tater

The shared experience does nothing for me, but if it's true that many don't leave Kerbin SoI, then maybe I'm wrong about that.

A more open tree with 1 part per node might make more sense, then you pick what you want to work on. Programs are groups of missions with an overarching goal. There could be many to chose from, but there are a finite number, each of which might have a manned, unmanned, or "both" toggle.: Explore body (pull down of worlds) Tourism (hauling non-astronauts to space) Commercial launches (haul things to space for others---ideally the cargo would be supplied as a subassembly, and is not under control of the player after completion) Construction/ISRU (these could be commercial, or owned by KSC). There are then finite possible missions within those programs: Crew/No Crew Body (pick a world as a pull-down) Interaction (flyby, orbit, landing) Purpose (science, base/station construction, ISRU, commercial, tourism) Return? (return to Kerbin or not) That is it. Every possible mission can be constructed with pull-downs. What the game could add, possibly "randomly" are required sub goals within those missions. So we accept Explore the Mun (EtM) with both probes and Kerbals. We can then create missions (perhaps there is a structure that requires a certain number of missions that tick certain science/achievement requirements to have the Program succeed). EtM might require at least 1 munar orbital survey mission be completed, then it might require landing on the Mun in at least X biomes, and as it was picked as crewed, it might require both astronaut return to Kerbin, and sample return from each landing (I think generally many types of data should transmit at 100%, but samples should transmit at 0%, requiring sample return (add a probe part for this as well).

I'd make them more realistic, but something similar. Perhaps to develop better landing legs you need to run a test on the smallest leg on the Mun? (make sure it's not deep dust (as they worried about on the Moon).

Hence my harping for a true "explore" mode with a semi-randomized solar system (rational positions for different types of worlds, clearly no ice giants at a Mercury type orbit, etc). Then I'd have science actually useful. You'd do science not just for "points" but to gain useful information (some would be "pure" science, clearly). So you get points for getting atmospheric data, but doing the right kind and amount of such science would turn on atmospheric trajectory prediction, for example. So a few probes to Duna, and then you can actually plan a landing spot, because the trajectory future position will include drag. There are all kinds of places where science could be more realistically useful instead of just as points to unlock tech. Munar rocks should not help you develop a new upper stage engine. Tests of precursor engines on orbit might help. Long duration space stations with labs? That will improve crew capsules because of kerbal factors science.

The Kerbals on EVA exploding landing legs have me not playing at all, except for some testing.

Yeah, I tested at the launch pad, and it is hard to make it happen. I built a lander with the mk2 lander can, and put 3 of each type of gear on it, then ran around banging into it with an EVA kerbal. Eventually I blew all the gear up (tried some deployed, some not... actually, I wonder if it only occurs after a deploy (vs starting with them deployed on the launch pad).

@Tw1 makes some good points above. Take tourism as an example. Right now, they are random contracts (as all are), and if you accept them, the game decides you like them and throws more. That has exactly nothing to do with how tourism would really work. In career, tourism should have to really work, so let's show how it should work... 1. Tourists don't randomly appear, you need to seek them out. 2. The player should set the price, and the game should have some (entirely hidden) economic related to how likely it is to find takers at a given price, for a given type of trip. Set your prices too high, and you reach a threshold of tourists, set it too low, and you don't make enough. Your launch/return success rate might play into how many apply (they want to live, after all). Tourists might be more attracted to landing where they started, too, so the % of tourists landed within X km of KSC might improve the number of takers. 3. Have a new base/station paradigm that allows it to be set as "hotel." There would be recurring costs, plus an astronaut to tourist ratio. Building these then allows you to set prices for stays. A hidden model generates passengers/guests. You have launch and guest prices, same drill, you can make it attractive or not by price, and even amenities (more empty seats would be nicer for guests). To use USILS as a model, the more habitable it is, the more desirable). So instead of side-quests to deliver a random collection of kerbals to random places, you'd build a destination or craft, then offer flights and see if there are takers. The economics would be hidden under the hood.

