Alshain

For starters, do not clip any part of a landing gear through any other part, even the wings (some of the housing will naturally clip through, that's ok, but you seem to have the whole housing moved up through the wing). This is problematic in 1.1, it may or may not fix the problem of veering off the runway, but you will not be able to fix it as long as they are clipped. Wheels in 1.1 are very specific to their contact area. Don't put them on backward, don't angle them, don't clip them. Are the wings angled downward from the fuselage? That creates downforce, it puts air over the top of the wing and kills your lift. To answer the question, the trim can not be set in the SPH. KSP's trim implementation is lacking, it can't even be assigned to a flight stick. It's really bad. You can adjust the deployment angle but that affects everything.

The demo is outdated but not enough that it should matter. As I recall, the demo was updated to v1.0 (I think so anyway), so it shouldn't be that far off from the current release, except it's on Unity 4 and can be sluggish. I'm sure they don't want to update it to 1.1, it's kinda the worst version we've seen because they changed the entire game engine and now they have to clean it up. The game is certainly not one I would recommend buying right away. Some people will love it and others will hate it. That's it's nature. The demo of this game is very important IMO (as are the Youtubers and Streamers) in making the decision to buy.

Presumably time instancing would be a decision of the server administrator. If it's customization enough, then it should be out of Squad's hands, let the server owner decide. Then it falls down to your decision as a non-administrative player of whether you want to be on that server or not. Not all of the ideas have time instancing. There are several gameplay styles proposed in this thread and I think several modes of play would be nice to have. One of the suggested methods is a "mission control" style where everyone "flies" the same ship, where different aspects are locked out from other players. The idea is to have multiple players with a set "task" to accomplish the mission and they have to work in concert to succeed. (Have you seen any YouTubers/Streamers play "Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes", this would be like a more extreme version of that!) Just spitballing here, one player could be the Flight Director, he makes the calls and can speak to everyone except the crew, but has no control. One player is CapCom, he has to relay messages to the crew. The crew can be one or more players. Then there is the guy that watches the rocket stats (heat, electricity, fuel, etc.) He has to communicate to the flight director, especially if something goes wrong! There there is the guy that plans the manuever nodes (a little less realistic on that position, but it's a game). And so on and so forth.... depending on the number of players available, some of these could be combined. This would actually work better online through a build-in voice chat if possible, because if you are in the same room then it breaks the relationship between CapCom, i.e. anything the ground control says can be heard by the crew. Worst case scenario, you only have 2 players in which case one is the astronaut and the other is the entire ground control team and it won't matter so much. It would be more fun with more players. Regarding the developers, I'm fairly certain they have had one guy working on it for some time now. I don't think that affects the developers working on the game, as far as I understood.

There is no difference in resources. I'm not sure where this idea that LAN and online are two different things came from, as you aren't the first to mention it. The connection is the same, except one doesn't open up outside your local network. From a coding perspective if you have coded a LAN option then you are nearly done with online play, all you need is the menu interface to set it up.

As has been discussed in this thread and others, yes. A "mission control" style game where multiple players play various positions in NASA could be one style of multiplayer. You were the one that said you wanted realisitc, now you complain that I agree? Are you sure about that? The QL wasn't even released when I was playing multiplayer games. If you haven't played a MUD, you haven't really experienced multiplayer Why do you care? If you don't want multiplayer, then when it comes don't play it. It won't affect you at all, so why are you in this thread?

This is NOT my first screenshot, but it's on of the oldest one I have saved. (Notice that is not the Mk2 parts )

KSP is whatever Squad says it is, not any of us in this thread. Squad said they are doing multiplayer so KSP with multiplayer is KSP.

I agree there. Having a hosted dedicated server is going to be very important, otherwise you have clients fighting with each other on what should be where due to floating point errors. The server could utilize the client machines for offsite physics processing, but ultimately the server needs to decide and the clients need to obey.

You said you wanted an "MP realistic game" and now you complain when I reference real life? Perhaps you should take a look here http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/realism A decade? Really, you think they are going to be developing KSP for a decade more? I think Multiplayer is probably going to show up within the next year, maybe 2... even that is a stretch though.

You say it isn't realistic, you do realize NASA wasn't one person... right? Co-op can take many forms, building a station or base together, have a space race, have mission control, there are tons of ideas in this thread if you would read them. You say it would only appeal to a few people. How do you know this? Just curious, did you ask every KSP player? Time will tell if it flies or not, but regardless, Squad has already committed to it, so best get used to the idea, it's coming like it or not. I'm certainly not telling you off, discussion is fine but I can't provide counter arguments to "a feeling" because that isn't a real reason not to add it. I don't think anyone in the thread here expects it to happen before 1.2, so the repeated suggestions that other stuff must get done first really doesn't work. Other stuff is going to get done first.

