Xeo

No, it is not. Technically, it has not even begun. A game reaches alpha when all the core gameplay systems are integrated. Not polished, balanced or in their final form, but integrated nonetheless. A game reaches beta when it is feature complete (core and secondary gameplay systems are all in, graphic assets and sounds are all in too). During the beta, the game gets tweaked, balanced and debugged. When the game is finally polished enough to be released, the beta ends and the final "gold" version of the game gets submitted for publication. So technically speaking, KSP is still in pre-alpha even if SQUAD calls it an alpha. The reason why you get the impression that it is "not early access anymore" is precisely because it is in early access : SQUAD must polish every update they release almost as much as a "gold" version in order for the players to avoid a community-wide entitlement-rage, because let's face it, a great number of players do not understand what "early access" means and expect the same quality from KSP as from a finished AAA title. That said, early access games are not the only one to use that process of development ("sprint updates" that focus on developing a single precise aspect of the game from the ground up, directly in an "almost finished" quality level). This development method is generally known as "agile" and allows quick prototyping, along with early testing/feedback gathering. This is why SQUAD can put so much emphasis on player feedback and QA testing. This is also why all the already developed areas of the game are really polished whereas some core systems do not even exist yet. But "agile" development also has a big downside as well. It is really hard to respect precise deadlines, because the emphasis is put on quality from the beginning to the end. Does this remind you of something ? I hope this helps some of you to understand better why KSP is still truly an early access game despite the quality of its content and why the update process of SQUAD is as it is.

Jeb, you failed me ! Well, I guess I will re-attempt it when I have some free time again. I will probably go for two smaller symmetrical payloads though, as it will make it much less hazardous during the climb. Maybe some liquid fuel cans for the scooter.

The following album is my newest (the last one dates back to 0.21 IIRC) submission for the K Prize contest. I used an upgraded version of my trustworthy Swift SSTO which is intended to be used as a small ground-to-space-station one-kerbal shuttle (there exists a two-seater version where the inline docking port is replaced by a second cockpit). The main difference with its predecessor is that it uses two rapier engines instead of a turbojet coupled with two lv-909. This gives it a very welcome thrust boost, both in atmosphere and in space, at the expense of fuel efficiency. Given its intended role and the fact that it propels itself mainly with RCS once in orbit, this is a more than acceptable trade-off. It is however worth noting that this flight was not exactly a routine one : it was my first attempt at delivering a functional payload in orbit with the Swift. The payload in question is the modular space scooter which I am currently working on. I weights 1.5 tons, can seat a Kerbal or be used unmanned and come with a full set of scientific instrumentation. Without further ado, here is my submission : As you can see, the atmospheric climb was not the most stable ever and I was a bit short on fuel in the end. I think I can safely assume that 1.5 tons is the maximum recommended payload weight for the Swift. But still, this was a success on the first try and I am more than satisfied with this iteration of the plane. As a side note, the Swift follows my personal design guidelines so it doesn't rely on intake spam or debug part clipping.

The first "real game" I ever played was Tomb Raider, on Windows 95. I was 4 or 5 years old so I wasn't really good at it, nor did I understand a single bit of the story, but I had a ton of fun with it. Especially with the T-Rex and cheat codes

My space agency is named Phoenix Space Corp. Why ? Because our crafts fly, then they burn (or explode), and they are eventually rebuilt from the salvaged debris. Long story short : trial and error is at the heart of my KSP philosophy and hence the Phoenix is the perfect symbol for my fictional space agency.

Here you go : http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/53025-Science-and-mods%2.

@ Zekes : thanks good sir. Would you be interested to do a test battle against me anytime soon ? Not this week though, I'm so damn busy this week. @ killer2447 : interesting ideas. I'll keep them in mind for when I find some time to figure out a proper rule set. I have to say that trying to find proper rules for this meta-game is an interesting exercise for a wannabe game designer like me.

CST is GMT / UTC - 5. Also you can easily use a site like this one to convert any time zone to any other (it takes daylight saving time into account).

Concerning the lack of rules, the suggestion about timed turns I've linked to a few pages ago may help a fair bit. Some additional rules would still be needed (like when is a ship considered dead) but it would greatly reduce the overall number of them. Here it is. Feel free to comment about it. As a bonus, here are a few more ideas. Some could only work with my timed-turns system though. - An unmanned ship (including smart missiles) can be controlled only if there is a friendly crewed ship less than [distance to be decided] away. - A ship with no more propulsion, weaponry nor means to be refitted back in combat shape is considered out of commission. - A player automatically loses when he/she has no more controllable ships. One can also surrender or flee the system to avoid complete obliteration. - Conditions of victory / defeat can be different for each player and more varied than just pure annihilation. For example one can have to protect a mining ship for a given time on the ground and then protect it as it escapes the system, while the other player will have to destroy it before it escapes the SOI. - Civilian / support unarmed ships (designated as such before the battle) can only be attacked if there is no friendly ship in combat shape in a X meters radius around it. Once more, feedback is appreciated. I'm also currently thinking about a boarding rule set. Boarding is so fun it's a "must have". And if some of you are willing to do a test battle to judge the rules in action, I couldn't be happier.