You keep putting words in my mouth. I said that a lookup table might be every bit as accurate as a poor "simulation," where "simulation" is here defined as a computational damage model making simple assumptions at each step (say following a particle as is passes through a target). A particle can be any size, I'm using the term for ease of discussion, nothing more. We're dealing with space, and astronomical velocities, so anything smaller than masses that matter for solar systems is a "particle." "Macroscopic" to me would relate to the general picture of significant events being modeled, ignoring the low-order stuff that doesn't matter (paint chips, etc). We can pick another indeterminate word if you like, for whatever particle size has non-trivial damage, if it was entirely natural we might use micrometeorite/meteorite/asteroid, but we don't have vague terms past small, medium, and large. Note that I'd call anything heavier than Helium a "metal," as well (old astronomy habits die hard). My entire point in this discussion is to suggest that unless this can actually replicate known data accurately, we have no idea how accurate a simulation it is, and it might in fact be no better than a lookup table with "intuitive" damage filling the slots. It might be far better, but we won't really know. If the damage done by micrometeorites and orbital debris is well-characterized with spaced armor, then that is a good anchor point for a model... if the model replicates what is known to happen (with a similar armor level in game to ISS applied vs similar particles). Then we know that the model works for small particles of a given type (X mm Al ball at Y km/s). What happens for larger particles, and how shape matters is another issue. Impact angle is at least somewhat straightforward as there is decent data on sloped armor penetration (it is slightly more complex than just a longer path length through armor because of angle, but well characterized). So that's a plus. Let's forget every particle that is defeated by the armor. Those deposit energy to the hull to be radiated away (or not), and nothing more. That's easy to characterize. Where it becomes non-trivial is where the penetrators actually do their job and defeat the armor. Now is when the tricky damage modeling comes in. Above someplace we talked about through and through hits (in one side, out the other). That's is a clear case where what the particle(s) hit, and what happens when that occurs, matters (again, the particle might be a telephone pole chunk of metal for all I care). If the interior is not actually modeled, then it's functionally a lookup table, right? X cm particle enters crew compartment at Y km/s that is not modeled fully down to an X cm scale. The game has a check for crew compartment damage, and applies it. That's not substantially different from a miniatures game, it's just likely finer grained (the ship might have many thousands of hit areas instead of hundreds or fewer). In short: The extent to which this damage model mimics reality is the quality of the simulation. Since we have little real data, it is by definition speculative past the range for which we have data. I have no problem with this, while you seem to be insisting that it is a great simulation without evidence. I am making no positive claims whatsoever, as I have said a few times, it might be a great simulation, it might be no better than a lookup table in a board game mapped to correspond to whatever real data we have on one end, and it might in fact be worse than that table. Short of real data, there is no way to tell.

Merriam-Webster has an indeterminate small number as entry 4, else 2. My print Webster's has no indefinite use at all (it's likely older than most people on the forum). oxforddictionaries.com has it as 4th (with the 1st entry having 5 sub entires) (before that, all mean 2) dictionary.com doesn't list anything other than meaning two out of 7 entires. thefreedictionary.com has it meaning an indeterminate number at the 4th entry, all others mean... 2. wiktionary has the informal use of "a small number" as number 3, else they use two. The only one I found that lists "some" in the first entry is cambridge, but it's still "two, or a few things" Which don't have two in them? http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2014/07/20/commonly-confused-words-a-couple-a-few-some-several-or-many/ http://www.writerightwords.com/write-right-couple-few-some-several-many/

I'd be interesting in knowing what OS, etc, and if you've tried colliding with deployed landing legs (I haven't tested un-deployed), particularly off Kerbin (orbit is fine)). I have no idea about the wheels, I can't remember the last time I built an aircraft---it was a long time ago, well before 0.90. It's 100% reproducible for many of us. Stock install. EVA, collide with legs, and the gear explode.

I'm not speaking for everyone, and I asked for other native speaker's observations on the usage. I'm fine with the evolution of language, I'm pretty much in the Steven Pinker camp in that regard. What is your personal experience with the use of "couple?" It almost always is used to mean two, and it gets blurred so infrequently as to make any other use seem to be an anomaly. If a group of people discuss it, and have similar observations, then we start building up more than personal observation, it becomes real data (just as many, many personal observations of real English use have more weight than one person's relatively small number of observations of people who might not even represent majority native speakers). The first definitions in every dictionary are "two" for couple. Picking a usage a few entries down the list is generally a bad choice for many words, particularly when the difference is not really large. For couple, the indeterminate number definition is informal, so you'd not see it used in a newspaper, except in a quote (where you'll see all kinds of usage depending upon the speaker). They are acknowledging what I said above, that it is sloppy, but they don't add that it's usually within a rounding of two. A couple hours... is not 4 hours. It's approximately 2, but if it's off such that it's less than 3, you're probably OK. It's not like everyone doesn't know what time it is these days, or how long it takes to travel. I'd certainly say "It takes a couple hours to get to Taos." It might well take me closer to 2.5 hours, depending on what traffic in Santa Fe is like. No one would ever say Albuquerque to Durango is a couple hours, it's about 3.something driving pretty fast, probably 4 for old people. Take the word, "bad." A while ago (I don't keep track, was it the 80s?), it was slang for good. If the dictionary had accepted this usage (it didn't that I know of), and placed it down the line as definition number 5, say, that would be a dangerous choice for someone to use, because their meaning could be taken 180 degrees from reality in a conversation. The bottom line is that in my experience couple is not used for indeterminate numbers that cannot be even wrongly rounded to 2. 2 hours, 45 minutes... sure, people might say "a couple hours," 3 hours, 45 minutes? I cannot imagine anyone say that's "a couple hours." I've noticed some peculiar usage in document of what would best be described as "EU English," and I think it might be because direct translation sometimes misses peculiar usage within English.