No offense, but "It won't feel like KSP" isn't a sound argument against it. Your saying your feeling is a reason to deprive a bunch of people that want it. No real justification beyond "it's just a feeling". Do you not see how that sounds? If that is the argument that works then I feel like it will be KSP and better KSP if it does have multiplayer. No reason, just a feeling.

Yes it was, but the Shuttle is a plane. But to what end? If you want a 4 passenger transport plane, build a Mk2 plane, it would be a lot more efficient anyway.

I'm not sure what you are saying, I'm not reporting a bug. I'm looking for a Skybox that I have seen before, and I know it exists, I just can't find it now.

ROFL, yeah that was like the first thing I tried.

The honest truth is that VR development is a large undertaking (maybe*) and the user base is very small. This could change in the future, though my personal feeling is that it is a fad largely due to the fact that it is so cost prohibitive. Regardless, you can't expect a lot of companies to jump on board with something that doesn't have the audience to justify the development. Either it has to be very simple to develop or it has to have a very lucrative audience, and all evidence on VR says it is neither. *Supposedly Unity 5 supports VR which may in fact make it much more trivial to implement than it seems. This of course depends on what it takes on the KSP side to implement it as well.

This looks... different.

Lol, RIC you should have made sure to ask for *working* instructions to install on a console. You only have yourself to blame

I've seen this before and I can not find it now when I want it (of course), someone had made a high res version of the stock skybox. To be clear, I'm not talking about fancy galaxy/nebula/etc. skyboxes (not Rearden's for example) just the basic skybox but not ugly. Anyone know where that is?

The biggest problem with docking is unbalanced RCS. Unfortunately the stock game doesn't help you much there. RCS Build Aid mod is useful (assuming this is a PC version) to balance the RCS forces. Unbalanced RCS doesn't mean you can't dock, but it's a lot harder when your craft won't stay pointed at the target because of induced torque.

@KerikBalm I'm not entirely clear what you are ranting about here, so I'll just say again... it's a game, not a simulator, so don't expect it to be a perfect representation of the real world. I wouldn't have high expectations of this "fix" being a low priority issue, I would fully expect it to be considered a non-issue.

I wouldn't count on the "future proofing" without knowing more about how the system is going to work. From what little we have heard about it, there are going to be two classifications of antennas, though not directional and omnidirectional like RemoteTech. RT is based on a directional/range limitation of antennas, the stock system has been described as being limited by the technical hardware and software that in real life would be attached to the antenna, rather than the antenna itself. Specifically store-and-forward technology. in the real world SAF would be determined more on memory capacity and programming on the radio rather than the antenna. SAF capable radios use the same antennas as older radios that did not support SAF. Some of the antennas were described as being relay antennas (SAF), while others were described as transmission antennas (not SAF). The details are still unclear, but if relay antennas can not be used to transmit data then simply attaching the largest antenna doesn't guarantee you will be able to transmit data with them. (FYI: In the real world, it does guarantee it, but in the interest of gameplay, it may not be the case) We just don't know enough right now to say for certain that you can future proof existing craft.

This is correct.

It reminds me of Angry Birds.

1. Maybe, I don't know of one. But that would still be redoing the parts. I'm not saying they shouldn't be, those are really good looking parts in that screenshot. Just that it isn't as simple as importing them into the game. 2. I suppose it depends on your screen size/resolution or maybe the individuals attention to detail. The details look fuzzy to me when placed along side the Mk2 parts. Don't mistake that for saying it is a bad mod, it's just not PorkJet quality and if it were going to be stock it would need to be. Look at this screenshot here, pay attention to the definition around the edges of the windows, notice how they look raised on the Mk2 cockpit, the little nuances like the RCS ports (which sadly do not function). The one on the left just looks more bland and it's curves are decidedly less curved, it has ridges. They creators are clearly at different levels, this probably comes from experience and possibly a little obsessive compulsive disorder. 3. That argument could be used to justify a dozen Mk2 science pieces, but the science is considered cargo and the cargo bays are there for that purpose. If you don't like the methods of activating it, there are action groups to do it all in 1 command. 4. Mk3 was designed for planes, as with anything in KSP people find other ways to use them. 5. Expecting to live on planes is a bit silly. Even the NASA space shuttle wasn't really lived on, they are temporary journeys. Planes are for transportation, not dwellings.

@RoverDude has clearly stated it will be an option somewhere, details are fuzzy. Worst case scenario, it will require an edit of the persistence file to turn it off, but I doubt Squad would do that. Ideally, existing saves would be assumed to have turned off, since they didn't have it at the start, and it would be a 'new career' difficulty option, maybe also have an Alt-F12 option in there too.