Damien_The_Unbeliever

Just completed an unofficial "grand survey" of the great flats of Minmus. Having arrived with a bit of a bang (hit a transition at ~10m/s, everything should survive 20m/s impacts, but one wheel gave up) I ended up with a three-wheeled rover. Having initially decided that the rover was dead, I came back to it and realised that if I reactivated the reaction wheels, it could stay perfectly level - but I could no longer use the wheel controls (because they also tip the girder that no longer has a wheel into the ground) So, I've activated the reaction wheels to keep the vehicle level and I'm using RCS to move around. The vehicle seems to react well when travelling at about 8m/s. And I've just visited all four corners of the great flats. This has taken about four hours of play time (I didn't want to attempt to short-cut over any inclinations - I stayed at 0m altitude). And you cannot time warp when travelling on ground. Still, I loved accomplishing this tour.

1.0.3 and 1.1 are both more likely to be like 1.0 - 1.0.2 than anything before those. And who knows what future releases there might be. Do you plan to stay, perpetually, on 0.90, despite any new features that may come along? If not, I'd say you're solving the wrong problem.

I think, to some extent the issue is that, for every existing item on the engineers report, there's a way to build your rocket so that it will report "no issues found". But with this suggestion, every rocket that you build with at least one docking port will have an unclearable item in the report. That's going to be incredibly annoying for the "OCD" crowd who always want a clean sheet before launching (especially since we don't, as yet, have a "don't report on this issue again in the future" feature)

How about "But Microsoft says...": https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms646970(v=vs.85).aspx

I'd just be glad if we got resize cursors on the edges of windows where you can drag to make them larger. It took me the longest time to discover you could make the contracts window larger by dragging the bottom (if in flight/map) or top (in VAB) edge of that window, simply because the cursor doesn't change there and I'm so used to that piece of feedback I didn't think to try to do the drag anyway.

There was a previous thread along similar lines here

A Kerbal being turned into cereal grain isn't one I've encountered :-|

We have recent evidence that refutes this hypothesis. See these devnotes from three weeks back. People immediately started asking whether camera shake could be turned off. HarvesteR did respond and indicate that not only could it be switched off, but that there would be a slider. What happened? People kept adding new posts to that thread asking whether it would be possible to turn camera shake off.

Bear in mind that we're expecting a lot of tweaks to part parameters between 0.90 and 1.0. So, even if, physically, your craft stay intact during the transition, it won't necessarily mean that they still perform (at all/well/the same)

I haven't watched the squadcast (that's why I look forward to OSK's efforts on the forum) but these bays have sometimes been referred to as utility bays rather than cargo bays. That is, I gather, their purpose is to contain/shield parts of the same (single) craft that would otherwise have to deal with adverse aerodynamic forces, versus cargo bays which are intend to contain separable parts that (at some point during a mission) are removed or inserted.

I'm expecting to have limited internet access between 13th-17th April, so based on that, I've been expecting 13th.

I see everything being added as a bonus. To be quite frank, if Squad shut up shop tomorrow, I'd still play this game a lot. 0.90 has its rough edges but is still a very playable game. And, if 1.0 became a worse disaster than even the worst cynics are predicting and generated not a single new sale, I would still love this game and play it. So I don't know what the real problem is. Yes, it's frustrating having to speculate about functionality rather than try it out ourselves, but that's where we are.

They've already played the demo so they'll have possibly picked up some bad habits already. So they may as well get started playing now. And not all habits learned will be bad habits (i.e. the various different control schemes (staging vs docking vs EVA), which admittedly still throw my out but I've not heard that they're due to change)

Yes, and what others are pointing out is that if you have tonnes on both side of the conversion, something's wrong. You might want to look at dimensional analysis. You yourself acknowledge above the g has units of m/s-2. Or, to put things another way around: Most scales measure weight, but give results in units of mass. This means that they've already adjusted the result by using g, on the assumption (which I think is fair) that the scale will only ever be used on the surface of the Earth.

That's just about the first thing you can build that resembles a plane (unless I've for some reason adapted myself into a weird way of unlocking tech). At that point I've unlocked the cockpit, only one type of wing, one type of control surface and the basic jet engine.

MK1 cockpit, fuselage with fuel, fuselage with air intake, basic jet engine (apologies if I've got names wrong. Away from game/unable to access the wiki from here). Pair of type B wing panels and a few control surfaces will happily take off from that runway. So I guess it depends on what sort of aircraft you're building.

See a few posts above:

Nice.

Well, there's a possibility that the DDS thing has already been done:

Okay, so I want to switch to a piece of debris, so I hold down shift and press `[` and, hey? why is the vessel I just left firing it's engines? Perhaps a different modifier key would be preferable... Not to say that I don't agree with the basic premise here - I once landed a rover on the Mun with a separable sky-crane. Landed, started the engines running and then separated it so that it could disappear off into space. A very short while later, I accidentally switched to it via the `[` key. Of course, I'd over-estimated how much fuel it needed in the first place so the engines were still running. So I couldn't leave it because it was accelerating. And I couldn't shut it down because it didn't have any control (such as a probe core). So, I had to wait through 30 minutes of game time until the engines finally used up all of the fuel (and it was on an escape course out of the system - I did say I'd overestimated the fuel) before I could switch back to an interesting vessel and carry on actually playing the game.

Define "Vehicle". For boats/ships, Red/Green indicate the front (and also indicate left and right) and White indicates the rear (with additional masthead lights giving further information about the type of vessel). (Also, not sure it was worth resurrecting this old thread just for this)

Physical RAM is an implementation detail that is (largely) irrelevant these days - certainly with respect to other programs. Each program gets its own virtual memory space to fill up as it sees fit and out-of-memory means that this program's virtual memory is full. Other programs will continue to allocate/deallocate memory themselves. It's then up to the OS to try to maintain the illusion that, however much virtual memory each application has allocated, it's all backed up by physical memory. As this illusion breaks down, you'll start to notice thrashing (as pages are continuously moved between physical ram and the page file) as the amount of memory in active use exceeds what's physically available, but this is unrelated to any "out of memory" situation and the OS will still allow applications to allocate more virtual memory if they ask for it.

In case you're not joking, EA = Early Access, not Electronic Arts.

Maybe the resources are too rich - but then again, all we're looking at here is Kerbin. Given that there's already one source of infinite fuel on that planet already, I'm not sure we should judge it just yet.

I think you're also missing the fact (and it hasn't been much mentioned) that in one of the Dev notes, they mentioned wet wings - i.e. wings full of fuel - i.e. fatter wings. (Unless I've misinterpreted what was being mentioned). So the fatter, fuel filled wing may have enough space to entirely conceal the cowl.