Turns out the image I posted above is a composite:

It's not a bias, it's an observation. I've been speaking English for about 50 years in the United States, I was responding to Temeter who I do not know is a native English speaker (he never answered my question about which English speaking country he was from). The misuse of language in a way that decreases information content is not a good thing. A couple means two. That is still the primary definition. That it is misused by enough people that there is any other definition is unfortunate. If I ask for a couple steaks to put on the grill, being brought 3 or 4 would generate an extra trip to return them to the 'fridge. If I were to ask for "a few" I'd not get the amount I need (assuming I know), but I might. There are many ways to say more than 2---some, a few, several. Conflating couple with these makes the use of any of them unclear. Again, take a work example. If someone were to ask me for a couple days off next week starting Monday so they can travel and have a long weekend, I'd expect them in on Wednesday, and I'd be pretty annoyed if they showed up Thursday, or Friday. They asked for 2 days off. If I'm making breakfast, and anyone answers my question as to how many eggs they want by saying "a couple" they get 2. Always. If you ordered a couple eggs in any restaurant, they'd bring 2. Again, this is just my 50 year experience speaking and writing English. If the person I was responding to has more experience with English than I do... I'd be very surprised. A couple when used in the context of something that is clearly an approximation can have a little slop... I'll be home in a couple days might be more or less than 48 hours, but it would likely not be 72 (3 days). A couple hours... can be give or take minutes less than another hour. A couple weeks could be around 2 weeks, but not 3 weeks (generally people would then say "a few weeks"). Some other languages might generalize "some" to another word or words---maybe "couple" in direct translation from another language does this without considering idiom. I'll text my brother in law, who was a daily newspaper copy editor, what he thinks.

The landing gear/legs problems are total non-starters to me. Don't build anything that needs to land?

Ah, so doch is like f-bombs in the English of New Yorkers

Pluto is vastly farther away than Eeloo. The entire Kerbol system fits inside the orbit of Venus (or thereabouts). Pluto would be incredibly difficult from a human factors standpoint.

Are you Canadian, British, or Australian? I am not speaking for them at all (though I converse with Canadians pretty frequently, so I have a feel for their usage). If you reread what I wrote, it was incredibly conditional. I said "I Imagine that..." "usage is not dissimilar". This means (in case the nuance is being lost on a non-native speaker) that I am not at all sure, but I think that it is probably similar. That is nothing at all like speaking for other people, and I'll happily acknowledge that I was mistaken regarding their usage should people from those countries chime in and correct me. Generally speaking, American English is more, not less sloppy than UK English, BTW, which is what informed my conditional statement.

Particularly since the ladder was on the leg

I'm a non-Steam person, but I would have preferred even the Steam only pre-release vs calling 1.1.X "production" and making it live. I'm not one who even cares about save games, I started a new career (to test it)---if I had a previous save game, it would have been destroyed by this update as brushing landing legs on my bases would destroy them. What native English speaking country are you from? I imagine English usage regarding "a couple" is not dissimilar in Canada, the UK, and Australia. I wouldn't presume to argue with a German about when to use "doch," for example. "A few" is generally used to be very indeterminate, but less than several. A handful is generally 5 (because 5 fingers). A few weeks off would be how any native speaker would call 3 weeks. No one would ever ask their boss for a couple days off, and take 3, they'd likely be fired.

I'm not sure if that is good or bad It is hard to replicate on Kerbin, but trivial to replicate elsewhere.

I think they should have left 1.1 in "pre-release" (possibly a more open pre-release") until it had no show stopper flaws. (I know this wasn't directed to me, but this would take things more on topic )

No one I know (in the US) uses "a couple" to mean anything other than two. Perhaps it's just people who are young and ignorant of what it actually means, like people who think "irregardless" is a thing.

There is an easy to reproduce issue where EVA kerbals hitting a landing leg cause them to blow up on Mac/Linux.

Looks like the kerbal-landing leg interaction is limited to Linux/MacOS.