tater

So tests might be destructive testing. New command pod? Launch it into an orbit such that it burns up on reentry (when that is a thing). Hitting the ground? Failure. Not burning up? Failure. Such a mission would teach people the parameters where things were unsafe, too.

I saw all the manned launches from birth (mom was a space nut) until some point in the STS program. So Gemini IV to Challenger, then a bunch after that, but more spotty. A couple with my eyeballs, but those were just sounding rockets.

Having to use a probe, or other data you actually have to work for is a good thing, IMO. The game should scatter even smaller craters around to make this even more important in fact. It's exactly the kind of real exploration the game lacks otherwise.

I'm pretty sure the nut who "got punched" didn't have a leg to stand on, really. I mean it's pretty obvious that the video posted was fake. One of those shadows looks wrong. It was an obvious hoax to discredit the Apollo hoaxer.

If you can't get out of the way of an 80 year old fist, you should be in a gym, not harassing an astronaut.

I'm honestly unsure as to how that could possibly happen since it's already pretty easy, you'd have to actively try to fail, IMO (I started in August, and while my first game was in "science" mode, I was landing on the Mun my first evening of play).

I think they have made it pretty clear the next release is 1.0. I'd take that as a given, hence my suggestion they have a few "candidate" tests, or whatever they might want to call them. Explicitly make sure people know these should not be modded, as the next patch might come out the day after the last one. "Feedback" versions. If they want to hold back some stuff, they can simply use these to test aero, and any balance/bug fixes, nothing that involves new eye candy unless it's already out there (an incorporated mod, for example).

Just a note on stations/bases. They have to be able to HOLD X kerbals, but there is zero requirement you actually man them. I have taken a few of those, and I have NTRs on them. Place them in solar orbit… satisfy contract, then put them in orbit someplace, just in case (say Duna) since I use life support.

Such snapshots could also specifically avoid "hype" stuff by not including them. New parts? Let QA deal with that. Valentina? Ditto. Have it be 0.90 but with any bug fixes, optimization, balancing, career/tech/science changes, etc in, and the part folders, etc just not in there.

A few ideas for the rescue missions since 1.0 (or maybe 1.1 given the other thread) is supposed to add the kerbals with capsules, etc. All rescue missions should have much more critical time limits. 1 star difficulty would be a kerbal in a capsule or other hab part in Kerbin SoI. The accept by and expiry dates would be in XX days (6 hour days, right?) and would be identical. If you wait a long time to accept, you have less time to rescue the guy. 2 star would be the same as 1, but with a shorter date range. Lone astronauts possible here, but the date range to accept, then complete for any kerbal without a pod should be TINY. Once you accept, you need to rescue him ASAP or fail. Set the time limit such that rendezvous must be within a few orbits, max. If lone kerbals are a thing on the Mun, etc, then those contracts should basically be impossible unless you have a craft nearby already. 3 star would be on bodies outside Kerbin SoI, and possibly stranded kerbals (no pod) but with the date range set so short you need to rescue on the first orbit. Adding time limits in some way would actually make these missions challenging.

If they are worried about going back on what they said they were going to do they could have a few "snapshots" as minecraft calls them. Utterly optional, with zero claim of compatibility (so modders need not bother with them at all) for us to beat up. Use a different scheme than 0.90, call it aero201503 or whatever.

Nothing about the sun pictured on the first page looks good, it shows artifacts of optics, not what anyone actually sees---lens flares, and diffraction spikes. It's funny that OP likes the spikes, as they are artifacts of the supports holding the secondary mirror in a reflecting telescope.

Take ISRU and something like scanners. That implies a kind of "science" we do not have in stock, and one that is better (mapping planets), more realistic, and actually useful in addition to science! points. So any balance needs to be cognizant of new things on the horizon (this is a reason I suppose many prefer a 0.99 release to beat up first, I suppose). Concern about saves should be a non-issue, BTW.

I have to say bug fixing, optimization, and balance. Note that of course this is not simple as the science/tech/career systems are really out of whack, and touching one really requires touching all to an extent, possibly in a fundamental way. Claw's thread is filled with a number of ideas about the contract/career system that bear close attention, IMO. Also, keep in mind what the new systems do, and are for… what's the goal, etc. It makes a difference in career, anyway.

Funny, it's sunny out my window right now… no sun flare. Guess reality is under modeled? If they added this, I'd turn it off.

