serolrom

Sorry if I sound picky, I think it's actually: Rapid unscheduled disassembly I could be wrong but I couldn't help pointing out, just that this is how I saw it:

You are driving in a roundabout. You burn prograde to take your exit. #justkerbalthings #kspisreal

Congrats! Those firsts goals are the best.

As a Spanish speaker myself, I can say "Mun" is pronounced in Spanish pretty much (almost) like "Moon" is pronounced in English. Being the developer from Mexico (Spanish speakers as well), it made sense to me. About the umlaut, let me call it 'diéresis', which is the name of the symbol in Spanish. And I will do that just because, again, the developer is Mexican. The diéresis has the function, in Spanish, to reinforce the way this letter sounds, in the exceptions in which the 'u' sounds different. Although in Spanish it is not allowed to use the diéresis like that (it is wrong to write 'Mün'), to me it's the Kerbal way to make sure the 'u' sounds in the Spanish way (like "Moon" in English), but of course this is a very personal opinion. I love talking about language, and couldn't help throwing my two cents here. EDIT: Ninja correction

Anything that has 'simulator' in the title has my attention. The device shown by the OP looks promising, only as long as you can really make the use you imagine for it. Anyway, building the simulation hardware ends up being much too expensive.

Let me start saying that I respect you. I say this because you area frequent writer in the forum and I have most likely learned a couple of things from you. And believe me that I am saying the following with respect. I think this was maybe a bit hard. You are assuming things here. Maybe you were reminded of that tragedy and you are not the only one, but it doesn't mean they were thinking of it when making the video, nor that they don't consider it a tragedy. Unless I'm not aware of this being true fact (the video being a mimic), in which case I'd completely agree.

Let's not forget that even the menu screens show kerbals lost in orbit and a crashed lander on Mun. Is there evidence of *any* successful mission in the KSP showcase? Ninja edit to aggree with this ^

I love the videos and certainly got me to check the game in the first place (before 1.0). I find the disasters are part of the philosophy of KSP. The trial-and-error way of building rockets, backyard rocketry, etc. There is also glory on success, but I think the videos show what the beginner will actually face. A nice and shiny brand new rocket blown up, back to building and nothing happens. For a better taste, I agree Kerbals should always survive in the videos.

Made it to Duna. For the first time. With a rover with only a couple of things broken. And I can tell you it feels great. No, not great... but Great. Great as "Do I Rock or what???". Or Great as "From now on, the community can refer to me as 'The One Who Made It To Duna'". Know what? I'm changing my signature now.

You know what? I'm still struggling and wishing to have that kind of problems... Once I manage to get near Duna.

Ever engine has its performance regardless of its location. I mean, be it vacuum or be it atmospheric, it has a performance. To me it would be unrealistic to nerf or buff just because of it being used for interplanetary or as a lander.

You seem to have the answer. I'm no expert, even less with space planes, but I finally got mine up there. I had to deal with that problem among others. The key is, as you alread noticed, to have the aerodynamic surfaces UNDER the center of gravity, and so the thing goes from flipping to stable. Now ow the difficult thing is, how to do that. This is where engineering and imagination comes to play.

This is not a complaint, only my answer to the poll: KSP doesn't run on the Mac. It might be because of memory. Because of Steam client. Because whatever. Doesn't run on Mac for more than 15 minutes. Period. EDIT: Ok, maybe it doesn't happen for *every* Mac, but there's evidence that mine is not the only one.

Well I can't even play in the Mac version, read in the forums and didn't get a clear picture or what to do. I want to play so it was easier for me to fire up Windows and play there, but sorry, this is not acceptable in any way for a finished version. I love this game, but... State of development: unfinished. PS: Not that I wanted to go on with things that have already been commented, I am only answering to the OP.

I think we are wrong when calculating how much it costs per hour. In that case, it can get dirty cheap. But the price is what you pay *before* you have the game (*) Based on this, I'm on the same boat as many here: - It has quite a high entry price. I wouldn't buy for 40$. - It quicly gets cheap overtime. Having bought it, I would pay more than 40$. (*) Fortunately there is a demo. This is priceless. There is no demo for Elite:Dangerous and so I wasted 50 bucks. If only I could give it away, even for free, to someone that enjoyed the game, so that those 50 bucks were not just wasted, thrown away. Thank you for the demo, KSP.

