Tourist

I don't see the things you've raised as being a problem because while there a similarities between Kerbal and human society, they are not the same. In my head canon Kerbal society has always been inherently egalitarian. This because they have a insatiable drive for exploration. This drive means they don't have time for nonsense, like assuming somebody can't do a job because they are 'just a girl,' or the wrong shade of green. They are not going to turn anybody away if they are good at what they do. Correspondingly they do not need things like quotas, because there an no inherent assumptions about what a female Kerbal can and can't do compared to male colleagues that is keep female Kerbals out. Therefore quotas are not needed to undermine these assumptions. This means that the fact you have 3 male Kerbals, and 1 female Kerbal as the creme of the crop is just really a refection of those four being the best at what they do. Nobody in Kerbal society is concerned that some administrator somewhere is saying to qualified female Kerbalnaut applicants "Sorry toots, this is a mans job, we may be able to find you a place in the typing pool." As for separate quarters, toileting facilities etc. In a society where everybody is treated equally and there is no history of the domination and entitlement of one gender over another, you'd find there would likely be little need for such things.

I'm looking forward to it.... but not necessarily hyped. I've already played the heck out of KSP, there is not alot more I can do that I have not already been done many times before. Having said that I'm still going to be buying it out of curiosity, just to see how it works, what playing it with a controller feels like (I only use keyboard and mouse now). I don't mind giving Squad (and Flying Tiger) a bit more of my folding stuff.

I haven't gotten deeply into mods, but I find KAC and Docking alignment indicator to be indispensable, quality of life, add-ons. I've also tinkered with Hyperedit to test my Eve Ascent vehicle, so that I didn't find out mid-mission it couldn't do the job. Finally, this play-thorough I've added some the planetary base mods, because the hitchhiker module just really isn't right for the job when you think about how it is oriented. I think its amazing that the mod-makers are willing to devote so much of their free-time and effort to adding such great additions and improvements to the game. So, I'll add my thanks to The_Rocketeer to people to people doing so much for other peoples enjoyment. Onya Chaps and Chapettes.

My main problem is that after touchdown my planes keep bouncing off the tarmac... so this might actually be a good solution. That or covering the landing strip with jelly. At the very least it would make landing delicious.

Runway Tier 0 (in simulations, I revert all crashes). Many many planes have broken apart on both take off and landing. I have a rule that I can't upgrade it until I upgrade past first set of gear (the fixed gear).

When the Kraken swims by it creates ripples in the spacetime... not unlike how speedboat creates a wake which tosses a canoe around. By any chance do you keep hearing a alternating pattern of two bass notes? Survivors generally report hearing something like that.... those that survive anyway. Those that don't survive don't report anything... there is no time.

I agree with having a north-south runway, not sure about parallel runways or other launch pads. What I think I'd like more more however would be different KSCs scattered around the planet, at least one in on each continent on Kerbin, including the polar regions.

Well, they can get other peoples $10 for one thing. They will keep developing until they can't do that any more.... or at least not as many peoples $10. I'm sure they are tired of KSP right now, that's why they are on vacation after all. I don't blame them after, what was it, about a year of work to upgrade Unity.... Dr Turkey had them working hard, and was quite fond of the "pitchfork management". So I'm sure they are tired, although I've seen very little evidence that they are "tired of (developing) KSP". They are still providing updates, there are no rumors of new projects, the usual kind of things you see when a company is about to move on.

(Sigh) The Fun vs Realistic thing is a false dichotomy. For instance I enjoy Microsoft flight because it "realistically" simulates what it is like to fly a commercial airliner, which I find fun. Same with the "realistic" KSP fans. They like playing with realism mods attached because they find it fun. If we need to have a dichotomy, and I don't think we do, perhaps Realistic v Fantastic is a better one. I wouldn't consider us a militia so much as a anti-mechjeb knitting circle. We're not likely to occupy a compound and make ridiculous bush-lawyer "sovereign citizen" claims. Rather, we are more likely to tsk tsk judgmentally about how much harder rendezvous was in our days and about we would not let our kerbals associate with those shifty "mechjeb" people, because, "you know what their sort are like."

(Channels Ed Harris playing Gene Kranz) We've never lost a Kerbal in space, we're sure as hell not gonna lose one on my watch! Failure is not an option. Admittedly, I have it a bit easier than Gene... he didn't have the ability to revert to the launch.

