NWDogg

Yep, I'd definitely buy that DLC. I'd buy any DLC that Squad put out right now, to be honest, no matter what content it contained. A Realism Overhaul-style expansion/add-on/spinoff title is the one I'd be most interested in. I think, though, that to be an effective and valuable DLC, this theoretical Realism Expansion should be a completely separate executable from the base KSP game. When you load the game, the entire experience should be based around the real solar system, with all references to Kerbals and the Kerbal system replaced with real-world references (planets, correct orbits, humans, etc...). Aside from simply changing everything in the game, the point of having a separate executable would be to alleviate the resource restrictions that KSP faces now--with all the new things that a proper Realism expansion would bring, I don't think it could run side-by-side with the entire vanilla game without making major sacrifices (even with the Unity 5 and possible x64 updates). Don't take me the wrong way, I think the current Realism Overhaul mod set is amazing, but it really could be so much more. So much more, in fact, that I'd be willing to pay KSP's full price or more for this theoretical expansion or spinoff.

Is it at all possible that Squad has sneaked in some optimization methods during their move to Unity 5, and just haven't announced them yet? Things like on-the-fly part welding, on-demand texture loading, asset unloading, etc.. I can't see how they will be able to get a very high quality port onto the Wii U without some major optimizations like this. PS4 and Xbone, sure, they mostly have the power for it, and just need a UI update (which Squad already announced anyway.) The RAM limitations of Wii U are the biggest worry, as has been stated already, and it just seems like without *something* done to the way the game actually works, the port just won't work that well. Or maybe it will, and Flying Tiger are awesome at porting, who knows? I am not against porting to other systems at all. I love the idea, in fact. I can see KSP getting to near-Minecraft levels of popularity, especially since this game actually has characters with real...character. Minecraft has no real 'character', in either sense of the word, and yet that sees books, toys, game spinoffs, the works. A Kerbal movie and cartoon series wouldn't be out of the question if it even becomes somewhat successful on consoles. However, none of that is possible if the console ports don't work or are very sub-par, so I am *very cautiously* optimistic about this.

Just for reference, you can drag the entire KSP directory out of steamapps and copy it anywhere you want on your system, as many copies as you want. When you do this, Steam won't touch those directories and so you can continue to use older versions even after Steam updates KSP. It is hard to roll back if you haven't made any backup directories, though.

This looks interesting, but I couldn't gather much from the limited info in the OP. Is this an original mod, with parts and plugins exclusive to this mod? Or, is this just a collection of other mods/pieces of mods bundled together as a sort of 'modpack' deal to create a specific gameplay experience? As a rather large pack, I'm not so inclined to load up a new install just to find out what it is. If it is original, I'll certainly give it a go...it looks cool from the couple screens you've shown. If it's just a large modpack, though, I'll pass for now. Edit: Ok, I see the line that says it's modified parts and original parts. That line might be better suited at the very top of the thread, and in a font size that stands out more than the rest. I passed it right up the first 2 times I looked it over. Anyway, I'll give this a go, looks interesting.

I'm glad you brought this up. I find the new stock fairings to be absolutely atrocious to build. I swear, I've fiddled around with trying to build simple fairings more than I've actually flown since 1.0. Does anyone else get the problem where the fairings won't recognize a left-click, and so won't place the next section? I am getting that constantly. Maybe 1 time out of 50 it will actually work, and when it does it's while the current piece I'm moving is bulged out 30 feet. And if I do get lucky and manage to build the fairing to the top, it won't register the final click to set the tip piece...until 50 clicks later when it decides to register twice and then deletes the whole thing. Thank god procedural fairings is updated, because these stock fairings make me want to throw my pc into a wall. You're absolutely right, these are definitely the worst thing about post-1.0 KSP (way worse than the iffy aero model.)

I thought Squad was going to implement the ability to switch up the aero model in-game, perhaps with a toggle in the menu or something. What happened to that? I think that would solve quite a bit of issues people are having, as the creative crowd could still fly their awesome-looking designs with the more-forgiving old aero model, and the realism crowd could have the nice semi-realistic aero they wanted. Sure, there's the incompatibility problem with ship sharing, but that's a very minor issue compared to a (seemingly) good portion of the player-base not enjoying the game anymore. Besides, this is the same discussion that was had when realistic-aero was first suggested. The creative crowd didn't want it, the realism crowd obviously did...the only proper solution (that I can think of, anyway) is to allow a toggle for the aero between old/new. That's it. Some creative people will eventually come around to like the realism, but not all, and some realism people will want to mess around with crazy designs sometimes. So the game needs that one little option.