Luckily, I had NOT seen Scott Manley playing KSP. If I had, I'd probably NOT bought KSP because of the weir things he does. I would have seen KSP too much like a game and less as a (bit of) simulator. Nothing wrong with Manley at all, just that his approach is not what I like about KSP. Maybe the episode I saw was an exception, but building a flying runway is not my ideal space exploration game. I found KSP while looking for modern alternatives to Orbiter. Glad I found it before I found all the YT craziness (that said with respect).

Man, do I identify with this I could have written it myself. You know what? I began studying a university grade and I actually put my effort in a constructive path. I am almost half way. Just to let you know it can be done. You won't get rid of that obsession, but there is a way to cope with it. Besides, it's not your fault. It's EVE Online's. I also agree on KSP being a perfect excuse to play with kids, both in terms of education and creativity.

My addictions are sandboxes and simulators. This one is kinda both. Space rockets and physics. That's the reason why, despite its not a game that I really "like", I can't be away from it for too long. For me, there's Fligh Simulator, Orbiter, KSP and EVE Online in no particular order.

I'd say after 3 years you must have tons of posts to blog until you catch up... But I know the feeling. I guess it's a bit like when you have to tell your friends about those geeky things you do, which you know they won't understand, so you just go elsewhere and blog. ... Or maybe that's not what you mean, but anyway, welcome.

It also helps a lot to use a joystick. Steering with the keyboard is an all-or-nothing every time you press the key.

I haven't really bothered about this so far, besides I had to add some tails to my rockets to avoid their new tendency to flip. After reading all the comments, maybe I'll look at it in more depth. I always avoided 'simulating' flight in KSP, found it kind of unpredictable, maybe it's time to give it a try again.

The moment I discover mods, it's like candy. You never get enough of it. Soon, most of the time goes away in modding instead of playing. Testing, figuring out what is the perfect setup for me, etc. So I am quite strict there. I avoid mods, or I will end up playing Kerbal Modding Program. Now, after reading most of this thread, I am too curious not to check out some mentioned many times (KER, KAC, TAC...). You guys might have ruined my playing time...

Thanks for pointing me in the direction I was looking for. I am not (by now) interested in joining a virtual agency, but as I said, coming from flight simulation world, I am used to the strong foundation that exists in the world of virtual airlinies, and got curious if something like that exists in KSP. My conclusion so far is that there is collaborative work, mainly in the rocket building industry. And as I guessed, there are also many space agencies, but not in the same sense as those in the flighs simuation, but just individual ones. Of course it is not a bad thing, it reflects the actual way people enjoy KSP. However, I am curious about how a virtual space agency (the way I mean) would work. I might even think of creating one in the future. By now, I am not experienced enough, and I don't currently have the time and energy required for that. If some of you guys do, let me throw this idea, in case some virtual enterpreneur wants to give it a try. Think of it as a website with a pilot roster and some infrastructure. Like in the rocket builder section, there could be some 'standard' rockets for players to download, although they could make their own rockets if they wish. Some of these websites allow budget management, so the cost of rockets could be taken into consideration. Standard missions could be registered by pilots, earning flight hours, etc. Such as 'station refuel', deliver food to Mun, etc. Doesn't it sound cool? I think it does. But yeah, easier said than done. Thanks again for the info!

I hope I am not repeating this question, you can be sure I have searched in the forum, but in case this has been commented, I might have searched with the wrong terms... I was wondering if KSP has virtual agencies like those you see in Flight Simulator. Two examples (that I have nothing to do with; I fly for another one, but as I am not advertising, I've chosen two random ones): http://www.britishairwaysvirtual.co.uk/ http://www.vacanada.org/v6/en/ These virtual airlines have their website, routes, pilot roster, etc. Pilots perform flights and register them. It adds to the roleplay side of a simulator. Many KSP players identify themselves with a name they give to their very own fictional space agency, but do you know of any of these virtual agencies like my examples in the context of KSP?

Tried to get Bob in Mun orbit using only his jetpac (there wasn't any working vehicle available anyway). Jeb would tell everyone that his friend did it for science. And learned things. ... he almost made it. Actually I thought he was going to make it ... ... Kerbals can survive a strong impact. But not *that* strong...