Ferram, I posted a bunch of stuff a while ago, and you suggested I try the dev build, which I did. All my stuck docking issues instantly went away when I switched to your dev version. I did numerous tests, including adding mods in 1 at a time and retesting, and in tests with the problem, a save with the issue would be fine with the dev version you had suggested. I linked craft files, etc back then. Thanks for the mods, and your time.

Regarding sample return, humans did so well not because they were autonomous, but because the craft that got them there had the capacity to carry many kg of samples largely by design, but possible because a manned craft has to have some excess capacity. I think it is unfair to compare robotic vs manned sample returns given the entirely different parameters and budgets. If the sole goal of Apollo had been placing X science instruments, and returning X hundred kg of samples, I think it could have been done remotely with no real difference in scientific outcomes. I cannot imagine that it would not have been so much less expensive that many more missions could have been done as well, so perhaps smaller sample quantitates, but from many more sites, with a net gain in data. I've very much a "manned spaceflight" person, but science is not the reason, remote/robots are superior if cost is a consideration at all. What they just don't engender is the same level of inspiration or adventure. I think that that is valuable all by itself.

If you end up back in stock, why not try the new 2X version of 6.4? Jumbo32 is another one I have played with, and I honestly think the terrain looks better than stock. Just extreme enough without being absurd, and it is not any more time consuming, really.

If they look good, I would prefer them to be stock (at least tanks, etc).

A space race requires time as a meaningful concept. That means KCT, or some other mechanism that is similar. I proposed in another thread a simple mechanism to make time matter. Have contracts (really "missions")---in this case the "explore" type that generate the successes in the space race---dose out funds over time (if that is even possible). You might then need to warp to get enough funds for the next build. Each explore contract has a budget, and you get so many per XX days to work with. KCT obviously makes more sense for this. Have reverts, etc disallowed. Failures---part failures---should be a thing. I have tried Dangit, and my real issue is that stuff fails too often and it gets tedious. Something like that would be good, though. The competing program should also have failures, and the possibility of rescuing them would be a cool addition (massive rep gain for not only beating them, but saving their bacon). I would also think a simple life support mod would be good to support.

Someone should tell spacex their engine is broken, then:

I already play with LS, and indeed, it changes everything in many ways. That said, again, for multi-flight games, it can possibly be tedious to resupply… you can have many highly skilled (in the new scheme) pilots, but they cannot actually do anything, the PLAYER still flies every single mission, regardless of how routine. Many are against having the kerbals fly themselves, I tend to think it's mandatory if the game wants to pretend to any "management" level of play at all. I think that in the end it still comes down to how much payload you can give whatever amount of dv, nothing more. It makes long distance missions more complex, but not fundamentally harder. I'm not suggesting that they even should be harder, I'm saying that is the reality of a game that is even sort of realistic. The basic tools are there at the start, and technological improvements make the game easier as time goes on, not harder. One problem is really that the early game is in fact so easy. When you blow past what should be an incredible accomplishment, landing on the Mun before you've played more than a couple hours, that's a problem. That would really require more data than squad likes to give as well. In the VAB it should show how many hours the batteries will last with minimal systems on at the very least, for example. It's counter-intuitive to make the early game harder, not easier, but I think that spending more time getting ready for the Mun would be a good thing for career (basically wanting a sort of mercury-->gemini-->apollo sort of progression to happen instead of a couple suborbitals to unlock stuff, then an orbital mission, then a Mun landing (which is a fairly normal progression for me, even in an RSS cfg).

Even RTGs fall off over their flight times, but yeah, reactors would be better. I agree on the distances, but it's not "more difficult" It's simply "more throw weight." If you can rendezvous in Kerbin orbit, then building a ship, fueling it, sending fuel ahead for refuel around body X is all complex, and fun, but not "more difficult" in the sense I think we mean. This is particularly true given that the player does everything. Adding "management" difficulties isn't really a thing, as you cannot delegate. They could add colonization, or something, but those 100 flights… you have to fly them yourself. Honestly, in my limited experience the best difficulties I have had has been when I have either forgotten something critical on a craft, or I have broken something that turned out to be important. Adding failures would help, but you'd see the same issue where such failures are worse early in the game due to fewer ways to deal with them.

^^^that is entirely untrue for the small RSS cfgs. 3.2X with FAR is not that different from stock, and I'd expect 2X with FAR to likely equal stock stuff with the soup.

There is not really a way around this. The difficulty in terms of operating spacecraft is fixed, only the dv requirements really change. A space race would also, obviously be cool, but it doesn't really scale difficulty with ability, either.