r_rolo1

Hey, Bill didn't cheat. He was ...well, creative in his solution The rules did not say at the time he couldn't tamper with the scenario, right? And it is not like if the scenario would not do something crazy like transforming Tylo in a black hole if the trainee somehow got a creative solution for the problems in it *completely ripping out TV Tropes page on that particular scenario origin * P.S Major X-post. Good to see that the station work is going OK. I, for my part, hate to make those big things and go for utilitarian and small as possible stuff , but I reckon this looks kool

Bill is angry. You don't want to see Bill angry, Wernher and Gene Also, at Bill: 1) Having a flag with your name is ... somewhat narcisistic 2) Unless your dV readings are using atmo dV, that ship is not enough for what you want Anyway, I still want to see how they are going to land their ship on Kerbin... or if they will. Duna planes normally fly like dogs in Kerbin anyway, so trying to land that on kerbin would be dicey even without one wing magically not giving lift ...

For some reason that last panel reminds me of something ... That said, I expect that Tedus will get some brushing about his decisions on the descent, including the ejection of the resident scientist with the only good parachute on the vessel . It can be easily argued that he could had saved the Dipperkraft and the cargo by not ejecting the ( rather annoying, TBH ) science officer and if he used that parachute to land the Dipperkraft ( I can see Mortimer and Jeb agreeing on this one: it is both crazy and saves money ). Well, I hope the Dippelcraft had a good supply of snacks since Tedus and Bob are going to be there for a while Better send a IRSU there for them to produce some "hidrazine"

I assumed that part was the "Smile, you're on candid camera" sign

Well, it is a nice job and would pass a preliminary sniff test ... except for the EVA science from Kerbin Mountains screen before the 2 min mark and also the green patch you can see from the lander window on take off. While less proeminent, you can also notice the diferent behavior of the kerbal between the parts where you have hack gravity from the ones you haven't and a careful observation shows that neither beats right with the Mun surface gravity ( hack gravity is far more like Minmus than with the Mun ). But anyway, it is clearly a good job and, if you had taken out the science screen and the green patch this would actually be a high grade fake. Good job

Just a quick and dirty one, more a proof of concept of how much can be done than a real submission: And here are the "how to" pics: [spoiler= For actual Spoilers!!! Who knew that was possible ... ] Here is the second pic, with KER intel And in case the above pic is not enough ... [spoiler= Even more spoilery stuff !!!! ] Yup, I've gone to the highest point on Kerbin at dusk. Being that high cuts most of the interfering light and the dusk is a excuse for the dim lighting ( I could also blame Kerbinshine ( light reflected from Kerbin ) if hard pressed ). Also , being there removes visible green terrain, trees and buildings I agree that the second pic is only really possible because of EVE mod ( the "lowlands" of that pic are actually clouds in very dim light seen from above ), but I think the first pic alone is very convincing by itself Now comparing with the real Mun at night , here is a REAL pic of a similar rover on the Munar night: [spoiler= Do not adjust your set. There is nothing wrong with your screen ... ]

Well, the easiest way of doing this would be going to Ike, but I think that defeats the propose of the challenge ( "Oh, let's fake a landing in one of our moons by going to other planet moon" ). That said, doing photos is probably easy mode compared with getting credible unedited live ( or close ) video. If someone throws a minimally credible video hoax, I'll be VERY impressed P.S. @ OP It is actually hard to fake Mun landings on Kerbin even on stills simply because, even in stock, Kerbin nights have far more light than Munar nights and the Munar ground has lower albedo than most ground types in Kerbin ( for a example, I knew from first look that your pics were from Kerbin just because of the average luminosity and the fact that the ground you chose is far more reflexive than the average Munar ground ... but again, that is me , that have extensive experience of driving around in both Mun and Kerbin nights ). That said, I think I can make a credible pic or two without going to make a in game studio scenario with modded parts. Also, the original faker of Munar landings in KSP is SQUAD itself, since the "Mun or bust" menu can't be on the Mun [spoiler= Not exactly spoiler stuff ] Note that the area where this is from is in the northern part of the body the ship is ( look at the shadow and the iluminated area on Kerbin and also the low angle Kerbin does with the horizon ) and yet you can see Kerbin south Pole. You can't do that in the Mun and the ground appearance excludes Minmus as well ... . Oh and the lack of a visible curvature basically excludes any asteroid in game ( also this screen predates asteroids in-game )

