Cpt Kerbalkrunch

When the game begins, you don't have patched conics, you can't set maneuver nodes, you can't EVA, you don't have landing legs or docking ports or a ton of other things that might be considered "essential". You're meant to start very simply and progress. Unlockable KER-type info would go right along with the rest of the game. Unlocked automatically in sandbox; just like everything else. I don't see how this could be upsetting to anyone.

That makes zero sense, so I really hope they change it. I thought checking it would cause the game as well. Otherwise, what's the point? I've been designing a mission that has dialogue that's a bit lengthy in a couple spots, so this is disappointing. I can work around it, of course, but I thought the the whole point of the Mission Builder was to give you flexibility, and pretty much let you do whatever you want. Hopefully, this'll be addressed at some point.

I no zero about modding (and even less about programming), but I've been playing New Horizons for awhile (and it's utterly fantastic, by the way; I cannot recommend I highly enough), and from what I can tell, each planet is based on one of the stock planets. So I think, rather than creating planets, Kopernicus allows you to alter the stock planets and move them around however you see fit. You can do some pretty radical stuff with it. Sort of like a large-scale version of modding engines or tanks. You can change the stats and appearance however you you want, but it's still based off of an original part. Though I could certainly be wrong. I'm out of my element here and probably shouldn't be posting. "I just drive 'em, baby, I don't know what makes 'em work". A like and a tip of the cap if you know that one.

Always run in high performance and just leave it plugged in. It'll cook your crotch, but I've already got 4 kids; so who cares?

You've hit on it exactly. I too own EU4 and CK2. As a guy who thinks Medieval 2 and Civ IV are 2 of the greatest games of all time, I was told the 2 Paradox titles were right up my alley and that I would absolutely love them. And that may well be true; but I'll never know. I bought both games and loaded 'em up, very excited. You know that feeling when you download a game that you're sure is going to be awesome? That's how it was until I checked 'em out. I was horrified by the blatant, gimme more policy and immediately turned 'em off. I'm kind of amazed they're able to keep it at it. I wouldn't care if the games were the best ever made; I won't give my money to a company like that. I thought Surviving Mars looked interesting; and then I saw the publisher. I didn't lament an opportunity lost. I just moved on. As for KSP, I've often wondered why they don't release "mod packs". With 10 or a 12 popular mods bundled together for 10 bucks. I'm sure there are tons of legal reasons, but it would seem to make sense for everyone. Squad and T2 could take their cut, and modders could start making some money. For us players, you'd have the understanding that they will always be kept current with every update and expansion on day one. It seems like everyone would win, but I don't know anything about the inner workings of the industry; so I don't really know if such a thing is possible.

A guess would still be just that; a guess. Judging by the number of topics and posts over the years, you would think most players can't land on the Mun either. Which is obviously not true. This topic will mostly be one-sided in terms of posts and topics. Since it's not currently in the game, no one bothers to start a topic about how it shouldn't be in the game. There will always be people who don't want it or feel they don't need it. Some like to wing it, as I do, and some like to do the calculations themselves. I'm not so sure there's a majority anywhere on this endless topic. I'll say again, though, I'm not opposed to seeing it added to the game. I would like it to be locked at first, though. Rather than being unlocked through the tech tree or building upgrades, I think it should become available after your first successful trip to the Mun and back. Something along the lines of "you now have new insight into the requirements for space travel". Auto unlocked, of course, in sandbox. I don't see how it wouldn't work that way. Your first Mun landing is a huge accomplishment and shows that you're ready for more in-depth exploration. I'd like to see it added at some point but, again, I don't think they ever will. Maybe in KSP2.

I've used a single-fuselage design with a Mammoth and multiple stack designs with 1.25m tanks. They both performed equally well, and it had it's advantages and disadvantages. The single fuselage was very aerodynamic, and cut through the soup pretty well. I used a four-stage design to dump mass as often as possible and take advantage of higher ISP engines as the air got thinner. The disadvantage of it is that it's a single stack; so it starts to get very tall. You need a good truss system under it to land it safely. The multi-stack design was short and squat, and therefore easy to land. You can put as many engines as you want and dump them in any manner you see fit. The biggest drawback is that it has more surface area and is not as aerodynamic as a single-fuselage, so doesn't cut through the atmosphere quite as well. Both designs can work and are a lot of fun. If you're in the testing and design phase, you might wanna try both. As always, much will depend on your payload. How many Kerbals, if you have a service module, making a direct ascent return or refueling in Eve orbit; all the usual stuff. No matter what, the feeling of accomplishment when you're successful is unmatched by anything else in the stock game. Hope all goes well.

