Alshain

That's not true. Like in the real world, larger planes need better runways, but when the wheels are not slipperier than a greased pig a basic plane can easily take off and land from the dirt runway. It's actually very easy if you design a conventional taildragger. Tricycle gear can be done but it is a bit harder.

The thing is with City lights you still have a space center on a desolate planet.... that just happens to have bioluminescent grass,.

Holy Part Count Batman! Why do you need so many docking ports?... or Monoprop tanks?... or fuel tanks? There are bigger parts in the game for a reason. There is not really a way to salvage what you have (without discarding some of it), you need to build simpler. Plan ahead, if you need a lot of fuel, bring a few tanks capable of holding it. Only keep a few extra docking ports around. You are never going to need that many. The trick is to cut part count to a minimum. Unity 5 is faster and can handle more, but even that has it's limits. The little ladders seem nice, but that adds a lot of parts and Kerbals can jet pack through space.

@Tourist Well it's difficult to gauge, it's my perception anyway. I don't think there is really any way to prove it one way or the other. I hated Assasin's Creed, I only ever played the first so I wouldn't know about that one. Ultimately it really doesn't matter, it's beyond the point of no return now, so time will tell. I think there are more console exclusive players than you might. PC exclusive players may be quite a bit fewer, but given that off the shelf computer are rarely powerful enough for much, most people aren't willing to put in the effort to build their own gaming rig.

It was introduced in 1.1.1. They put a patch in to fix some other issue that some players were having and that just broke the game for others. It was definitely better in 1.1.0 (IMO)

@Tourist I live in both worlds, I'm not saying PC users are saints, but they do put up with more in the hopes of patches in my experience in various PC and console communities. I said this earlier, but only the latest few generations of consoles had the ability to digitally offer patches (PC games have been doing that since the NES was the top console). Even the ones that can patch haven't done it effectively until this generation (maybe the last gen too). For this reason they are less accustomed to getting them and they expect it to be perfect out of the gate and it if isn't they kinda figure it won't ever be. That is a generalization but we are talking about statistics, the masses are generally what affects the bottom line, not the few. That's not to say PC users don't get upset at bugs, but it gets fixed and things settle down over it and before you know people forget and go on playing the game. It's less likely that console players (in general, not all of them) will return to a game once they have deemed it a failure. It's not impossible, this is a prediction based on experience, I can't see the future and it's just a curious discussion topic. I don't think anyone is freaking out over it.

@Ultimate Steve I have no doubt they will break even, largely because I don't think the porting costs that much relatively speaking. It's already in Unity and that is already cross compatible, so there was probably only a little polish for the controls and such in the first place (keep in mind I am not trying to downplay Flying Tiger here, I'm sure they have their hands full). Their required sales to break even will probably be fulfilled pretty quickly, if anything by those willing to give it a try on the first day. That doesn't mean we still don't want it to do better, even those who will never buy a console version should be concerned with its success on consoles as the increased funding can serve to both increase funding for the development of this game as well as future projects from Squad. Since it's a common code set between the platforms, nearly anything they add to consoles comes to PC and that is very good for us if it has a huge succeeds on the console.

Ok, so the original functionality was to basically add the Sentinel mission. The idea (and I'm going to generalize because I don't really keep up with it) is to place a satellite with a camera-telescope that between Earth and the sun, between the orbits of Venus and Earth. The reason is that the sun has a nasty habit of hiding asteroids, but if the sun is always behind your telescope, not a problem. So Sentinel aims to identify threats that we can't see from Earth. The Asteroid Day mod adds this functionality. When installed, asteroids are not identified from the tracking station unless you have a telescope in a location between the Sun and Kerbin. It originally added a probe core, a solar panel, a dish antenna, and a telescope/camera. The former 3 items are now stock. It also has some unique contracts included for performing the Sentinel mission. I have not actually played with this mod yet, I just keep finding other things to do. I plan to in 1.2 though. However the video I've seen looks like a lot of fun. EDIT: here is the original video.

Ah, yes. I forgot Twitter is Squad's official news source Well despite the other "lame" consoles being later, all eyes are on Nintendo at the moment and it won't matter if people can't pull themselves away from Pokemon Go long enough to pick up a PS4 gamepad ROFL.

No. They made some of the parts stock, but the plugin (aka functionality) is not. The parts behave as a normal probe, antenna, and solar panel without the mod, and the telescope and contracts I don't think was added.

That's one place it has gotten better. Explosions are a lot more entertaining graphically than they used to be, and the buildings are no longer immune. BTW: Career mode was nearly finished in 0.90, so it must have been a lot earlier, I would say around 0.20ish

I disagree, taking that attitude is why Squad doesn't bother to fix the bugs before release. If they know people will buy it anyway regardless of how little it works then what compels them to do anything about it? But that's just me. The OP said he already owns the game anyway.