I agree with that. I don't see much of a point in dumbing down anything in this game, in fact I'd much rather KSP be like Orbiter with rocket-building than the game it is now, but most other players aren't like that. Even in this thread, there are differing opinions on how Kerbals should respond to lack of life support. Maybe a sliding scale from 'absolute death' to 'just taking a break' would solve that problem, but I can still see plenty others.

I'm a long-time FAR user, so I got fairly accustomed to launching just about anything in that model. The new stock aero, though, feels off to me. I don't know how to explain it, but 1.02 stock feels much more difficult to maintain control on rockets than FAR ever did. In .90 FAR, I could launch single-stack rockets with no fins easily, but in this new stock I've been having trouble keeping any rocket (with fins, no fins, fins up high, fins down low, reaction wheels, RCS, etc...) from flipping straight over. I also have trouble getting anything other than the 3.75m parts into orbit. My 2.5m designs flip wildly at around 15km, and I haven't gotten a 1.5m stack past 30km Ap. I don't know what the difference is between FAR and this new stock, but new stock is absolutely more difficult than FAR ever was, for me. That said...I do actually like the new aero. It feels so much better than stock ever did before, and I'm not giving up on the new challenges. I look forward to nuFAR being released, because I much prefer the feel of FAR, but I can live with this new aero model until then.

I think the majority would like to have some sort of life support system in game, but the problem lies in how it is implemented. As you know, there are several mods that currently or have tried to implement such a system in an interesting way, but the nature of life support means that this system is going to be mostly passive. Each of these mods does things a little differently, but it ultimately boils down to 'do I have enough X resource on the ship?' rather than adding any meaningful gameplay decisions. Now, I suppose one could ramp up the interactivity of life support mods and implement a system that would need to be monitored and checked and adjusted continuously. That may fix the passive problem, but then you run into the very likely situation that it becomes micro-management, grindy, or just plain annoying to deal with. So no matter which type of system you make, passive or interactive, there are gameplay problems that come with them, and not a lot of benefit to be gained. As well, there are varying opinions on how Kerbals should respond...should they die? or simply become inactive for a while? Or maybe even some other gameplay detriment/effect. There are many possibilities, so no 1 system can effectively cover what each player expects. The best bet with this is simply to allow the player to choose which type of life support system (or not) they want to use. There are several mods that do the job wonderfully, but differently enough that they are distinct. If Squad implemented such a system into stock, it would maybe satisfy 1/4th of the players, while the rest are looking for something completely different anyway. I'm not saying they couldn't do it...they certainly could...but their time is probably better spent implementing other features and fixes to the rest of the game, while leaving relatively minor stuff like this to the modders.

While I think that the aero overhaul and bugfixing are necessary for 1.0, I honestly think you should consider pushing the balancing back to 1.1. There are going to be plenty of out-there scenarios and situations that won't get covered in testing, inevitably, so there very well could still be balance issues after 1.0. The same goes for bugs too, but it's best to squash as many of those as possible at every opportunity. As for the feature set...I dunno, of course it is your call but you will get bugs introduced with these new features no matter what. You will need to fix bugs after 1.0, and if you hold back features until 1.1, you will need to fix bugs after 1.1 as well. Plus, again with the balancing, once you introduce new features you will need to re-evaluate the balance of parts again. To me, it seems like pulling off a Band-Aid. Do it all at once and get the pain out of the way, or do it slowly and feel the pain the whole time. I would tear it off quickly, if it were up to me. (I also guarantee I'm the only one of this opinion, so you should probably go with what everyone else says.)

I was just looking for a way to get some sort of Night or dark theme for these forums, and I see I'm not the only one. It's unfortunate that it isn't an option. Reddit (or RES anyway) has a white-on-black night theme that is easily 1000 times easier to read than this forum. I, unfortunately, can't stand to look at this forum for more than a few minutes at a time before my eyes hurt...and it's a shame because I much prefer this forum over the subreddit.

Wonder if the thread regarding 3d printing of ships has something to do with this? Seems to fit the bill, even if in idea only.

Maybe, just maybe, they've partnered with some sort of animation studio to create a Kerbal cartoon or web series, or something. Or perhaps a Kerbal comic book. Maybe a collaboration with a new toy/merchandise manufacturer to create a line of Kerbal action figures. I seriously doubt [snip] a partnership with a major publisher/developer. I would like to see a SpaceX-themed pack like they did with NASA, but I doubt that is it either. I would put money on it being something outside of the game industry, like toys or cartoons or comics. Something along those lines.

