MacroNova

SRBs are awesome for boosting your rocket up to an altitude where the liquid fuel engines can be more effective. Use radial symmetry and put between 3 and 8 of 'em around your rocket. Use the control-surface winglets (not the fixed kind) for control authority. Slap a nose cone on 'em, and use sepratrons to make sure they don't smack your rocket when they decouple. These parts are in the game for a reason! I like my SRBs to provide a TWR of between 1.3 and 2.0 (including atmosphere) during operation. A little excess is OK. If you're getting too much thrust, you can tone it down in the VAB with the tweakables. The other day I tried building a rocket with them and without them. It was much cheaper with them.

Might just be that your reaction wheels were applying slight torque at the moment you disabled SAS. Try time warping 5x (this kills all rotation) and coming out of time warp to see if the issue persists.

Doesn't the radial attachment point give you a much more rigid connection?

I agree they could use a buff. In previous versions they needed to be a little weak to make up for the fact that they are really convenient to just slap anywhere. In 1.0+ the added drag of radial-anything makes them a sub-optimal choice most of the time.

See a 10 second burn, 20 minutes from node Hit Warp to Node Now 3 minutes from node Hit Warp to Node OHMYGODOHMYGODOHMYGOD Mashing commacommacomma Now 2 hours past node

If the parts are fixed so that you have a roughly equivalent risk of overheating with plane parts and rocket parts given reasonably good re-entry profile for each, which is what I'm suggesting, then there won't really be an advantage to making interplanetary trips with spaceplanes, though it would still be totally doable if that's your thing. Granted, rocket engines and RCS should be survivable when re-entering with a plane. But it should be really hard to re-enter a rocket ship that's anything but a small stack with a heatshield at the bottom. Engines and single-nozzle rcs thrusters could have the higher tolerance too, I suppose. Engines could transfer heat to nearby parts more readily so you still explode if you try to bring your whole rocket back with you.

Ohhhhh, so that's by design? I reported this a few pages back but I didn't want to push it because I modded the capsules to have 10 days of supplies built in and decreased the time-to-starve accordingly. Figured it was a weird interaction as a result of my changes.

Do you use heatshields and capsules on your planes?

I think this is pretty accurate, and IMO the way to fix it is to decrease the heat tolerance for non-plane parts.

I probably liked 1.0 a little more with how the atmosphere worked and how reentry was dangerous. But I wouldn't say 1.0 "nailed it." 1.0.2 is totally playable and I'm happy to be patient while Squad works on the next patch.

I'm finding the exact opposite to be true, because I'm having a hard time designing craft that I can strut to be rigid but that will also accommodate a fairing. The struts frequently need to go through where the fairing would go, and removing the fairing entirely made the launch infinitely easier. I'm playing career mode and only have the small fairings so far, so that's definitely part of the issue. It might also be that I designed my craft poorly. But I'm noticing a recurring and frustrating theme of wet noodle rockets when I use fairings, and nice rigid ones when I use struts.

Interesting discussion in this thread about the intersection between probe cores and life support. Right now stock players might use probe cores when they know they'll be doing a mission that they can't collect additional science from, or when they don't plan to take a pilot and they want SAS. I agree that it would be cool to have more missions that suggest, "Hey a probe core would be ideal here!" Satellite missions fulfill this role. The exploration contracts also fulfill it to some degree, since you can complete them with minimal risk of losing a Kerbal if you send a probe. I believe Life Support can be implemented without being meaningless nor a chore, and it would further nudge people to use probes where appropriate. "How much life support do I need for my Duna mission? There's no way to know in-game!" Send a probe and see how long it takes :-D Life Support should require a small amount of extra consideration in designing craft, but what it really needs to do is encourage the player to revisit crewed stations and bases (especially now that both have a real purpose with Science Labs and Resource extraction). It's Kerbal Space Program, not Kerbal Space Series of Missions.

