egoego

I always tought of KSP as Kerbal Space Program, not Kerbal Submarine Program. We need the atmosphere, because it seems logical to fight it on our way to orbit (similar to space programs on earth). We do have oceans to land in (similar to earth). But I don't think any space program has to deal with submarine stuff. If submarine stuff will happen, I hope it comes in KSP 2.0 or 1.5 or something like that. For now, fix the bugs, balance the stuff that is there, keep entirely new stuff to far away updates. Your ideas are nice, but I don't need such things anytime soon. :)

This idea looks like it could really improve manouver node handling. And you wouldn't even need to change manouver nodes itself, just add a new GUI element. I like this idea.

I did a similar test a few days ago, but with a different (simpler) setup: RC-001S probe core, Z-1K power for the sas and core and weight for balance, SAS near CoM, RT-5 booster. I would just enable stability and launch this thing, then wait until it falls down again, hit F3 and look for greatest hight achieved. This gave me the following little table (1st column: whats on top, 2nd column: how high did this thing fly in meters) AE-FF2 Airstream Protective Shell (2.5m) (min high) 2889 AE-FF2 Airstream Protective Shell (2.5m) (max high) 4065 RC-001S Remote Guidance Unit (test stack without cone) 5403 Heat Shield (1.25m) 5682 Z-1k Rechargeable Battery Bank (test stack without cone, reordered) 5736 AE-FF1 Airstream Protective Shell (1.25m) (min high) 5851 Clamp-O-Tron Shielded Docking Port 6792 M700 Survey Scanner 8144 Mk1 Command Pod + Mk16 Parachute (on top of test stack) 8283 Aerodynamic Nose Cone 8896 Mk1 Command Pod + Small Nose Cone (on top of test stack) 9210 Mk1 Command Pod + Mk16 Parachute (instead of battery and probe core) 10321 Mk1 Command Pod + Small Nose Cone (instead of battery and probe core) 12207 Advanced Nose Cone - Type A 13896 Shock Cone Intake (open) 14717 Shock Cone Intake (closed) 14717 Tail Connector A 15998 AE-FF1 Airstream Protective Shell (1.25m) (max high) 17601 Intakes had no difference between open and closed, did this test twice. Is this a bug?

I hope a follow up question is allowed. How do you get to your transfer window? Just time accelerate until you reach year 21 (if we go with EditoRUS' example)?

I didn't know we had wind in KSP. If we still don't have wind, surface speed should be equal to wind speed.

To give kerbal levels a bit more use, why not have a high level engineer the ability to edit action groups in flight?

I tend to agree with the OP about the point, that KSP changes to much in a minor release. I know it is hard to make a good physics simulation. But changing the atmospheric behaviour in a minor release after the game officially left Beta, is a thing I don't want to see. At least not everytime. Changes to something fundamental like the atmosphere make it necessary for me to relearn the game, and often I end up starting a new career, because some of my crafts already on a mission don't behave like tested. Squad, please, settle for a certain physics model soon. You can't make it perfect for everyone, so stop changing it too often. If something doesn't seem right, maybe it's just some parts that need to be tweeked instead of the fundament everything is build on. You promised us a game that isn't beta anymore, so please give us a more consistent gaming experiance. As sooner as you settle for a physics setup you can move on to all the other bugs and missing things, like usefull tutorials (I imagine new players have a very hard time to get into the game at the current complexity level.)

Thanks all for your answers. I should have taken the time to read more into the toppic instead of just using the formula without knowing how/why it works.

I have problems understanding delta-V or delta-V maps. The most recent delta-V map I could find (from this reddit post) sprung to my eye, because it says you only need 3200m/s to reach LKO. This might bee due to changes to lift and stuff in 1.0 (I used to play 0.90 and before.) But with atmospheric stuff being a bit more complex to calculate for me, I tried my luck with a Mun lander. The map says from LMO (14km) down to Mun surface I would need 580m/s. So I build a simple lander: MK1 Pod : 0.84 tons FL-T400 tank : 2.25 tons (2 tons fuel) LV-909 Terrier engine : 0.5 tons (isp vac: 345s) three LT-1 Legs (about 3.7 tons total) and put him into an 14km orbit around the Mun. To calcualte how many delta-V it has I use the formula from the wiki (same as in this thread): dV = Isp * gravity * ln( stageMass / (stageMass-fuelMass) ) The wiki says the gravity for the Mun is 1.63m/s². That gives my lander about 437m/s delta-V and it is less than I expected. According to the delta-V map I would need 580m/s, so I shouldn’t be able to get down to the Mun surface without crashing. But I tested it and could land this thing with more then 50% fuel left on the Mun. This lead to a few questions: Did I read the map wrong? If so, how should it be read? Did I calculate the delta-V wrong? (Using Kerbins gravity constant gives a higher delta-V but I think I’m supposed to use the gravity constant of the object I’m orbiting.) Less important: How are those delta-V maps created? Did the author use Kerbins gravity for all objects by accident? EDIT: After submitting this question I came up with the idea that I really should have used Kerbins gravity (9.81) for the calculation and that this was also used in creating the map. Physics class was a long time ago so a hint on why this could be true would be appreciated. At least it could explain why my numbers seem to be wrong.

