Sky_walker

So... now all of the discussion about progress in game development and management is forbidden because we knew that we bought an early access game? That's what you are trying to say?

And what makes you think that it would be possible?

Direct link: https://twitter.com/Maxmaps/status/493913819324760065

Well, when Luna 2 and 3 landed on a moon and survived - it was quite certain that there is no deadly amount of electric charge there. But LM got it's own grounding.

Different game, build from ground-up with a multiplayer in mind and based on another game that also was build from ground-up with multiplayer in mind. KSP can't really handle single player well (look: first random large space station) in terms of performance and got exactly nothing in it that would make it an attractive title for multiplayer conversion. Fact that people exchange ships got nothing to deal with multiplayer. I really do enjoy this part of a game - shared some designs myself and download many of them just to test - but for me focusing on a multiplayer is nothing more than a waste of time and resources. Me too! Cargo bay build from Kerbodyne S3-14400 Tank is my dream!

battle != exchange of fire / deaths That's also "battling". lol @ 666 posts just in time to talk about battles.

Specific thrust: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_thrust

You undid Copernicus! Well done! hahahaha What next? Kerbin is flat mod?

Really beautiful photograph there. Interesting that they don't seem to be bothered by that and no large investigation is going on for the cause of that accident. They already announced that next Falcon 9 launch will take place no matter what, even though this rocket used the same engines as next launched Falcon will. You must have misheard something. I watched that webcast and don't recall any claim of that sorts. And as Kryten mentioned - Arianespace Soyuz Fregat upper stage is build by NPO Lavochkin. As they say - .... happens. Doesn't mean that guys in Lavochkin are unable of completing any projects what so ever. Important question though is how it'll affect relationship between Arianespace and Roscosmos along with future plans for Ariane 6. Current Ariane 6 PPH is too powerful to replace Soyuz but perhaps this accident will push ESA ministers to develop Ariane 6.2 or some other Ariane 6 variant that will replace Soyuz after 2019.

And no patches for next 2 years? They're just very inefficient in what they're doing combined with rather poor management (search forums, you'll see quite a few discussions about various management issues) and constant detracking from the main objective (look: cinematics that are used for nothing else than self-promotion on youtube and take weeks (if not months) to complete) - getting the game done. It's not a concious choice - more like: an effect of various circumstances.

And why is that? It makes no sense. From a business point of view - things like official expansion packs / merchandise / whatever else directly generates income would be a priority. Or heck - probably even stock autopilot would do as something that could possibly increase game popularity / accessibility. But not multiplayer. Just look at the popularity of the existing multiplayer mods - it's marginal at best. Doesn't come even remotely close to stupid part packs, not even to mention MechJeb, Engineer Redux, FAR, DRE, EVE or similar mods that actually add some functionality into the game or enhance visuals.

Someone made a comparison charts of the engines while ago and it came out that LV-N is better for vast majority of test cases. Like: 99% of cases if you're making an interplanetary flight.

New economic framework is hardly a priority. Current one is fine - it's just completely unbalanced to the game that is about space flight and exploration of the solar system. You can research an entire tree and swim in cash without ever making a full orbit around Kerbin (sub-orbitals are good enough for majority of tasks and running around Kerbin, occasional escape trajectory with full-on vertical launch can speed up the process). Rewards are too high, deadlines too long, penalties too low, and the idea of making a system where player cannot go bankrupt came out to be a complete failure (as some expected). 1. Stop being offensive 2. It's not just parts - it's an added mechanic of cargo bays, something KSP never got before. And let's not forget about the lifting bodies, something that - again - KSP never had, though it's not as much of a mechanic as simply changing config to the parts. And it's done in pretty much every single patch so far. Yes, agreed. However it seems like Multiplayer is a brand new priority for the devs, so aerodynamics are being pushed away one more time...

I don't know if aerodynamic overhaul really requires a dozens of high quality models.... though I would be very happy if that's in deed a new aerodynamics (I imagine heat shields, fairings, adding all of the missing assets (like XL nose cones), etc.). IMHO that's one of the things this game is missing most. Proper aerodynamics with proper risks on reentry.

I'd load my save from a career mode with whole research tree completed. If you have a notepad - you can convert any save game into that "game mode" of yours.

RTGs should hit your reputation only if you destroy them within Kerbin atmosphere or orbit. Otherwise - it shouldn't make an impact on reputation, or a very small one. IMHO LV-N is a win-win engine with no disadvantages or problem that exist in a real life. If the fact that nuclear engines are a horrible idea in a real life can be represented at least by a very high cost and reputation - than so be it (let's face it - both: money and reputation is borderline pointless in it's current implementation where you get so much of both that you have no idea what to do with them), but TBH: I wouldn't mind even more catastrophic penalties for failing with nuclear devices anywhere near KSP or Kerbin at all. This game is suppose to have some educational value in it, and what it is doing right now is teaching people that nuclear engines are an ultimate solution to the space flight - which is complete BS.

So... basically: Adding feature for a sake of doing it, even though it doesn't do anything what so ever in that game mode. Still sounds like a stupid idea. Sandbox is a proper game mode to play with parts. Career is a proper game mode to play with contracts and science. Science is a proper game mode if you want to play science with no financial constrains. It's simple as that.

What I mean is that no country in EU got it's own, fully independent launch capability. Not that France doesn't do anything at all Every country that got shares in Arianespace has it's own, various development programmes that contribute to the Europe's launch capability. You pay for it, you got it. Though IMHO the less national interests in and more scientific merit the better. (Look: Ariane 6 where most likely political needs will win over scientific merits and long-term benefits - though how this story ends we'll know in December)

This. /10char.

Yes, it should have. It's a sandbox after all. As in: for toying with parts. If you want a missions or stuff - play a proper game mode.

I wouldn't cry if there would be no spaceplanes at all.

It wouldn't be a bad idea if not the fact that some of these testing conditions are.... well... ridiculously stupid and annoying.

Probably not. At least: nothing was mentioned. I guess they made quite significant changes to the cockpit.

Well, holograms tend to be a physical obects, so I guess it could work...

It's shared company between France and several other countries, most notably: Germany which own Ariancespace in roughly 20%. Though - yes, over 50% of shares are owned by various French companies and almost 35% is owned directly by French government (look: CNES). http://www.arianespace.com/about-us-corporate-information/shareholders.asp It's much more complex than you try to picture it. Development of launch vehicles is lead by French, however all member countries have a say and decisive power - France cannot do anything on it's own, nor can Germany or Italy (Vega launcher in general is considered "Italian launcher" though again: several nations got a share in it and Italians couldn't do it on their own either). AFAIK "access to space" in roughly 1/3 are subsidiaries from CNES to Arianespace (they provide between 150 and 100 million euro per year (it varies)).