Your comments above effectively sum up all the worst parts of the gaming industry today. It's the reason I skip past anything with Paradox's name on it. Release money-grabbing DLC with no content? No thanks, bud. Would you also like to click on an outer planet and be told "you must purchase such and such DLC to access this planet"? I too would "destroy" my copy of KSP if I ever saw such a thing. Here's hoping they never stoop so low.

You said this: "I understand all the fun and accomplishment in building the rockets be eye, only guessing things, and making gruesome mistakes. But it's a very short-lived experience, that gets more boring and tiresome than fun very fast. Most people got this taste around the boom in popularity in 2015, and then abandoned the game." ...and then showed a graph. Since we can't know what other people are thinking, that's an assumption. As I said, you may be correct, but there are other factors as well. Not sure where the confusion lies. That however, is not only perplexing but downright amusing. First off, who said anything about "randomly throwing together parts"? The best part is, if you actually build a rocket and see if it works, you're cheating. If you know the answers before hitting the spacebar, it's okay. Answers that were given to you through someone else's hard work. What you're saying is the same thing you see all the time; "the way I play is right, the way you play is cheating". It's usually stock guys talking to mod guys, so I guess this would be reverse discrimination. Whatever works for ya, bud.

It looks like that spike coincided with the official 1.0 release. That was when I bought the game as well. What that graph really shows is the power of advertising: in this case, the magic of the Steam ads the moment you log in. Graphs like that are probably hanging in every ad guy's office. Not to say that your assumption is incorrect. It probably is. But I think a graph for most games would look quite the same (except the huge, extremely popular multiplayer ones). I have dozens of games I've tried for a bit and moved on, or never even loaded at all. I suspect we all do. You try something, and maybe it's not your cup of tea. Or not quite what you thought. Or maybe you think you'll come back to it later and give it another shot. There are plenty of reasons to move on to something else. To me, KSP is one of those games that either grabs you immediately (and won't let go), or not at all. Is there such a thing as a "casual" KSP player? I'm not so sure. It's sort of a way of life; bordering on obsession. If someone found the game too hard or not to their liking, I don't think seeing the numbers would help. But for someone who likes the game and wants to get better, more info would certainly help. As I said, I'm not opposed to it. I just don't think it will be incorporated into the stock game anytime soon. And though it may be necessary for your enjoyment (depending on the player), it is not necessary for your success.

I haven't seen all the things you guys have, but I'll take your word for it based on what I've seen myself. The reason I haven't seen any gameplay bugs is that I've been stuck on the mission builder. It's basically the core of the expansion, and probably the only thing that really makes it worth the money. I've got high hopes for it, and I'm really trying to get the hang of it. However, the entire 3rd tutorial is simply missing. The game says there are 3, but I only see 2. At the end of the 2nd it tells you to save and continue on to the next one to learn more advanced techniques; but there is no next one. You can't hit save or continue; you can only hit done. Which ends the tutorials. I've asked in both the mission builder threads, but haven't heard anything yet. Pretty much everyone is asking why they didn't do more testing and what kind of Q&A did they do, but I keep wondering who did it. From all we've seen and heard, you give this to any serious player and they'll find these things within a day; which is exactly what happened. Giving a preview to YouTubers doesn't mean anything to me. If you're not on this forum I don't consider you part of this community, and I don't really pay attention to what they're doing. This forum, however, is full of serious players. Squad would be wise to make use of some of them for testing new parts and features. And we all would be better off with a more polished product. For now, I'm just waiting to see what the next patch is able to do. And how soon it comes along.

I'd love to have that for sure. Flipping back and forth to map view is always fun. Especially when I switch back and the camera automatically zooms in for an extreme close-up on my huge ship. Always irritating.