I hope everyone enjoyed their vacation. They earned it with the release. As for Unity5 I hope for good Win64 support (so the rest of my RAM can enjoy KSP too). But take your time, dear devs, don't rush yourself.

These behavior brings thrill to such a boring thing like taking contracts. You now have to read what you do, before you accept the mission

@Pax Kerbana: You get free Kerbals with some funds and reputation when you rescue them

I found the old solar panels were to overpowered. I could not find a use for the large XL thing besides for the looks. I was able to power a whole space station in Kerbin orbit with just one OX panel. The new system does change a lot when it comes to electric power, but it is challenging and therefore fun

You should look for the new fairing parts. They are a bit high up the tech tree so.

I had problems with this tutorial too. But not because I was unable to dock, (thanks to Scott I know how that works) but because the Next button gets stuck really really easy.

Thank you all for your help. How could I not find those links by myself? (Maybe I didn't know I had to search for Ore on the Wiki ... ) But thanks to you I think I know now what I have to do once I unlook these parts.

I could not find any documentation/tutorial for the new resource mining system (The game itself is no help here, I think you can not play the game without the forum or the wiki, but that is another topic). I have not yet unlocked the new parts for resource mining (or finding). But from the part descriptions in the tech tree it is not clear to me, how and where to use these parts. Which do you need to put into an orbit? Which do you need to put on a lander (besides the drill)? How will the data these new instruments gather be presented? As an overlay like some mods did? Will these new instruments generate sience points?

I don't think so. KSP is totally different from Minecraft as it is a simulation for space travel. You can do amazing stuff while building rockets, planes, rovers, stations and so on. And you can fly them. But thats it. (And I love it for what it is.) You need a certain level of nerdism to enjoy this game. Minecraft is not a simulation, you can't fly anything you build. But it is much easier as you just need to place blocks and then you can build whole cities or explore caves and terraform the world or just run around tame animals. It's user base is more widespread then KSP.

In 0.90 it worked without problems on nearly all designs I made. Since 1.0.2 (haven't tested 1.0 and 1.0.1) Stage Only does seem to show all fuel at all times for me even on simple designs.

I disagree with the OP. True, in hard mode these steps are hard to take, but you play hard mode for a reason. In normal mode the upgrade steps feel alright to me.

The game tutorials should cover more key bindings, but unfortunatly they don't. To find more keys you don't know yet have a look at the wiki http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Key_bindings or look into the controls section in the settings menu.

Thats why I am asking for a year. I too hope, they take it slow and make it good. 2016 would be fine for me, but still I want to know. (Not that it would change much in my life if I did.)

On the latest Devnote http://kerbaldevteam.tumblr.com/post/113288656704/devnote-tuesday-rocket-technology Maxmaps mentioned, that they have an internal release date. This may be weeks or month before the public release date, but I am now very curious. Has anyone any details on this date? Is someone from the dev team reading this and can give us at least a year and a quarter?

1.0 might contain enough optimization. From my experiance the stock game without mods does not have a memory problem. (To give you a measurement, the biggest thing I had in space was a 500t, 1000+ part space station, assembled during 20+ launches.) I play the 32bit windows version on highest graphic settings and don't delete debris and never ran out of RAM. Maybe, when one has more memory used by his mods, than by the stock game, he should not blame the stock game for his memory problems.

I don't play KSP on a daily basis, so a year is not much for me. Thats why I decided to not start anything big before 1.0 comes out. (I hope it will be in 2015.) Because I don't expect my old saves to properly work with the next version. Until then I play around in sandbox mode and craft some crazy things. And after the first bugfix release (1.0.1 or 1.1) I will finally go for an all planet mission.