Gaarst

It was suggested many times, but when you compare it to the number of suggestions for dv readouts, more planets, more parts... then you find that pretty much no one cares about achievements. Also, it was put on the WNTS also because of Steam and store (and GOG) differences. Most requests were made for Steam, and left the store version apart; so that was labelled unfair and thus the debate was avoided.

Don't buy a laptop You want CPU power. Especially single thread performance (multithreading only occurs when simulating several crafts). An i5 is usually enough, no need for an i7 GPU is not that important RAM is not that important, just don't try to play KSP with 4GB, but no need for 64GB. 8GB is fine for a "casual" use, if you want to play with a lot of mods, go for 16GB. Don't buy a "gaming" computer. You'll pay it twice as much than if you put the pieces together yourself Also, there is a thread that might help you, stickied in the Lounge. (Note that these are things I think, might not be the best way to make a KSP-built computer, but it should be a good start. Wait for other people to comment before making any decision). As Endersmens noted, I forgot to mention these guidelines are for a computer specifically built for KSP. Things get different for other uses.

I didn't get from a "they didn't give me a cheat menu" to "nobody tested this"; I said the fact that "they didn't give me a cheat menu", in a game which always had and needed it (note that some pretty important thermal and aerodynamics information, not cheats, are in there, now tell me how having more information is any kind of debugging or cheating), echoes comments where people have said that "nobody tested this". I know that the console versions were tested, I'm just saying a missing feature justifies at least a small part of the complaining.

Engines are designed for a given thrust. The SSMEs were designed to give out 2090kN of thrust in vaccuum, that's 100% of the nominal power. Now, after quite a few flights, the engineers had collected enough data to realise that the SSMEs were strong enough to get pushed further, to 2170kN, without any risk for the duration of a flight, and that this enabled greater payloads. The launch sequence was modified so that the SSME now used the 2170kN of thrust, of 104.5% of their original maximal thrust. Instead of setting the 2170kN to be 100% and confuse everyone and probably cause one or two shuttle losses (space disasters often happen for pretty stupid reasons), they kept the original 100% and wrote down 104.5% for the launch sequence. Throttling the SSMEs to 104.5% became part of the nominal launch procedure because it was safe. The engines could be pushed even further (remember that to increase the thrust of the rocket engine, you just need to increase the propellant flow), up to 2280kN, or 109% of the nominal thrust. But this was dangerous: as the engines were not designed to sustain that much thrust, it could damage them and cause the loss of a mission, so the 109% throttle was not used for nominal flights, but kept for emergency procedures. Back to KSP: having more than 100% throttle in KSP would make no sense. Since engines are essentially perfect and never fail, adding a failure possibility when going past 100% would feel a little strange. If KSP had part failures, then this would be great but just having engines failing when pushed too hard, meh. A mod increasing the maximal throttle limit past 100% and adding a failure probability should not be to hard to make.

Great for you!

Easier I don't know (Steam probably has a common achievements base so that they are really easy to make) but fairer yes. TBH, no one really cared about achievements in KSP before the console versions: now that they are there, people want them on PC as well.

GOG.com is also an official way to buy KSP and does not contain any achievement. So right now it's more: console has achievements, PC doesn't.

There are no fixes for the wheels right now, but some people claim that tweaking some grip/suspension values or moving the wheels around can make things better. I have tried changing things on some of my designs but I saw no improvement, but your craft is different so giving it a try might be worth it.