After almost 3,000 hours, I've been to every stock planet and moon multiple times. Done the Retro Solar Rescue, the Jool 5, and several Eve land and return missions. Except for mundane and repetitive missions like rescues from LKO and asteroid grabbing, I don't reuse rockets. I build every one from scratch for that particular mission. And I could not tell you the Delta V or TWR of a single one of them, because I just don't know. I've never used a mod, spreadsheet, or calculator. I just use trial and error and guesswork based on experience. It was tough going at first, but it taught me a lot. And I would not trade those early experiences. Now, unless I'm going to Eve, I just look at my rocket as I build it and I can kinda tell what it can do. You don't over-build, you try to make it as small as possible while still bringing everything you need and accomplishing your mission. I've gotten good enough at it that I usually just make it or just miss it. And I'm right more often than wrong. It always makes me feel good. And there's an element of mystery and excitement to every mission. Did I cut it too close? Will I make it, or have to mount a rescue? It's fun. The only drawback to this method is that my ships will almost never be as efficient as someone's with the information at hand, but I don't really mind that. I can pare it down pretty well if I work at it. With all that being said, I will admit to salivating with envy whenever I see screenshots with KER open. I would love to have all that info available. I said when I started I would play stock, and I have. I figured once I got good enough and had nothing left to prove to myself, I would install KER. But I just never got around to it. I now moved on to New Horizons; where I've again been demoted to rank amateur. And I'm loving it. It's an absolute blast to me. Just a difference in play-style is all. However, if it were in the game, I would certainly make use of it. I would just make it something to be unlocked further along the game to encourage learning on your own; as I've seen @Rocket In My Pocket and a few others suggest. However, if I were Squad, I would not put it in the stock game. You would immediately see videos posted with ships showing a certain Delta V amount, then making maneuvers and showing the numbers to be completely wrong. Veterans here on the forum would rise to their defense and explain why you can't account for everything and say "you shoulda been around when we had nothing". And others will say "who cares? If it's in the game it should work". There's no winning there. I'd leave it to the realm of mods. It's not hurting anyone (except maybe the console guys; and they're all nuts anyway). A better question is why isn't KAC in the stock game? It's the only mod you actually need, and it's authored by a staff member. That one's a head-scratcher.

Thinking of joining that crazy spaceplane fraternity? Sorry, bud. I'll have to report you for that. Yo, @SQUAD. Put this guy on the list.

Nostalgia plays a part, certainly, but also personal preference and play-style. I don't know if beginners really don't care about weight or not, as you said, but if you're saying it's harder to launch a lighter payload, I'm not seeing the logic. I used the Mk1-2 for my Jool 5 and an Eve ascent vehicle precisely because it made things more difficult. They were not easy, and I'm extremely proud of them. To me, light rockets are difficult when you get to the end of the spectrum. In other words, when you make it so small you're now pushing the boundaries of capability; like a "low mass" challenge. Building a good, huge rocket can be just as difficult. I don't dislike the Mk1-3. And I don't mind the added functionality it has. Your "top of the line" command pod should have things the others don't. However, it should come at a cost. And not just funds. To me, this game is all about accomplishment. Even after a simple mission, seeing my chutes pop back at Kerbin always makes me feel good. It's something that sets this game apart. So if you wanna launch 3 Kerbals but save mass, it's going to cost you in looks and "cool factor". You'll need some combination of smaller pods or passenger cabin or (God forbid) command seats in a fairing or service module. If you want 3 Kerbals all in one pod that looks cool, is extremely sturdy, and has more functionality, it'll cost you mass. It should be so heavy, in fact, that it makes you wonder whether or not it's worth it. Design decisions should not be easy. If you want this, it should cost you that, and so forth. So I'm fine with the new pod, I just think it should be heavier. At least 4 tons. Make it a tough decision instead of a no-brainer. As always though, this is just one guy's opinion. I doubt I'M the only one, though. Others surely feel the same way.

My thoughts are pretty much the same. It wasn't a "No Man's Sky" level of debacle, but it wasn't good. There's a lot that needs to be addressed. I'm eagerly anticipating today's KSP Weekly. How many of these issues will they admit to, and how many will they attempt to gloss over? They'll surely spin the release as a success (and it probably was financially), but the problems definitely outnumber the positives. Though it's head-scratchingly separate from the rest of the game (as everyone has pointed out), I still think the mission builder could save the whole thing. I've been playing around with it the last 2 nights, and it seems to have tons of potential. It still needs some clean-up and polish (sad to say after a year of development, but I'm willing to give a bit more leeway here; it must've been quite a job putting something so complicated together), but I can already see it's going to be fantastic. Can't wait to see what patches and updates are offered down the road. And if modders are able to get their hands on it, there's no telling what they'll be able to do. So, for now, I'll remain hopeful.

Guess it's time to pick a side. I'm gonna ride with the robots. Maybe they'll hook me up with a 1080.

