Octa

I didn't get the hint with the key, so i wrote a script that assumes that the numbers were offsets from the letter which was assigned the zero. So different texts for A=0 B=1 .. Z=-1 or Z=-2 A=-1 B=0 C= -1 Yes, i tired to decipher without the key. I don't know what i expected....

Just a small question/feature request: Is it possible to toggle "stage only" in the ressource-display? I haven't found a way to do this. It's hard to tell if staging is necessary in IVA.

It's always nice to see 4 people with 5 opinions Ok, sorry for hijacking this thread, but i just did the quick'n dirty testing. If one should feel to discuss this further, message me and i make i new thread out of it. Here's what i did: - Vessel with boosters, mainsail, skipper and poodle - same mechjeb launch profile (i only changed target orbit) Try 1: Simply entered "2500km" as target orbit, hit enter and enjoyed the show Result: 426m/s for final circularization burn, total of 1496m/s left Try 2: Launched to 100km, but disengaged ascent autopilot during coasting phase and created 2 new nodes to get up to 2500km orbit (change Ap to 2500km at Ap, circularize at Ap) Result: 419m/s for final circularization burn, total of 1502m/s left What i saw from the launch, the ascent had potential for tuning, but i'm not sure what the difference will be (since it's the same parameters for both launches).

Try these historical missions from the wiki to get a feeling for flying in orbit: Sputnik Vostok Gemini The designs there should be able to fly in 1.0 with a few changes like fins at the button (for stability) and heat-shields for re-entry. It's very likely that you just need a tweak in your launch profile. How dou you fly to space at the moment? Do you have stages on your central stack?

Ok, then i understood that in the wrong way somehow I don't even know if it's (practically) possible to have one continous burn until 75 km :X All launches i remember have a phase where they coast to the Ap and have a break until they circularize there.

@Wanderfound: The Question is which ascend method to high orbits is more efficient: Lets say launch to GSO (2868 km i think) 1: - launch, start gravity turn - burn until Ap is at 2868 km, then cut engines - circularize at Ap 2: - launch, start gravity turn - cut engine when Ap is at 75 km - coast to Ap - burn prograde until (new) Ap is at 2868 km - circularize at Ap

Interesting thought. I could test that later this evening. So.....let me just summarize in my own words: The question is wheather to ascend directly to the planned orbit or to flight to LKO first and do the transfer burn in space at apoapsis? That's one thing that bothered me as well, especially for high orbits. I guess someone does already know the answer.

So....i should just shut up? You're right, i'm not a stackholder and i'm not qualified to give orders to squad. But the way you want it is like squad sitting high up in an ivory tower. We throw our money up and pray that something fun will eventually fall down. Basically, that's what the huge publishers like EA and Activision do. Just because you're used to buggy releases and beeing dropped like a hot potato after they have your money (= no important bugfixes after release) from them does not mean it's good, and i give myself the right to at least complain about the way the gaming industry has evolved. Compared to usual practice in the business with AAA-Games, squads work and community management is the archetyp of a great game studio. I expect the worst flaws in KSP 1.0 will be fixed in 2 weeks, may it be actual bugfixing or tweaking the game design to be (even) more fun, 1 hotfix and 1 hotfix for that fix were already released. In my opinion, this 2 week phase, where new bugs and flaws are found and fixed is pretty much foreseeable. So then again, i'm asking the same question again: Would there have been any casualties or damages with a last public hotfix phase before 1.0 besides the final changelog? If one update means something important during development, it's the jump to 1.0. 27th April: 0.95 1st May: 0.96 and 0.97 11th May: 1.0

Step back, 87% is a very, very good rating, gamestar sets the mark for a new genre reference or must-have title for everyone at 90%. KSP certainly lacks a few things here and there to be a reference game. >90 are games like Half life, portal, splinter cell, warcraft, skyrim, deponia or kotor. In the video-review of gamestar, the tester says that science mode sits between the chairs of sandbox and career. Sounds about right. After the tech tree is unlocked, it's sandbox with experiments. There could be more to it to justify it as a third game mode.

