White Owl

Wait, really? Got a source for that? I don't think that detail was in the available manual.

Great idea! A cockpit needs some post-its with notes scattered around.

Didn't the ninja turtles fight him in one episode?

The first few sentences got my blood pressure up, but shortly after that it was just too ridiculous to take seriously. Good joke!

Never fully sure on why people were so concerned? People are so concerned because you have been extremely bad at communicating! You skip a sensible beta testing phase, contrary to your own stated plans, with no explanation. When people wonder why, you remain silent. We read that the release version won't have all the features and polish you want it to have. We read that you are unable to move the deadline, completely contrary to the way Squad has always worked in the past. We read that you want our ideas about what to prioritize, and what to leave out. Any updates to the whole story are scattered willy-nilly across multiple venues; unorganized and sloppy. You show us Squad developers directly contradicting each other in public over whether you can manage your own schedule. And now you're telling us everything is fine, all the features are good, there was never a problem... which might be kind of reassuring if it didn't contradict all the previous messages again! You can't even keep your own story straight. After all this, you wonder why your loyal customers and fans are concerned? You couldn't have done much better at manufacturing a crisis in confidence if you'd actually planned it! What happened to the Squad of a couple years ago? You guys knew how to talk to your fans then. You did it often and well. I want that Squad back.

Beautiful work. I love cockpits that actually give the pilot some functional field of view. I still want to see more and better instruments in these cockpits (EAS and machmeters will soon be very very useful)... but I realize that's not your department. Really, these look great!

Airhogging, infiniglide, and magic turbine are all unique to this game, I believe. And hopefully all will soon become obsolete, relics of the early days.

At first glance, this is great! I haven't tested exhaustively yet, but a simple spaceship without SAS behaves exactly the way you'd expect.

Kerbin has never had an atmosphere before! The superdense exotic matter at the planet's core has been emitting slightly greasy gravitons in a technically kind of strange and difficult to adequately explain reverse doubled helix pattern, with the net effect that anything within about 70 km of the surface experienced drag-like forces that were kind of similar to an atmosphere. In other news, a freaking enormous asteroid/comet composed mostly of frozen nitrogen, oxygen, and argon appears to be on a collision course with Kerbin. Most of the planet's population is reasonably ho-hum about the whole thing, seeing as how they've been through lots of impacts before and nothing notable has ever resulted. A few scientists are cautioning that this one may be kind of different, but they've mostly been dismissed as a fringe group of doomsday munatics.

In my random experiments with changing the wing configuration but keeping the same fuselage and engines, I determined that (very technically speaking) something is hinky with the vertical stabilizer in FAR. The FAR config certainly looks right, but if you turn the airplane on its side in the SPH, the CoL marker is waaaay off in a very hinky place. That leads to a lot of directional stability issues. The plane sometimes flies like it doesn't even have a vert stab. Replace that stabilizer and rudder with procedural wing parts with identical dimensions, then the sideways CoL is where it belongs and the yaw issues are fixed. Sorry I'm not more help. I wish I knew what was wrong with it.

I have a tinfoil hat here. I don't think I'm ready to put it on yet... but it won't hurt anything to check the hat over, straighten the bent corners, make sure there aren't any holes. Squad, has the game been sold to someone? A bigger publisher, with their own demands? Did you agree to deliver the game by a certain date, and also stay on to develop further for the new client/owner? Not that it would necessarily be a bad thing. More money for you; a decent reward after years of development, oh hell yeah you deserve it! Bigger publicity for the game. Possible new directions for future development. This could be really exciting! I just wonder. Should I put this hat on? Edit: Whoops, I meant to post this in the devnotes thread. Oh well, I guess this thread will work.

Remember that in Squad's eyes the most loyal and experienced fanbase is 4chan, followed closely by Reddit. (Honorable mention to a few Orbinauts.) This place is just those other guys who showed up because Squad thought they should make a forum a few years ago.

If it won't accomplish the goals - which is what the OP strongly implies - why is it 1.0? I'm so worried about this. KSP is the only game I really love. The only game I'm genuinely dedicated to. And I just don't understand these decisions. Sitting on the outside looking in, it looks like you're inexplicably committed to a course of action contrary to the best launch of the game. I don't know why. I know Squad is more dedicated to the success of KSP than I am, obviously... Why are we considering an official launch with the game not at its best? But if the choice is either add new features or fix the aero, bugs, and balance, I definitely vote for fixing the aero, bugs, and balance.

If SXT's He111 had a very minimal instrument panel, it might be my favorite cockpit.

I enjoy the longer launch times from 6.4x Kerbin, because that gives me more time to actually fly my rocket and make fine changes to the orbit. Stock Kerbin is so small, and even low powered rockets reach orbit so quickly, that my piloting errors cause problems before I can correct them. Been a while since I actually played... but I have a custom pasted together RSS config with four different scales happily coexisting. Kerbin, Eve, and Laythe are all 6.4x bigger than stock. Kerbol and Jool are 10x, as well as all distances between bodies. The Mun and most other bodies are 3.2x, except for Minmus and other very small moons. I left the little guys at stock scale. The end result is it takes lots of delta-V and time to get places, but the terrain still has interesting hills and valleys.