Out of curiosity, what is the other craft beside the Salvation class ?

Looking forward to this battle. I hope the after action reports will be as good as they used to. Also, I made a suggestion concerning an alternative turn system in the Naval Academy thread. It is a timed turns one, based on MET and quicksaves. You can read it here .

Regarding the rules, I was wondering : why are we not using timed turns, as in timed with the MET. I can see several benefits to that, the main one being a greater tactical depth. A few examples : - No need for artificial rules like "use one craft at a time, in the order of their weight" or "target only one thing". Just do whatever you have the time to do. You think you need the firepower of a capital ship ? Go ahead and maneuver it into position but you probably won't have the time to do anything else. Need to fight on several fronts at a time ? Use your fast and nimble fighters. You can surely pilot several of them in one turn. - You can choose to let your precious carrier away from the battle to ensure it's safety. But that means your fighters will have to travel longer and will not be able to join the battle, deliver their payload and get back to the ship in one turn. It also makes re-fitting / repairing (docking your front and aft section back together after the middle one exploded) in combat less "over-powered" since doing so will likely cost you a turn. You can also plan ahead more efficiently as you know how many time will pass before your next turn, and therefore where the fighter you left drifting will be when you get to play again. - If the fleets start away from each other, pre-engagement maneuvers will now mean something ... as they will finally exist. The player who gets the first turn may not be able to reach the enemy fleet and one-hit-kill a capital ship with its fighter before the other player can react. It also means fleeing / kitting / guerrilla tactics becomes real things as slow ships won't be able to catch up on fast an nimble ones anymore as they won't have all the time they want to perform an intercept before their prey can play again. - It brings stress and human error into the equation a lot more. If the fight is going badly for you, you will probably want to do as much as you can in one turn and are more prone to commit an error while rushing a maneuver. Or you can fail to see a move your opponent is slowly pulling out because you are blinded by the few distractions he keeps throwing at you. - Reinforcements. A backup fleet on it's way to save your day but you will have to survive long enough to see it. It is an interesting engagement scenario but is more or less impossible right now. I think you get the idea by now. This system would make time a thing to consider and to play with. And as a consequence it makes distance a meaningful data too. It promotes different playstyles ans offer more choices to the player. It also diminish the number of additional rules needed. Who cares a given ship is too big to be considered a fighter and cannot play first ? It's potentially better firepower is offset by the fact that is is slower and thus less "time-efficient". Hell, why couldn't I just decide to take my first tun with my heavy cruiser and try to severely cripple some high priority targets, so that they would then be more vulnerable to the light weaponry of my fighters ? Again choices, tactical depth. --- Here is how it could work. 1 - Once the battle is ready to begin (the players agreed on the fleets, the place, the victory/defeat conditions, ramming or not ...), MET is set back to 0 via save editing, the players decide how long a turn will last as well as an "inter-turn". The file is given to the first player, he has the time of an "inter-turn" (let's say 30 seconds for this example) to select his ship, get his bearings and whatnot. 2 - When the 30s are elapsed he can do whatever he has decided to do during this turn (let's say 3 minutes). At the end of it, he quicksaves. The MET is now 3 min and 30 seconds (approximately, the inter-turn is there to serve as a "buffer-zone" for the small errors). The first player can proceed to take after-action screenshot freely as the second player will just reload the quicksave to go back in time afterwards. 3 - The second player gets the files, loads the quicksave and has until the MET reaches 4 min to get ready, then he plays, quicksaves and gives the save back. And so on until the game is over.Tell me what you think. --- I also thought of another rule concerning civilian/support ships. Basically, my idea is to disallow a player to engage a civilian/support ship (designated as such before the fight) if an escort ship is less than 1km away from it. The idea behind it is to render escort tasks possible in a turn-by-turn system because right now, nothing prevents you to hit a target at will even if there are 50 fighters near it since they are "inactive" until you're done. --- Still on the topic of rules, I want to say that the need of a nearby controlling ship for using smart torpedoes and unmanned ship seems a fair and good rule to me, even if it is not the more "realistic" one. --- Lastly I want to say that I really appreciate camulus videos and that I love how a little community has built a "game in the game" and keeps making it better everyday. I am clearly not really a vocal member of the forum but I spend a fair amount of time reading it and I am always amazed by those threads that retrace battles or showcase amazing starships. Keep it going guys, you're doing it really well.

