Damien_The_Unbeliever

No, because version numbers, despite their superficial resemblance to decimal numbers, are not the same. Or do you believe that versions 0.10 - 0.19 logically come between versions 0.1 and 0.2, or that versions 0.20 - 0.25 logically come between versions 0.2 and 0.3 (ignoring for a moment that there are both separately identified versions 0.2 and 0.20, etc) Also, if you look at the version number when you actually run the game, you'll probably observe a version number like 0.25.0.962. Since when do decimal numbers contain multiple decimal points, and what does it even mean?

You're welcome to play 0.9 any time you want to, if you've still got a copy. It was apparently released on 12th August 2011 (I say apparently only because I'm just relying on a wiki and I wasn't playing KSP myself at that time). That's one reason that this update isn't 0.9, despite any misspeaking by anyone.

Have you tried holding down the Mod key (Alt on windows, not sure on Mac) which disables surface attachment and only allow direct attachment via nodes?

I'm a little disappointed with regard to FinePrint - although I may have missed some videos, I've only watched a few - that for example the aerial surveys now only require a single waypoint and above/below. Maybe there are more extensive contracts, but the ones I've seen in the videos are a single challenge and a single altitude limit. I enjoyed having to plan an entire route, especially if I had to do severe manoeuvres close to the waypoints to hit the required altitude envelopes.

You could always adapt RFC2550's approach if you don't want to deal with any pesky rollover details and keep a format that can be alpha-sorted.

Yes, but in this beautiful multicultural, globe spanning society, for some people tomorrow is already Tuesday.

I'm not sure what confuses you about this logic - they obviously want to change things (because they've changed things) and they're obviously seeking feedback (because they've put it in the debug menu, out of the way of everyone except everyone currently seeking this information). I was pointing out the contrary position that obviously *doesn't* hold - that if they were not seeking to make changes here, they wouldn't have done so.

The fact that they would build this and expose this (yes, in the debug menu) would seem to me that they're looking for feedback. If they didn't want to move on from where they currently are, then they need not have made any changes at all. "Yes, there are more biomes. Find them for yourselves."

Unfortunately, the hype is having a negative effect on me for two reasons - one, I go into sandbox to build a new machine and despise the current tooling I've got, given what I've been shown as being available shortly (i.e. being able to switch between radial and bilateral symmetry + change root parts), and second, I've had the entire previous week off from work (not bad, just have to use up holiday before the year ends) but am stuck back in work next week. And I have a sneaking suspicion it could be a good KSP week next week.

If construction took time to occur, the part limit would seem to make more sense - we have time to bolt 50 parts together before we need to (down tools/move on to the next project/dissolve ourselves into the ground). At the moment, it's an arbitrary limit - and height and size limits would seem equally arbitrary if, as has been hinted at, we can now apply arbitrary part clipping.

That question's already been answered quite a few times, but boils down to: a) Version numbers aren't decimal numbers. The dots merely serve to separate component parts of the version number, and, There has already been a version 0.9, quite some time ago, existing between versions 0.8 and 0.10 (not sure if any or all of these were *publicly* released, but they did exist)

There's no need to swear

I've only been playing a few months. I'm tending to flip-flop currently. I'll spend a while playing Sandbox then switch to Career, and then a while playing Career and the switch to Sandbox. Occasionally I'll have multiple saves active in both, but as I say, I tend to flip-flop. Sandbox is good when I just want to play around with designs. But sometimes I need (something else to give me) a push in terms of what to build next. And I like coming back to Career after a while away from it and going "Oh, I need to send a mission there? I now have a far better plan for how to achieve that than I did last time I played this" (Although, I'll admit that I'm now using FinePrint since that's now a given for the next update, and that does seem to give a lot better contracts). I'm also a deleter though - I couldn't tell you how many saves I've started (either Sandpit or Career), but I've currently only got one save.

I've sent a rover to Minmus: I'm currently trying to decide the best way to deal with the slope.

IF squad are listening for feedback (and there's not a lot of evidence for that at the moment, given their general interaction on the forums) then surely the right place to be giving this feedback would be on the development forum? But wait, we're not talking about feedback on actual features. We're experiencing a lot of guessing. IF we had a definitive description of how the new features were proposed to work, and we were asked for feedback on it, then you may have a point. But I expect that anything that has made it to experimentals IS going to arrive with the public, minus any actual bugs.

I would say that the one way to really get things clear here would be to just be patient, wait a couple of weeks until 0.90 is **available**, install it and see how things actually work. I can't believe how much heat, light and noise has been generated in this discussion due to *speculation* about upcoming features.

Yep. That would be great - if it took time to build rockets and so larger rockets took longer to produce. (And I know there's a construction time mod), but if we're constrained to what can be built right now, do you agree that a part limit isn't an entirely artificial construct (which is what I was arguing against)?

I'm also surprised about so many people who have strong opinions about how broken new feature X is despite the fact that they're only working from a description and haven't actually tried feature X yet. As to the arguments that a part count is "artificially" limited (as if that means anything in a game) it's perfectly feasible to conceive of buildings that have limited inventory available on-hand. Sure, you might want to bolt 5000 parts together - and we may even have all 5000 of those parts sitting around - but we've only got enough nuts and bolts available at the moment to connect 200 of them together.

My first powered descent onto Kerbin. I'd always used parachutes before, but today, as my Mun orbit insertion stage returned to Kerbin, I realised that a) I had a *lot* of fuel on board and I'd forgotten to pack chutes. I let the atmosphere bleed off most of the velocity and then tried to balance my descent with the engine. First attempt went slightly bad - I went from having 90m/s downwards to about 30m/s up, but after a bit of back and forth, managed to bring it down at 5m/s and didn't kill any parts. First time that landing without chutes (on Kerbin) didn't involve at least one explosion.

I hate to be the voice of dissent, but a) MK3 parts aren't the entirety of 0.90, and 0.90 isn't 1.0. I'd rather have a new version to play with, because I know it's incomplete but still closer to what the final version will be. So in any poll, I'd be voting for "keep the schedule you're currently on, if MK3 isn't 'perfect' for 0.90 but some people have to wait for 0.91 or 0.90.1, I'm good with that". Hey, who knows? Maybe the "delay 0.90 until MK3 is perfect" and the "release 0.90 earlier and the complete MK3 as part of a later release" schedules both put the complete MK3 parts into your hands at the same time? The difference being that those who aren't waiting for the "complete" MK3 parts get other improvements earlier rather than later.

I'd suggest you re-read the OP: And what they're wanting is to have more active contracts, not just more variety in contracts (which from their plugin list, it sounds like they've got plenty of variety)

The only time that two objects in space are stationary with respect to each other is when they're attached to each other. If you want absolutely zero difference between those objects, then the word rigid also enters the discussion - i.e. struts. docks offer non-rigid connections. So this is to say, you can try to park two independent objects into orbit next to each other, but it will inevitably fail.

To ignore everything else - why do you assume that the Dragon-1 has a re-entry profile that is friendly to human bodies? It's a cargo vessel - it may experience acceleration forces that people, generally, shouldn't.

Yes, I think I'm in a similar situation. I've recreated a similar situation and uploaded images for it.

I've updated my post with an album, this time I was flying a vessel with a deliberately exaggerated situation