I think the game would need some more tools first before a true "no revert" mode is possible. In particular a delta-V calculator, and possibly mission planning function. The delta-V calculator is self explanatory, a stock Kerbal Engineer.... even one that only provides a fraction of what KER provides, is necessary. Before I started using KER, if I had a "no revert" policy I would have left countless, only slightly different vessels floating aimlessly in space. Trial and error is one thing, an important part of KSP, but stock in its current state I believe goes to far towards grindy trial and error. This is particularly important if we want new players to attempt a titular "no revert" mode. I've been playing for about 2 years now, and I still have trouble just "eyeballing" my fuel needs, I get it right first time maybe 30% of the time (ignoring reverts for other things). By mission planning function, I believe their should be a way back at the KSC to plan out the key parts of a mission. I envision a very basic tool. You plug in what you are doing into the tool and in spits out basic information. Duna/Kerballed/landing/ascent/return/splashdown... and it gives you some basic info. When your launch window is, a delta V estimate for each leg of the trip, an estimate of the total time the mission will take, and some other bibs and bobs. Everything would be estimates and subject to how efficient you fly the mission... which means you need to plan for redundancies into the mission.

Hmmm, "Best way to orbit a thing", I was always told the best way was to go around it really fast.... but not too fast or you'll orbit another thing.

Oh no, a cheating thread. Just when you think you're out... They pull you back in. (Downs a glass of whiskey and stares resignedly into the middle distance)

I assume all the indignant people here also don't own smart phones.... the materials necessary to make them pretty much fund and drive wars in the Congo. Also the Chinese workers who build them are essentially treated like prisoners. Oh, and I think its truly brave they have decided not to wear any clothes which are made in third world countries, sports brands in particular... many many of them use child indentured labor. This outrage is ridiculous. Crunch management and not paying educated and skilled workers very well is pretty small bikkies when it comes to corporate skulduggery. Welcome to capitalism.

Well said, and an unusual dose of common sense. Of course Squad is not going to come here and defending themselves against a disgruntled former employee or, or "explaining" themselves to disgruntled forum users... why on earth would they? What possible corporate benefit does it gain them, while on the other hand exposing them to completely avoidable PR or even legal risk. I know its natural to, when confronted with silence to try to fill in the blanks or assume the blanks mean something, but when we do so our assumptions are usually incorrect. Are Squad likely to be Employer of the Year? I doubt it. Are they literally the worst employer of the year? of course not, they are not Konami. Are their likely to be some employees and ex employees who are not happy? Almost certainly. Do I care? Not if the game is fun.

These are both good ideas. I also think the 0 tier runway should be very short, grassy strip which is a lighter shade of green than the surrounding grasslands to denote mowing and being flattened by frequent landings. It could also have tire tracks at the ends heading towards the KSC to show the route crafts are taxiied along.

I think too much of the commentary, although not all, has focused on the logistical problems in implementing a multiplayer. I don't think that is the issue, many people has suggested solutions, which I have no doubt it is possible for Squad to implement. The problem is I just don't think that multiplayer really adds anything to the game and that really Squad has committed to it just because its the done thing.... possibly also as sweetener for console certification. I just don't see it working as anything other than an out-of-place appendage that just feels a little tacked on. (Just append an "in my opinion" to everything I'm about to say) Co-op KSP doesn't have particularly deep management systems that would make it sufficiently fun for two or more players to take on different roles within a space agency. I'd love to see a game which allows players to step into the shoes of Gene Krantz, Deke Slayton, or Von Braun, and any of the other myriad of roles, and for that to be really entertaining for all the participants to work towards the same goal. I could even see real life roleplay developing,with KSP as a tool for participants to get into it. A bit like the forum game going on at the moment. That game is not at its core KSP.... ultimately the fun roles are craft designing, mission planning and flying (the entirety of the game actually) ... but these roles don't take place contemporaneously.... if you as player are not playing all these roles, then you're watching somebody else doing a significant part of the game-play. Even dividing it that one person is the pilot, the other plans the course, is ultimately not particularly interesting for both players most of the time. One just points the craft where the other one tells them to, and the other just messes around with the map view. Servicing a mission? You fly the transfer vessel that will explore new planets, your friend services it and refuels it in orbit. The friend really drew the short straw on that one.... mine, rendezvous, refine the ore, transfer the fuel, got back to the planet/asteroid, repeat. Co-op space base building. I call this minecraft mode. This is possible. You bring up a module, in the meantime your friend has brought up a module. What weird and wonderful shapes it will take. I can really see that only being fun for about one, maybe two sessions. There are only so may ways the various parts in KSP can be put together, and bases in KSP don't serve any real purpose. Co-op exploring? You: Ok friend, you take your rover west, I'll take mine east and we will talk about what we saw. Friend: sounds fun. You: do you see anything interesting? Friend: not really, featureless plains. You? You: no nothing either. By this I mean, KSP is not really about exploration on the surface of planets.... you can do it, its just that there is nothing to really see while your doing it. non-co-op Ok, so maybe competing space agencies. The game clock decides who reaches key milestones first. (Ie I've been playing for 20 in game years and reached Jool, but you beat me because you got there in 17.) That could work, but ultimately it is still just a leaderboard, and I might add completely playable as a forum game. Really there is no benefit of playing in the same instance, besides flavour. Also still feels tacked onto to me, even if all the players in the competition exist in the same instance (timewarp dealt with in some fashion.) Although, I feel this is the strongest multiplayer model. Intercepting and destroying peoples space stations/ships.... firstly, this is not Elite Dangerous so actually ship to ship dog-fighting in space is right out.... it just doesn't work when you take orbital mechanics into consideration, an burn here to avoid getting rammed, a burn there to try to ram... you are both out of fuels and in hilariously different orbits. We also don't have any weapons. Station destroying? You can do that now, play side by side, one friend puts in in orbit, and hands over the controls to the other that does a standard rendezvous, get close and rams. Ah, I hear the straw-man I'm arguing against say, if two players are playing simultaneously then the station owner can use thrusters or engines to avoid the intercept. That is true, I say, but if the station has the capability of changing orbital speed/inclination, then intercept will be all but impossible. The only way to win is to hope you have sufficient fuel to adjust to what every wacky orbit the space station has put itself on to avoid you, after it has avoided its fuel. Its not that any of these ideas would not work, its just that they don't really seem related to what KSP is about. Also many of them I actually don't see the benefit of actually being in the same instance as other payers, besides a bit of flavour. Ultimately I don't care, I won't use it regularly beyond having a bit of a sticky beak. When its implemented it wont ruin the game, or affect me in the slightest. And I don't think Squad is wasting too much resources on it (or any is my impression), and if they were, that's their call anyway.