Nice work. You used Xmind, didn't you ?

Actually, there IS a stock way to dump fuel. Just disable either oxidizer or liquid fuel flow and throttle up. What is not disabled will be consumed by your engine despite the "flameout". Then re-enable the flow of the remaining resource and empty this fuel tank for good

And shift + w/a/s/d + space will have them push themselves in the specified direction. This allows to easily transfer between parallel ladders for example.

Never read a "test" on JVC, unless you are looking for a good laugh. I'd even go as far as saying "never read anything about video games on a "professional" French site" in fact. Parole d'étudiant en JV Off-topic : The PEGI system doesn't rate violence only (and neither does the ESRB), it's a bit more complex than this. However if KSP ever gets rated, it might get a 12+ because of the "cartoonish violence" involved by the possibility of killing Kerbals, which are "clearly identifiable humanoid characters". Globally, you can consider that any game containing any kind of "violence" will be 12+. If the violence involved is more or less "realistic", if improper language is used, you can play it online or if there is any "horrific" content, it will be at least 16+. If there's any evocation of sexuality, drugs or money games, it will likely be rated as 18+ but it can still be 16+ in some cases. But if there's any "crude violence" (understand blood, on-screen deaths, etc.) it's automatically a 18+ game. EDIT : in my opinion, testing a game in alpha (alpha clearly meaning "the game is not feature complete, some core mechanics aren't in yet") is flat-out dumb. If it were in beta (i.e. feature complete, in polish / balance phase), it would be a little more useful, as one could get a better opinion regarding the quality of the player experience. But still, it would be more of a "preview" than a test.

By having a compact payload, I'd say. And for the ATVs, which weigh more or less 20t, I know they use a special reinforced support structure. And looking at the Arianespace site, they say that can put up to 20t in LEO and 10t in GTO. I think those number are reliable, since they are presented in the "commercial offers" section. These numbers are also consistent with those of the french wikipedia page of Ariane 5, except for the liftoff weight, but I suspect that Arianespace accounts for the payload weight, whereas the wikipedia article doesn't, or uses outdated figures from the previous and lighter versions of Ariane 5.

The KSP media group is a group of youtubers selected by SQUAD because of the quality of their work. They were notably asked by SQUAD to make some trailers for KSP and one of those became the official KSP trailer which can be seen on Steam. You can view it as a partnership : SQUAD supports them (somewhat) officially, so their work is more visible and SQUAD gets free high-quality videos (somewhat) promoting their game . There was a list of the media group members before, but then the great forum wipe happened.

Mechanizing Jeb Recording SSTV Removing the launch tower Reducing dark-side deadliness Repairing wheels Flying through the Sun Filling everything with dynamite Up-scaling flags Whacking Kerbals

A bit off-topic, but can someone please explain what "SCE" means ? I feel like I'm missing something cool there .

That is pretty much why there is a forum section devoted to bug reports and why there is a public section on the bugtracker. This is really great because that means that each early user can help the game getting better, and get involved in the game development, to some point. On the other hand, starting threads complaining about "a bug crippled 0.20 update" in the general discussion section, without a proper bug report or any information that could help tracking those bugs down, criticizing Squad and/or the test/QA teams for "not doing their job", etc. isn't helpful at all. I do not believe that this community will become comparable to Minecrafts (and I surely hope it won't). That said I feel that when I started playing a year ago, the community was more welcoming than it is now, and things like "the DLC rage" or "0.20 flaming threads" never happened until recently. This is why I personally start to worry a bit about the future of the community, even if it is still one of the more welcoming and pleasant gaming community I've ever been part of. I like to think this is because each member care about the others, because the community care about itself and about the game. The very existence of this thread seems to be a proof of it, and as the OP said let's keep it that way

I find it very useful, and I want to share two facts about it that some fellow player might not know yet : - left-clicking a category icon will apply only the corresponding filter and disable all the others, whereas right-clicking will add/remove this filter without altering the state of the other ones; - the filters are available in map-view and not only in the tracking station : simply move the mouse cursor to the top of the screen and the icons will show up. I hope this helps and make this addition to the game even more enjoyable for you guys

In fact there is a good reason why one might want to build ships from scratch in space instead of docking multiple parts together (in KSP) : getting rid of this annoying wobble induced by docking ports.

It already has been Orbital construction redux

This is the base idea, I'll improve it later :