Kethane has that cool hex-grid-based map view, but past that Karbonite is in every way more fully featured, easier to use, and flat out better, in my humble opinion. I never could really get into using Kethane, even though I had it installed for over a year before Karbonite was released. As soon as it was, though, Karbonite quickly replaced Kethane for me and I haven't looked back. The only major problem with Karbonite originally, the ugly orange blobs, was solved quite a while ago and replaced with a much more elegant biome-based system. So Karbonite for me, definitely. Are there even any other options besides these 2? I can't think of any.

I'm just guessing obviously, but I wouldn't count on it taking much longer than the previous few updates. I have a feeling that Squad has all their ducks in a row right now, and are barreling along as quickly as they can. Why they are doing this, I have no speculation, but it seems to me that they are planning on this update being out soon. Like, soon without the trademark symbol. I'm in the 'Yes, it's gonna be ready' camp, but if I'm right about this...that they are hurrying along this update...then maybe some of the concerns raised in this thread are valid (rather, more valid than they already are.) Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't be the only one that is reading into this a 'quick approach' for this update.

I voted Yes, because I honestly believe this game is ready to finally leave Early Access. It's been lingering there for too long anyway, I think, and if Squad accomplishes nothing but bug fixes for the next update it will still be ready. My only concerns for post-release KSP is that Squad will wash their hands of it after 1 or 2 more maintenance updates and call it done. Obviously this isn't the plan, but I suspect the possibility is there regardless. Even so, if Squad decides to leave KSP the way it is at even v.90, there is not a single thing I could legitimately complain about, as I've already gotten my money's worth 10 times over from this game. If, and I strongly emphasize the hypothetical 'IF' part here, Squad does decide to leave KSP as it stands at 1.0, then the only thing I ask of them is to leave the community with access to mod the game further than is currently possible. For example, a proper means of implementing new planets instead of having to resort to workarounds like is currently required. I really would like to see at least 1 'Planet Pack' DLC (charge me for it, I'll gladly give you more money) before the game is left 'completed' for good. Once the devs are done, the community won't be for a long time...so give us some access to the hard-code so this game can live on well after its final days (only after the devs are done, though of course.) Until then, I hope I'll be buying DLC and expansions for a long time to come.

For the 1.0 release, optimization absolutely should be prioritized. They really need to be pushing KSP onto Unity 5 as soon as they can; the physics optimizations will only improve the quality and image of this game in the long term. The only other feature I feel is really necessary is re-entry heating, and even this one can be argued against to an extent. The rest of Squad's plans for 1.0 are solid, and I see no major reasons not to jump right into release (other than testing of all these new features, which should be the point of a beta anyway.) The post-release update plans seem very nice, but honestly I would like to see them go a step further and implement some sort of 'Season Pass' for DLC and expansions. This, in my own little theory, could help extend the development cycle well beyond the planned free updates and give the devs some breathing room (financially and time-wise) to add those features that are 'out of scope' or 'too complicated' for the 1.0 release. There was a thread the other day about KSP being viewed as a 'service' rather than a one-off game; this approach might help keep this game fresh for a long time to come, if Squad were to adopt it. And besides...even with all the bugs, lack of specific features that you want, the 'unfinished' Kerbol system and all: Would any of you actually NOT recommend this game? I know I would, even with all of its faults KSP is still one of the most unique and engaging, immersive, educational, and entertaining games ever made. With a 98% Positive rating on Steam, there's no chance that a couple mediocre reviews will hurt this game in the long run.

I'm not big into spaceplanes, and I can't get a shuttle to fly to save my life, but I do love building rockets. I like flying them in FAR way more than stock, and when things get a bit too easy I just use KIDS to balance it out or make it even more extreme. I don't even go places very often, I usually just build new rockets and put them into orbit...that wouldn't be very fun at all in the stock system. Plus, Realism Overhaul is super challenging/fun, and it wouldn't work at all without FAR.