Hang on, wait a minute here! If the big concern is what features and/or fixes can make it to the release version 1.0... and it looks like you can't get in absolutely everything you want, otherwise this thread wouldn't exist... and you say you're willing to change the plan on the fly... Does the next version really have to be 1.0? Can you just change that part of the plan? Or is it just not at all possible? From where I sit out here in the bleachers, changing the version number to 0.91 looks like it would be whole lot simpler and bring significant benefits. If you can't get everything done in time... just change what "in time" means.

I think the single most important feature we've heard about is the aerodynamics overhaul. The nonsensical aero has been the worst flaw in this otherwise excellent game for a very long time. As far as I'm concerned, if you can make aerodynamic flight make sense then all other concerns can take a back seat. I think the second most important thing to work on is bugfixing, optimizing, plugging memory leaks, etc. Can I even dream that textures be loaded on demand?

I always turn sun flares off in any game that gives me the option. Sun flares don't look real, they look like television.

With FAR, and probably with the upcoming revised stock aerodynamics, making an efficient launcher necessarily means making it look aerodynamic and pretty. "If it looks right, it'll fly right" is an old adage and very true.

(so far), a staging error decoupled the payload way too early. The launch vehicle was out of the atmosphere and coasting up to the apoapsis, but was not yet in orbit. I had to maintain extremely close station keeping with the payload for several minutes, while maneuvering both the payload and the launcher to align them for the burn at apoapsis, when I pushed the loose payload the rest of the way into orbit.I recall another time - but can't find the video right now - a space shuttle was launching a huge nuclear reactor. I don't even remember what the glitch was with the launch, but the orbiter was reentering fast with a payload way too heavy to attempt a landing. So I turned the plane upside down, opened the payload bay doors, and shook the plane back and forth until the reactor fell out into the ocean. Eventually landed safely on the very edge of a beach with my last 1% of fuel still in the tank. Close calls and desperate recoveries are fun!

For days I've been thinking that my inability to undock two vessels was a bug with Procedural Parts, because I only ever saw the bug on a vessel that included at least one procedural fuel tank. Vessels without PP always undocked perfectly normally. So it simply didn't occur to me to look at this thread; I thought it was obvious where the problem was. Now I'm reading that lots of people have been experiencing the undocking bug, and there's been a fix available all this time. Ha! Why would I only see this bug when using Procedural Parts and this mod together? Edit: I had to go back a lot of pages to find the first mention of the bug in the current release, nearly two months ago. May I suggest that corrected version actually be released? Seems like it would save a lot of trouble.

FOUND IT! The bug is an interaction between the latest versions of Procedural Parts and Kerbal Joint Reinforcement. Earlier versions were fine. Either mod by itself is fine. But the current versions of both mods together causes the undocking bug. Verified with a stripped down install of only stock parts and those two mods. Specifically, it's Procedural Parts 1.0.2 and Kerbal Joint Reinforcement v3.1.1 that won't play nice together.

FOUND IT! The bug is an interaction between the latest versions of Procedural Parts and Kerbal Joint Reinforcement. Earlier versions were fine. Either mod by itself is fine. But the current versions of both mods together causes the undocking bug. Verified with a stripped down install of only stock parts and those two mods. Specifically, it's Procedural Parts 1.0.2 and Kerbal Joint Reinforcement v3.1.1 that won't play nice together. Edit: Now I go looking at the KJR thread, people have known about the issue for weeks. A fixed dll is available, but not officially released.

Bob Fitch isn't the most well known (yet) but does consistently produce the best prepared, highest quality KSP videos. Biggest? Probably some shrieking clown with millions of subscribers, who did a single KSP vid sometime. Yes, the "Mün or bust" is a reference to Kurt J Mac. (Who is not a shrieking clown, by the way. I like his content.) I believe the game credits still thank Kurt. He was the first "big" YouTuber to do a KSP series when the game was in its infancy, which led very directly to KSP's first significant surge in popularity and sales.

Before updating, every single docking port in my install was bugged, every time. After updating, any craft that had been designed and saved with the pre-update parts was still bugged, but anything designed and saved with post-update parts appeared to undock normally. Now after a few flights, including two identical probes with lots of docking ports specifically to test this bug, I'm usually able to undock normally but see the bug about 1 out of 5 attempts. I don't see any relation to whether the docking port was attached directly to the procedural tank, or attached to some other non-procedural part. The only common ingredient is the presence of a procedural tank on one or both of the docked craft. Dermeister, you and I appear to be the only two people experiencing this game-crippling bug. My install is heavily modded, and was working normally until only a couple of weeks ago. How about you?