Hardware is very different from software, but cars still break all the time and get recalled. Whenever Apple releases a new smartphone or iOS there are numerous bugs that get patched out. A few people in various corners of the internet point out that such shoddy quality control is totally unacceptable, and hey, they must be right because Apple is barely making a profit right now. In fact, their CEO is staying on my couch and eating Ramen every night.

100 cans of supplies on the wall, 100 cans of supplies Take them all down, pass them around, 100 cans of mulch on the wall. 100 cans of mulch in the greenhouse, 100 cans of mulch Light 'em up in the Sun, Greenhouses are fun!, 50 cans of food on the wall. 50 cans of food on the wall, 50 cans of food.... So a Kerbal with 100 supplies and a greenhouse would get 100 + 50 + 25 + 12.5... = 200 supplies.

Same here, but there are so many Biomes on the Mun that I don't mind sending a lander down to get science/fulfill contracts even if I'm not able to upload it to the lab. Yeah, I massively underestimated the electricity the lab would need during its dark side passes and ended up sending a little battery pack to mate with the station's docking port.

Some of us have been playing well-working and feature-chocked versions of KSP for years on the $10 we spent in early access. Now Squad wants to combine a bunch of new features with the hype and publicity of a full release. My god, it's almost like they're a company that needs to make money or something. Edit: by the way, if Squad had released 1.0 as .95 or .99 or whatever, we would still be playing the exact same game with the exact same issues and leaving the exact same feedback. So it literally makes no difference, and yet people are mad. I'm left to conclude that people don't like the way the game has changed and are using the big shiny "1.0" as an excuse to lash out immaturely.

I have a lab churning away over the Mun. I visit it every so often to restock and transfer more skilled scientists. I check in between missions to transmit the science. System works great for me.

Science from contracts was nerfed massively in 1.0. Players have a huge incentive to get science from experiments and lab research or they will progress at a glacial pace. I think it's totally fine the way it is right now and I would greatly prefer if the devs focused their attention on other concerns. Edit: for people who aren't getting enough science in the early game, do a Munar flyby on a close orbit with free return trajectory. Not much delta-V required and you can get a ton of science. Bring a scientist Kerbal to reset your Goo and Materials Bay for even more efficiency.

Plenty of things require more than token amounts of electricity - drilling, resource conversion, science lab research, ion engines, not to mention dozens of applications that exist in mods. Managing electricity in terms of quantity, rate of generation, and vessel design is non-trivial. If resource concentration is low, you'd need to do more intensive drilling to reach the ore which would create more heat. It would incentivize players to find high concentrations with the scanners instead of just time skipping. Engineer skill can also be a big part of the mechanic; I have no objection to that (and it makes plenty of sense since drilling into an asteroid is obviously massively more complex than making a hole in a piece of wood). Either way, it's the same essential concept as solar panels in how you need to manage heat. As for your love affair with realism, please tell me all about how you never use reaction wheels in your space program.

Not sure if this is intended behavior, but it seems the scientists don't need to be physically in the Lab for it to do research. They can be in an attached command pod and get the same rate of conversion.

This would be a fantastic addition.

I feel like you could make the same argument for electricity. Something requires it? Just add parts that generate it. The challenge comes in designing a vessel that generates electricity to meet your needs. Similarly, managing heat should be about making sure you have enough radiators for the task. Drilling and refining should generate various amounts of heat for various resource concentrations to make this meaningful.

Simple - just don't upgrade the runway.

There's a suggestion forum thread discussing fairings and apparently someone believes KER is not reporting fairing mass correctly, potentially throwing off dV calculation: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/119106-Are-fairings-useless?p=1911126&viewfull=1#post1911126 Can anyone confirm?

Echoing what others are saying - we're very grateful for all your amazing work on this excellent mod. Been playing with the dev builds and having a blast. Very excited to try the latest one and especially the final release. Hopefully you take the 'anticipation' of some forum goers as a compliment! Apology is neither necessary nor warranted.