This is true, however I've been playing since 0.20 and 1.1.x has been the worst version since. That is taking into account serious bugs with no mods, but not lack of features which you expect from an Early Access title. There have been some serious bugs in the past (those we call the "Kraken" among the worst) , but usually not all at the same time like we have had in 1.1. The sheer number of high profile in-your-face failures the moment 1.1 was dropped beats every version I've seen. On the one hand I understand changing a game engine is a massive ordeal, on the other hand they knew a lot of these problems before release and chose to do so anyway. That's neither here nor there at this point, 1.1 is out and it's massively buggy... still. Hopefully, 1.2 will bring it back into line with the quality we had in 1.0.5 (which wasn't perfect but still better).

What is your source on that? I saw the announcement saying it was coming this month, and that was for XBox too.

But this is not a Windows game. It's a multi-platform game with a common code set and it's also a flight game and my Thrustmaster T.Flight does not default to the XBox scheme.

Don't forget that probes are getting a nerf in the next patch (sort of).

Wait a little longer. Ok seriously, that depends, but there are some really nasty bugs in the current version due to the recent switch to Unity 5. Mainly they are centered around landing gear and legs. We expect 1.2 to fix them (because they are switching to Unity 5.4 EDIT: We think, that also depends on if 5.4 is release by Unity END EDIT). However, if you don't build rovers or planes you may not notice these problems and 1.1.3 will be ok for you but otherwise, waiting a little longer is a serious suggestion. There are no paid expansions or DLC at this time. There is a really good official mod Squad made called Asteroid Day though, it's free. For "go to" mods, they haven't really changed much. Kerbal Engineer and/or MechJeb are favorites along with Kerbal Alarm Clock and RCS Build Aid are mine. These do not alter gameplay much, just quality of life (except auto-pilot in MechJeb). Arguably the data in MJ and Engineer could be considered gameplay changing, but to me all it does is save me from the manual calculations which I could do if I really felt like it. Of course there are tons of great mods I use, but those ones are the ones I would never play without regardless of what I wanted to do in any particular game. If you are looking for just graphical improvements, you have Environmental Visual Enhancements (with various 3rd party configs available), CoolRockets, CollisionFX, PlanetShine, RealPlume, EngineLighting, Destruction Effects, TextureReplacer, and Distant Object Enhancement. These of course won't touch gameplay Other good ones include BetterBurnTime, Diazo's Landing Height, PortraitStats, Waypoint Manager, and Trajectories, some of these will alter gameplay a little.

I could make a rather large list of things that should be persistent and are not, but suffice to say, I agree with this.

It works just fine if you have a USB controller. If you have a wireless controller you need an adapter provided by Microsoft to get it to USB, nothing to do with KSP there. You have to configure the controller manually for each input, this is true for all input devices other than keyboard and mouse. Mainly because, why should it have a default scheme for XBox and not other controllers? You either add them all (including Flight Sticks) like Elite Dangerous does, or you add none like KSP does and have the player configure it manually. Since there is no architecture for selecting a controller type, none is currently the best option. On top of that you are going to have everybody wanting it to be different. I'm sure the XBox version will have a default control set out of necessity. .

In regards to cost, I didn't necessarily mean monetary cost, but overall cost. Mass is part of the cost of using the retractable part, heat tolerance is part of the cost in using the non-retractable part. Personally I like the distinction as they are. However, if you want them back to being fully automatic, I could write you a patch to do that. I can't do it EVA only though.

@Jarin / @Snark Works perfectly, I added a patch to the Database

I could not agree more. No space agency has ever launched a mission to retrieve a random unknown object in the history of mankind. Even the moon rocks and regolith we brought back had a somewhat estimated mass. The contracting company doesn't know what they launched? I mean come on, research and planning.

Well it's up to you, I'm going to abstain from the poll then since neither of the options really apply to my preference. My preference would be to scrap the stock system in favor of the PFairings method. I'm looking to see if this can be done with an MM patch. EDIT: I believe it can, give me some time to test and then check the second link in my signature.

In procedural fairings, you add a base, just like stock, but instead of building the fairing from the base like stock, you have to add a fairing shell part, like KW. However, the part magically conforms in shape to the payload when you do this, unlike KW where you have to piece together more of them. It also automatically struts the payload to the fairing sorta magically. The fairing is solid and persistent when discarding like KW, unlike stock. The mod has been around since at least 0.20, so it's still of that era, it existed when I started playing. Plus it's fairings look a heck of a lot nicer than anything stock or KW have. I suggest at least testing it out to see if you like it.

LOL, @ZooNamedGames, I hate to keep criticizing your polls, but again there is a third option. The Procedural Fairings mod combines more limited node attachment than KW with a more automatic procedurally built fairing than Stock, that is my preference.