I'm not criticizing the whole game, just the political decisions made by sqad. And as far as i know, there weren't just a few bugs in 1.0 (hard to differ between actual bugs or big flaw in the game mechanic), but many unpolished places in the game because auf the changes made between .90 and 1.0: LV-Ns were almost impossible to use, pods flipped over during reentry, planes accelerated and heated way to fast and so on. Who would have been hurt if 1.0 was called 0.99 and 1.0.2 or 1.0.3 would be the new 1.0 "official release"/"gold"-version? And i'm totally not going with your "it's just a game" or "you already paid and got the game - deal with it" statements, because they are knockout arguments that can end every discussion here about the game.

I'm quoting myself from another thread: Beta suggests feature completion. Sure, most of the features/mechanics were in 0.90, but there were also new ones (ore, heat management), the aero got a massive overhaul and some tweaks to existing parts really changes the game mechanics and usage in the game for them. I'd even consider the new aero as a new feaure, as the old one was a placeholder. The existing community would have happily volunteered as beta testers for 1 week before the launch. Heck, we even paid you to be beta testers.

@Capt Snuggler In regards to the quote in your sig, the cake is almost perfect in my opinion (yeah some features of popular mods should be stock, but not all), but we all like different icings. Personally, "life support" is not my favourite flavour.

As i mentioned, i assume (without any testing in 1.0) that the combination of RAPIERs and LV-909 might work. The Rapiers take the plane as fast and high as possible in jet mode and they have enough thrust for the time critical final kick in rocket mode. As soon as the time critical phase is over, the LV-909 can do the rest of the trip. I still assume that the poodle and 909 are rather good and fuel saving choices in vacuum as they were in 0.90....i haven't compared the exact changes yet.

Here, it is, because that's not a very important scope of the game. I think for most people it's challenging enough to set up an interplanetary mission by now. This would add even more things to consider, making it to complicated. Yes, if you want to push KSP more into realism, there's a mod for that. For everyone else, there's the stock game, which is more "arcade" like and therefore easier to play for people that are not that much into space sims. Personally, i simply roleplay this. Most of my interplanetary vessels have an habitation module, lab and/or a more comfy coppula module.

Something like this? http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/55401-Community-Mods-and-Plugins-Library

Just before i will spend hours on a design that won't work: Is the combination LV-909+2xTurbojet still possible? I always used the LV-909 because of the good vacuum Isp that gives a good range after i got to space. Now i see mostly RAPIERs. Guess i'm going for 2xRAPIER with one central LV-909.

Agree with 1, some stripes on the suit and a badge on the IVA-Icon would bee good enough On number 2: Go to the Science-Building and when you see the tech tree, there should be 2 buttons at the top left, iirc. 3: One of my first posts here was a wall of text regarding some mods that should be stock and some that shouldn't. Life support is a game mechanic that should stay 100% optional and apart from the core game. 4: Yesterday. i took a look at some of the beautifictaion mods. Especially the clouds were too static for me, they were just an overlay moving over kerbin. More dynamic cloud would be so great for eve, duna and kerbin!

The Mk2 Adapter is not just an adapter, but also a fuel tank. The Rockomax 1.25-2.5 does not contain fuel and is purely structural. Nice idea with the auto-strutting for intersecting parts.

I used the cameras from Hullcam VDS with RPM in 0.90. Or did't i understand something correctly Thanks, but no hurry. The mod itself is more important. Can't wait to download the 1.0-Fix.

I think the 0.19 demo was up to date when i tried it out. Insta-Buy.

Is there a documentation for what the left and right buttons exactly do in each window?

Some aspects of the game require much micro-management and the aid of mods, external tools or calculations by hand(!), but here it's just "polar orbit -> ??? -> insta-scan!". I'm talking about basic stuff like deltav-requirements, launch-windows, heat-management or the switching between map and vessel view during ascent. And having a planet scanned in mapsat is definetly not the endgame! Once the scanning is done, the scans be used for picking proper landing sites, regarding of slope, height, nearby biomes and now ressources.

It's not that surprising that adding so many new features/fixes in one release causes new bug or flaws in blanace. Really, it's not. No one would've been bothered if this was 0.98 or 0.99 ("final delivery"), maybe even with full price since it's near feature completion. But then again, releasing 1.0 with following changelog may have seemed boring to squad: KSP 1.0: - several bugfixes

The large one and the shielded 2x3 and 1x6 can be retracted, the unshielded ones cannot. I dunno what they intend with this...

Folders for craft management in SPH and VAB?