tater

Cool. Nice to see this.

Proper poll questions (can't figure out how to make a poll, or I would): 1. KSP should add more realism elements and/or improve realism in future versions, and also try to make gameplay worse. 2. KSP should add fewer realism elements and/or remove existing realism in future versions, and also try to make gameplay worse. 3. KSP should add more realism elements and/or improve realism in future versions, and also try to make gameplay better. 4. KSP should add fewer realism elements and/or remove existing realism in future versions, and also try to make gameplay better. Those are closer to the actual choices.

Yeah, by his logic removing anything that even slightly matches reality (say orbital mechanics) would improve gameplay. Example: point any craft directly at another world, then hit z and you are now landed on that world. Perfectly unrealistic, so it must be perfect gameplay, right?

Another thread that wrongly forces a choice between the two. They have exactly nothing to do with each other. You might as well poll "which do you prefer, delicious porterhouse steak, or the color blue?" - - - Updated - - - Redo this poll asking if people prefer the game to be at all realistic, or pure fantasy. Alternatively, ask if they prefer good gameplay, or bad gameplay. I can't express how lousy I think the poll is.

Roverdude's new LS mod is great for stock. The current KSP gameplay is hardest at the very start of career, LS can possibly make later gameplay slightly more challenging. Hinderence is exactly what career needs, you can easily have everything unlocked and upgraded long before the first Duna transfer window.

LOL, win.

Wait for RSS, then use an RSS config (say 6.4X). Heck, even 2X could matter. This was all known, anything like a reasonable aero model, and either Kerbin gets bigger, or things don't work right.

It is also then a backup for chutes, for the ASA requirement. Chute ever fails… they can land propulsively. Options are always good.

DRE was not made stock. This is Squad's own heat code.

All early US astronauts were pilots (first just military, then test pilots), which ruled out women. The CCCP did not require pilots (Valentina was an experienced sky diver). The issue of plumbing is also (still) non-trivial. I spent some time talking to a female shuttle astronaut in the late 80s, and she said bathroom related plumbing was still less than ideal. On EVA they are basically stuck with diapers vs males who can use condom-catheters which is far more comfortable. Think of a long Apollo flight even with just 2 other guys. The whole waste issue is pretty unglamorous

Regex beat me to this, but it bears saying again, as many people don't understand this. Vacuum is an insulator (hence the thermos, as the joke says, "it keeps hot things hot, and cold things cold---but how do it know?"). ALL heat generated needs to be radiated. - - - Updated - - - There is a shilled on the top of the engine, and the crew compartment is supposed to be within the solid-angle shielded. I never hang nervas on the side, I always have them on the bottom, with the crew compartment on top.

I only see the 1.0.1 DL on the "my account" DL page.

I have to try in 1.0, but it never required shipping the actual kerbals, just being able to support them.

I'm uninterested in aircraft, so I haven't messed with those parts much.

That's true, they are indeed bimodal, and hence run all the time without coolant (propellant) spraying through the core and out to space.

Is there an issue with attachment points if it is open ended?

This. Course I'd like to see more meaningful differences between engines anyway. Also, have the tech tree do something actually useful, and have upgrades to existing engines (advanced materials, etc). Then we can have tattling improve with tech, etc.

Many true observations… 10 really bugged me as well.

It is my understanding that the black, conical bit at the bottom includes radiators.

Unless you use the electricity to radiate, it doesn't change anything.

"Hard" mode isn't harder, it's just grindier, IMO. I tried it a few times in 0.90.

Cool, when I get a chance tonight, I'd be happy to make a few stock landers and post images for you.

125% seems small, Titan IV has had 160% fairings, though the norm is smaller. A suggestion: measure a few nominal payloads in game, and see if 125% is useful. Say a typical lander someone might want to use. If a 2.5m lander with legs is 126%, it would be a shame to arbitrarily contain to 125 (if that makes sense).

I don't care even a little about the "barn" we were shown. Here's a very relevant images of a "barn" for a company that just launched a sub-orbital flight… almost to space. Very kerbal. Doesn't look super rustic, just bare bones.

My first post here last August(?) was comments by a new player, and given the beta nature of the game, they were constructive, but certainly unflinching. My posts WRT 1.0 are no different. 1.0 was bound to---arbitrarily because of the version number---engender harsher criticism. My biggest criticisms have always been levels at career, since I have though since I started it was not well thought out. I'm not talking about special cases of "hard" (those difficulty sliders are just grind sliders, nothing makes the actual game harder), but joust normal play. The paradigm of KSP career is that it is hardest at the beginning, and in many ways that cannot be changed, but I do think that science/career/tech deserves a fresh look, with nothing as sacrosanct.