I really like this idea. Maybe add tools, like the resource scanner to find appropriate areas, rovers to survey them/ place beacons.

Oh, absolutely. Taking off or landing on the grass should be deadly, or at the very least carry not insignificant vehicle recovery costs. Also it's not like it's that expensive to upgrade.

This reminds me of a story I read once, and which I will make not attempt to verify in case it is not true. Chuck Yeager and Neil Armstrong, in the only time they flew together, were checking out locations for emergency landings for an experimental plane. Armstrong spotted a dried lake bed and decided to try landing. According to Yeager he told Armstrong the site was no good, but Armstrong ignored him, a wheel got stuck in the mud on landing and the pair had to get rescued. However, this is not the version that Armstrong told. According to him, Yeager never tried to stop him, and in fact, after a successful "touch and go" landing, suggested he try again slower, leading the them getting caught in the mud, and leading to Yeager absolutely cacking himself in laughter. Yeager denies this version vehemently. I think I know who I believe.. (or want to believe)

I'm weary of the "X is cheating line".... so much (digital) ink has bee furiously spilled by that careless phrase. There is some basis in history for taking off and landing on grassy plains. Didn't English bombers in WWII bombers basically take off from grassy paddocks. In the early game, I'll always try to land on the strip, but also in the early days of a program I'm ok with landing on grass if I've messed up on approach. Although I agree once I'm at the heavy shuttle phase. I'd never think of landing on the grass. Even if I'd made a mess of the approach I'd wave off and try again. However for true emergency landings its ok (ie, insufficient control authority or out of fuel.)

I've been a user of your mod for a while now, it was the first mod I installed. So a big thank you for you're hard work. Its a great commonsense tool and its a complete head-scratcher as to why Squad has not implemented it or something like it into stock. I honestly think its much more important than the community darling, the Delta-v calculator (although it needs one of them too). Docking without it is just painful and not at all fun. So I'm glad to hear you're still supporting it, time permitting, and now on the case for 1.1! Seriously, the lack of it is the only reason I haven't bothered with the pre-release. This concludes the fawning for this broadcast day. Keep up the good work!

I don't upgrade until I get the first retractable gear. Its part of my internal narrative for progression in career. A scrappy, poor but ambitious space program just starting out with nothing but a basic facilities and moxy, that builds themselves into a successful, state of the art, planet spanning exploration program. It is a tough strip to work with though. Ironically I find taking off from it harder than landing on it. I lose many wings and engines on takeoff simulations.

Chicks really dig you when your the last of something.

Squad will move on eventually. It is a business after all. But at some point the torch will be fully passed on entirely to Mod makers.... who themselves will lose interest eventually. But I don't see the endtimes as being that close, the console ports, paid DLC, bundle sales etc will all keep the revenue trickling in for the immediate future. I predict about more two years of active development (on paid additions) after the console releases, then scaling back to just maintenance for a little while after that. Maybe overlapping with the time Squad develops a new property, KSP2: Maximum Ker-splosions (all the "realism" fraternity that read that just cringed ) or the development team is dissolved and all move onto other projects.