I used the word "haters" with quotes. When I said haters, I didn't mean the people who where upset about the ports and giving their feedback, I meant the ones who were really upset and throwing their hate at the game, along with the vulgarity that goes with it. KSP is an ever-ongoing development game. It's a scheme that is indeed mostly found in PC gaming, and as a matter of fact KSP is a PC game in a lot of aspects. I'm not going to start debating about the reasoning behind the console ports but they are there, as they stand, and our opinion will not change that. I really like KSP, and I want people to like KSP. This is why I've been "defending" the ports so far, so that people take the time to do bug reports and get willing to wait for the major issues to be fixed (it's the same reason that makes me want a console demo). KSP, as a PC game, will never reach on console the state it has on its native platform; but that does not prevent the game from being at least good. I'm not saying it's going to happen, I have no idea about what will happen in the future for the console versions. I'm just giving it a chance, and right now, I'd say I have 1/2 chances of being right giving it a chance. I'm not telling people that the ports are great because they aren't, they might get better in the future, or not, I'm just being optimistic on that subject. (Of course, as I do not play KSP on console, my opinion is biaised) I'd enjoy continuing discussing this, but we are seriously getting off topic.

Wheels are bugged. With some chance, the cause of your problem will be the design of your craft, and it will be fixable. Otherwise, you'll have to do like a lot of us and wait for 1.2.

Sepratrons are pretty nice for very light crafts but to get a decent TWR on an heavier craft (manned for example), I've found that Vectors are a good alternative if you want to avoid sticking 50 of them on your craft.

If the mods do not influence the behaviour of the crafts then it will be considered stock. For example, you can use informational mods and still be in stock, but use FAR and be modded (FAR's actually a bad example since I have not alowed it in the challenge but I hope you get the idea). I will be adding this to the rules, thanks for the remark.

So, I've seen that there was no recent or updated thread in the Challenges section whose goal was just to go as fast as possible on the runway. Pretty easy challenge to attempt, so I figured I might put my own challenge here! THE CHALLENGE: Go as fast as possible on the runway. There will be several categories with different requirements: unmanned/manned, stopping before the end, keeping the craft intact... each can be attempted with mods but will be on a different leaderboard. THE CATEGORIES: Ludicrous speed: get as fast as you can before the end of the runway. No other constraints. Chuck Kerman: get a manned vehicle going as fast as you can before the end of the runway. The Kerbal must survive. No other constraints. Ready for more: get a manned vehicle going as fast as you can before the end of the runway. The vehicle must stop before the end of the runway and not lose any part during the run (this means no decoupling). The Kerbal must survive. FIA Land Speed Record: get a manned vehicle going as fast as you can before the end of the runway, but, as for land speed records in real life, your craft must make two runs along the runway: do a first pass, turn around at the end of the runway (you may go off the runway to turn around), and do another one. Refueling is allowed, reverting is not. The record speed will be the average of the max speeds of the two passes. Decoupling or losing parts during any of the two passes is forbidden. THE RULES: (These are valid for all categories) The score is your maximum speed as shown on your screenshots or videos. If you have a screenshot where you're going 20m/s but say you've gone past Mach 10, I'll put 20m/s on the leaderboard. No cheating, this means no infinite fuel, no unbreakable parts, no ignoring heat... This challenge is made for 1.1.3. I will not accept entries before 1.1, and may not accept entries between 1.1.0 and 1.1.2. Stock aero only, with 100% heating. I might add FAR later on, but that just doubles the leaderboards needed, if this is not popular enough, then it will be pointless. No mods that change the runway. Mods that change its length, texture, properties... are not allowed. Any change to the wheels behaviour must be explicitely stated, and will go in the modded category with a special mention. The stock categories allow any type of mod that do not influence the run in any way. As long as a mod doesn't change the vehicle (part mods, offset limits mods), the wheels mechanics (various fixes and tweaks) or the aerodynamics, the entry will go into the stock leaderboards. No leaving the ground at any point during the run. Flying away after the runway if you don't intend to stop is allowed. Entries should show: a screenshot of the craft at the beginning; a screenshot of the craft at max speed (F3 menu is not always accurate, so this will give more credit to your entry); for categories that do not allow losing parts or Kerbals, a screenshot of the F3 menu after the run; if the challenge requires you to stop, a screenshot of the craft at the end of the runway; if possible, a video is even better, but don't bother making one if you don't want to, screenshots are enough. Runs have to be made on the runway only, all the grey part counts. Your rear wheels should not touch the grass at the beginning and your front wheels should not touch the grass at the end of the runway (if you need to stop). All engines are allowed*, all fuels are allowed*, all sizes are allowed. TweakScale is allowed if you keep proportions the same (no reducing F1s to the size of an ant keeping the original thrust). * I reserve the right to restrict some methods of propulsion that I consider unfair or too overpowered (looking at nuclear pulse propulsion here, but more may be forbidden as well). As a general rule, try to stick to realist-ish stuff and there should be no problem. Some categories allow loss of some parts, but at the time of maximal speed, the vehicle must at least be made of one wheel and the root/controlling part still attached. Please state all mods used in modded entries. THE STOCK LEADERBOARDS: Ludicrous speed: Chuck Kerman: Ready for more: FIA Land Speed Record: THE MODDED LEADERBOARDS Ludicrous speed: Chuck Kerman: Ready for more: FIA Land Speed Record: All suggestions are welcome (including more rules, explanations, more categories and other things). I hope you have fun attempting this and I wish you good luck!

