sense at all.

Well, as I said earlier there is 20x the science you need in the game to get to the end of the tech tree (23.53x to be perfectly exact, not counting the MPL), so it's not like you NEED to return it, you could just send it somewhere else instead. That could be part of the problem, there is no incentive or reason to do so. Honestly, when I do collect science I just plow through the tree as fast as I can so I can start the game for real. Though lately I've just started career with the the required 16,918 science so I don't have to bother with the boring tech tree at all and I can still manage finances. I wish Squad would just add a Finance-only game mode so I don't have to go to all the trouble, but I suppose they have better things to do.

Or an antenna, which is a lot easier to take along I'm sorry, but the way the game is designed right now it might as well be called "Unmanned Probe Space Program". Alternatively you could call it "21st Century NASA"

I believe that was my point, yes. It is a big waste of mass, and you only need the guy for the science bay and the goo.

Which really isn't possible since on day 1 of year 1 of all creation we start lobbing rockets and the Mun.

You are forgetting cost. Carrying a scientist around for one unnecessary experiment is not exactly a smart way to play career, and that is on top of the cost to take the thing to space in the first place. Not that you can't do it, mind you, but it doesn't seem worth it to me when I can send a thermometer, barometer, pressure scanner, and gravity scanner to every planet pretty cheap and finish most (if not all) of the tech tree without even landing (and personally I find doing that a lot more fun).

@AlexanderB Yes it is, and that is also why you can change it with Module Manager now, which is really the better way to do it. I believe it is also the way the tree posted in the OP does it.

It just occurred to me why it is the way it is. It wasn't that long ago we didn't have the option to hold the mod key and snap to the node. The fact that some parts are not radially attachable is likely because of those days gone by and Squad probably never went in and re-evaluated its need once the controls improved. It's still a gameplay change, but I think I am leaning toward it being a good one. Though it won't bother me if it does or doesn't happen, so I don't if my vote really counts (as if it ever did).