I absolutely love the Mk1-2, and was horrified to see it removed. I assumed the Mk1-3 was named so because it would be the 3rd Mk command pod. Any time I thought of "new parts", to my mind it meant "more parts". Not replacing the old ones with new ones. Plenty of players wanted parts that looked sleeker and more polished, but I think there are plenty of us who did not. Even with the mesh switching, the rockets I've seen this far all look pretty similar. Basically, something out of RSS. One of the best things about this game is the vast difference in style from one player to the next. I love seeing other guys' screenshots, because their ships are always so different from mine. People liked to crack on the old Rockomax tanks, saying how ugly they were and constantly going on about the "garbage found by the road" stuff, but that's really just looking at the part on its own. If you worked at your design, you could make ships that were really cool, asthetically appealing, and extremely Kerbal. To me that was always part of the fun of the game. You shouldn't just be able to throw parts together and have it look good. You should have to work at it. You should actually have to put some "design" in your design. If you follow the Gameplay Questions forum, how many times have you seen someone ask what was the best way to do something, be given a perfectly good suggestion and say "no, it wouldn't look right"? I don't want cookie-cutter rockets. Take the new LEM, for instance. You want a lander? Okay, here's your lander. No, I want to build my own lander. The Mk1 Lander Can was no beauty, but I've seen some pretty slick lander designs with it. I know they're trying to keep part-count down to make the game a bit easier on the average computer, but I prefer to build things myself. The1.875 parts, on the other hand, are a great addition to the game IMO. The drop-down from 2.5m to 1.25m is a bit extreme. Having a middle option should help make for some smoother transitions. And since I often favor huge rockets, I'm sure I'll make use of the 5m tanks. For me, additional content is always welcome; but newer does not always mean better. I'm not ready to throw away the past, and I suspect plenty of others aren't either. If there's enough outcry, hopefully they'll be fully reinstated. Starting with my beloved Mk1-2.

I think the Wolfhound's entire existence should be in question. The numbers were so eye-popping, it was the first thing I tried. I didn't notice an off-center thrust, but that's probably because I was knocked over by its abilities. An engine that weighs less than a Nerv, with 6x the thrust, and still has over 400isp? I put the thing in orbit and it was unreal. The Energizer Bunny of lf/o engines. It just kept burning. Not a fan.

An obvious rush-job on the release. I don't wanna sound like an apologist, but I'm gonna give Squad a bit of a pass on the timing. Pretty obvious the word came down from on high to release before the end of the fiscal year. Ready or not, here it comes kind of thing. I imagine we'll be seeing 1.4.8 at some point.

This had me scratching my head for a minute as well. I was starting to get angry when I figured it out. For some reason, it's not installing when you hit "install games". With KSP on your Steam page, look at the bar with Making History Expansion, Not Installed, Added Today. Click the box with the check mark to un-check it. Then click it again to check the box. The expansion will download then.