People in Europe are still waiting for the PS4 version. Though it seems the reasons are different: while the European version delay seems to be caused by certification issues, the Australian Xbone seems not to be planned at all in the first place (not cited in the article quoted above). I also remember that Australia has stricter video games restrictions than other countries. This may be enough to explain the absence of KSP there.

Wow. I have been trying to support the console ports against "haters" over the last few days, but this gives them more credit than they should ever have had. The "no QA" argument for the console ports does not seem that far from reality anymore. I hope a patch comes quickly.

That's pretty straightforward: seeing the complexity and complaints about the controls on console, I think it would be helpful to have an official and complete controls list, including combinations to open cheats/F3/etc menus. Would be a lot easier than having to look through a lot of threads to find them.

Wow that's a lot of controls. Playing on a keyboard since 4 years, I'm not sure if I could remember all that, I understand the complaints about the controls better now!

This issue is known and has already been reported several times on the official bugtracker, so the devs are probably already working on it (hopefully). Unfortunately, there is no workaround known and it is unlikely there will be any before the bug gets fixed.

Chances are a not-working control will get fixed before the crashes and corruption issues. Now, if you want to be helpful to the game, you can submit a bug report on the KSP Bugtracker which will make it significantly more likely to be fixed than with just a forum post, even full of "love". Forgive me, I did not see that you already submitted a bug report.

I though you meant to insert a proper quote like when replying to someone. To insert a reply, just click on the "Share this post" button at the top right of the comment (kinda looking like the Steam logo), copy the link, and paste it wherever you want to write, just like an image.

You can "insert" a reply to a thread as such: But I don't know how to properly quote it (with user and timestamp I mean).

7g is a lot. NASA's man-rating criterions say that astronauts should not endure more than 3g during ascent, and a typical reentry caps at 4-5g (>8g if ballistic).

What @stibbons said. Manoeuvre nodes assume an instantaneous burn, calcuating a continuous burn accounting for the mass loss, orbital velocity and stuff would be much more complicated (KSP can't even properly predict a burn time). For most situations, the instantaneous burn assumption works pretty decently but there might be situations in which it doesn't, for example a large inclination change. The best way to get around this, if you don't want to write a mod that properly plans manoeuvres, is trial and error: with time you'll get used to doing these manoeuvres and they will not be a problem anymore.

The error message is confusing. A stable orbit means an orbit that does not intercept the surface or does not enter the atmosphere. While the orbit is stated to have to be between 60km and 1500km for all bodies, the Kerbin atmosphere ends at 70km. Therefore if your periapsis is below 70km, your orbit will not be stable. Just rise your periapsis above 70km and it should work.

I believe I've already seen that issue here in the forums. To get the best chances to see this bug fixed, you'll have to fill in a bug report at the Squad Bugtracker describing the issue. Reporting bugs on the forums is useful for people to see it and discuss them, but as the console versions are very new and no one (talking about the community, not the devs) really knows how to fix their bugs, submitting an official report on the bugtracker is the best thing to do.