Just to chime in with a slightly different perspective, when I first started playing KSP, I could barely get even a simple rocket to orbit. I had tried, and tried, and tried...and no matter what I did, I just couldn't get enough speed through the atmosphere to break into orbit, or if I did I was out of gas shortly after, unable to circularize. So, what was my problem? I was trying, like a fool, to fly a rocket like, well, a rocket. So I jumped into the forums. I found out about this thing called a 'gravity turn' that you did at 10km straight up, pitch over to 45 degrees and you'll get to orbit (huh? won't that just flip the rocket around? I thought). I found out that nosecones were adding drag. I found that flat, bulky rockets flew better than my long sleek ones. I was flabbergasted, as here this whole time I was thinking this game was supposed to be 'realistic' and yet, almost everything I knew about rockets before KSP had to be thrown out the window. Shortly after I started I found FAR, and I've never looked back...KSP is now the realistic-ish space simulator-ish game I've always wanted. I guess maybe I'm not the typical case study, as I came from playing Orbiter. I would actually keep Orbiter running for a week at a time to simulate a real-time mission to the moon, so I felt very out of place with the physics of KSP (at least in atmosphere; in space it is still pretty darn good, and actually helped me learn quite a bit about Orbiter as well.) I guess my ultimate point is, from someone who has at least a basic understanding of real-life rocketry, FAR is intuitive while stock aero is hard. If this game didn't come with the excellent community that it has, I and many others probably would have written it off long ago due to the frustratingly unreal aerodynamics.

I didn't see anything mentioned about this after reading halfway back through the thread (back to before the .25 release), but I did see that you just mentioned I have been rather confused about the volume and mass of the FL-R50 monoprop tank compared to the stock FL-R25. The stock tank has a 1.15 mass, and 250 monoprop. Your tank has a 1.0 mass, and 200 monoprop, while being double the physical size of the stock tank. Is this because you were attempting to retain some sort of consistency with tank size:volume that stock doesn't abide to? Or is this just an oversight? (I believe the monoprop value changed from 100 to 250 in the stock tank with the move to .90). Regardless, I absolutely love these parts. This is one of my few go-to part packs with every install, no matter what style of game I want with that install. Hopefully I can better understand your reasoning behind the volume:mass:size differences with stock.

Looking through the config of the Safety Light, it looks like Roverdude used FSAnimateGeneric module to animate the rotating lights. If what I've read in the Firespitter documentation is correct, then you can try adding this line under the FSAnimateGeneric module in the cfg file: Then just increase the value until you've got what you want. It should look like this: Now, I haven't tested this, because I don't have that mod installed currently. It might work, it might not...I'd go ask Roverdude in the release thread, he'd know more. Plus, he might be able to tell you how to change the colors. That should be an option in the editor, since he's using the stock Light module, but if it isn't there then he may have done something different in Unity. PS. Module Manager files are much cleaner than just editing the cfgs directly, but that's still something I'm learning. Worse case scenario is this doesn't work, and you just have to delete that line from the cfg file.

My 'stock' install for .90 looks like this: FAR Deadly Reentry Modular Rocket Systems --Adds several stock-alike parts that fills in the gaps not covered by stock parts. SpaceY Heavy Lifters --Throws in really nice 3.75 and 5m parts for heavy lifting, helping to reduce part count. RLA Stockalike --Adds in a bunch of sorely missing .625m parts that expand probe/small ship abilities. Kerbal Engineer Redux --For necessary info...parts of this absolutely need to be stock, and I think most everyone would agree. Tweakscale --Allows resizing of parts to curb the need to add in more part packs. Zero-point Inline Fairings or Procedural Fairings --Necessary with FAR...I keep switching these, they both have pros and cons that makes it hard to decide which to keep. Karbonite --We are getting some sort of resource harvesting in the future anyway, and I like this one slightly better than Kethane. DMagic's Orbital Science --I love these science parts. Makes the thermometer and accelerometer look like kids toys. So yeah...my 'stock' KSP experience consists of no less than 10 mods . Though I do believe that the majority of these mods have a place in stock KSP, mainly to fill in places that haven't been addressed yet by Squad.

Excellent. Of the many, many different nose-cones I have installed from different part packs, none looked as good on Mk3 as this stock cone...except for that blue tip. This is perfect, thanks!

Roverdude's Exploration Pack has an emergency light. I can't remember if the colors can be changed, but it spins/flashes like those old-style police lights, and sorta looks like one too. That's the only thing I can think of that might fit your request. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/86695

With no Regolith support at the moment, does this mean that USI mods like Karbonite are not fully supported? I was under the assumption that Karbonite and MKS/OKS had dropped ORSX entirely in the latest code, which would make this non-compatible. Is that correct, or am I completely off-base?