Not sure what to make of this yet. Was counting down the days since they first announced the expansion last year. There were times when I could hardly wait. The acquisition by Take-Two did not dampen my enthusiasm. If anything, I was even more excited. Not because our game was now in the big leagues, but because a big league developer wouldn't buy the game unless they planned additional content down the road. Whether that was in the form of more expansions and general DLC, or the Holy Grail itself, KSP2. It was all good news to me. Then came the whole thing with the new EULA. I thought nothing of it at first. Who reads that crap anyway? And unless you end up like Kyle on South Park, it has no effect on your life anyway, so who cares? February was a brutal month for me at work and at home, so I haven't played at all in about 6 weeks. I've barely even been able to stalk the forum, and haven't posted at all. I discovered this forum about a year ago, made an account, and have never logged off. It's been open on my phone ever since. I take a quick look and post several times each day, whenever the opportunity arises. I once logged off by accident when checking my notifications and had to reset my password. It had been so long I couldn't remember what it was. A week ago I went for a usual check, and found myself locked out. Like everyone else, I had to agree to a new, retroactive agreement. I was not happy. I don't care what it said; just that it forced me into a corner. Either agree or be frozen out of the forum for good. I did what everyone does pretty much every day of their life and chose the lesser of 2 evils. It left me bitter, but time would cure that. This coincided with the release of 1.4, so I thought that would be a good pick-me-up. Does anything get you geared up more than starting up Steam and seeing that KSP is updating? Always geeks me up. You can guess what happened next. I had to agree to a new, backdated agreement to play a game I already owned. After almost 3,000 hours, I had been locked out. I was now incensed. I simply copied it to my "KSP drive" (a 256g ssd that has nothing but various copies of KSP) and booted up anyway, but it did not make me feel better. In fact, I decided I would not buy the expansion after all. The way the whole thing was handled I felt deserved the only response available to me that would actually have an effect; withholding money. Reading the EULA threads lately have been eye-opening, to say the least. Each revelation made me more angry. Then, what usually happens on this forum happened yet again; cooler heads prevailed. The comments from veteran players really helped me to see the whole thing for what it is; a bunch of legal crap that doesn't mean anything. I'm not trying to make money, I'm trying to have fun. So I decided to embrace one of our great American sayings (and a personal favorite of mine), "it is what it is". I want this game to live on. To continue to see new and better content. I want the people who work on this game to be successful, so they keep working hard. I'll keep a disdainful eye on Take-Two for the way this whole thing was handled, but I don't blame the guy who owns the gas station on the corner for an oil spill in the gulf. I did my part, ponied up my 15 bucks, and got the expansion. From this point on, I'm just gonna pretend the whole thing never happened. And thanks to all the players who helped to bring some reason into some discussions that got pretty heated. Anyway, back to the game itself. Can I ask what these are? I know they're supposed to be Russian-inspired parts, but these "reentry modules" look like Stalin-era apartment buildings. These are 3 different modules (with a Stayputnik thrown on top to show what they immediately reminded me of). They seat 1, 2, and 3 Kerbals respectively, yet they are the same size (though different weights). I don't normally get into the "art" conversations on the forum, but these things look like they came from the same factory as the old 2.5m decoupler. Just an opinion, but I'm definitely not a fan. Not sure I'll get much use out of them. Though, to be fair, I haven't actually tried them yet. Just saw them and cringed. This though, is something else entirely. I'm not sure if this is purposeful, and if so what the purpose actually is, but it just seems wrong. Look at those numbers. You're talking about an engine that weighs less than a Nerv, with more than 5x the thrust, and still has over 400 isp? For an extra 600 bucks? I don't get it. I put one in orbit, and it's abilities are unbelievable. I've never used a modded engine, but I imagine this is what they're like. It just seems too easy. I through this together with no thought whatsoever. Just wanted to see how the new parts and sizes looked together. It's pricey, but for a ship with no attempt at design, it was remarkable. I launched and was able to capture at Moho (though not return). The most striking thing to me is the number of parts. It stands at 61 because I always strut everything manually. If I were not so opposed to autostrut, it would have fewer than 30 parts. I know performance is a problem for most computers, but I'm not sure I see this as a positive. Upon reflection, I'm not too happy with the new LEM either. It's certainly useful, and just 1 part, but I don't like the "cookie cutter" aspect of it. One of best things about this game is the radical differences in design, from one player to the next. I would hate to anything dampen that aspect of the game. As for the "historical missions", I didn't finish the first one. I withhold judgment for now, and wait for other players to give their opinions before I decide if I wanna go through them all. The impression I got was they're "tweener" missions. Probably too difficult for newer players who don't yet understand the game; and utterly without challenge or difficulty for an experienced player; meaning no real fun to be had. Could certainly be wrong, though. As I said, I bowed out quickly. The mission builder I haven't tried yet. I think that could be the saving grace for the entire expansion; and certainly its biggest feature. I'll give it a whirl, but I'm mostly waiting to see some missions some of our veteran players and modders come up with. I'm eagerly anticipating some fun ahead. Anyway, those are my thoughts, if anyone's interested. Personally, I'm just happy to be back in the game. Now, back to the VAB.

If I had to guess, I'd say it's going to be about a year from now.

Was digging back through all the threads I've missed (plowing snow for about 100 hours in the last 10 days, plus my regular job; so I'm runnin' behind) when I saw this one. I've actually used this method twice. The first really was a satellite contract; which is why I always recommend trying it if a contract won't complete (provided you're going the right way ). The second time might not count, though. It was for a base contract. When I landed, I realized the "Build a new base with a docking port...blah blah blah" wasn't lit anymore. Somehow I lost it along the way. I had landed right next to my return ship, so I just switched focus and then switched back. The light was lit again and, after a few seconds, the contract completed. Not exactly F5/F9 that time, but AI think the concept is the same. Sometimes reloading the ship can get things back on track. If you're having an issue with a contract, I think it's always at least worth a try.

Might be unwise to disagree with a guy who flat-out tells you "I have a @Rocket In My Pocket".