That is a VERY limiting view of what SRB rockets should be able to do, especially compared with RL, where we have a nice handful of all-SRB ( or just liquids for the last stage ) rockets in active service . like JAXA Epsilon , the Lockheed Martin Athena II, Orbital Science Minotaur IV and Minotaur-C or the European Vega , not mentioning the very old tradition of all or mostly all SRB powered navy based missiles with suborbital capacity started by the 60's Polaris ... EDIT: In other words, for the SRB being able to do in game what they can do in RL, we should definitely have a 0,625 m SRB ( I still can't swallow very well the fact that the Flea is a 1,25 m rocket ... ) and most likely one or two 2,5m SRB as well and we should have thrust vectoring in atleast some of them. Also, while SRB look cheap in paper, a orbit capable SRB rocket is still normally more expensive than a LFO solution for most of possible payload masses due to the clunky fine tuning options we have in game and the lack of options regarding SRB parts, so that aspect is also in odds with reality

As usual with this discussions, the issue is that every one of us has it's own definition of fun and mine definition of fun most likely is not your definition of fun and also not likely to be the devs definition of fun. And OFC , fun and realism have most likely no kind of correlation, as there is people that would not find unrealistic stuff fun and others that any smell of realism makes them to cry boring . That said, and as my personal opinion, the devs TBH sometimes underestimate the players of the game and think they are less tolerant to realism than they are. And also more resistant to useful information, but that is another discussion

Yeah, I also think this is probably the weakest review of KSP 1.0 I've read so far ... mainly because the author is NOT reviewing KSP in itself , but a somewhat modded version of it. For better or worse, a review of any game has to be on the merits of the game as it comes out of the box, otherwise you're reviewing the mods you chose and not ( only ) the game. Also , the author seems somewhat clueless at points , but then again, expecting that reviewers of a game can actually play it is something that I left behind a decade or two ago

Well, I did knew one person a long time ago ( early 90's ) that actually didn't knew how to shutdown a computer in spite of knowing how to start one I could had a use for that link at the time That said, the point that started that discussion IMHO is valid. The direction of rotation should be one of the items in the contract window ... it is just one of the issues with the contract window intel ( or better said, lack of it at times ).

AFAIK intakes work as they always did, that is , as monoprop or electric charge: from source to consumer, disregarding decoupler and toher stuff that doesn't allow fuel flow. Oh, and @ damerell ... well, as it is my opinion, I am entitled to use any words I find fancy as long as I don't break forum rules ( that I didn't, since I called the behaviour stupid , not who enabled the behaviour ). And IMHO the behaviour is stupid because a) SQUAD made that some parts could not allow fuel flow long long time ago for various and good reasons ( like avoiding unintentional draining of fuel from upper stages ) and this change makes that the UI objectively lies regarding fuel flow rules. For those reasons I believe this behaviour is stupid, but is someone is offended, let us call it counterintuitive and incoherent in game context

Known issue, bug already filed. No ETA for a fix, if there is a fix at all ... And yes, it is stupid behaviour ( IMHO, of course ) and at odds with what was promised for the jet engines rebalance ( they would drain equally from the tanks in the same level​ IIRC and obviously not from forbidden tanks ).

Well, TBH I think that the OP is confusing two things: believing that 1.0.x is the best KSP so far in full experience angle has nothing to do directly wth believing that in some parts 1.0.x might be objectively worse than previous versions. As for a example, while my opinion is that 1.0 is by far the best KSP I ever played, IMHO the UI in 1.0.x is objectively worse than in 0.90, even if because there are more menus scattered around in nonsensical places and worse, intel that should be upfront and easy to reach is tucked into the dev toolbar, in the same standing that the cheats menu. And those beliefs are not contradictory

Hum, someone should say to the reviewers that the game has three modes , Sandbox, Career and Science Haven't seen one mentioning Science mode so far That said, I think this is a fair review, and atleast it doesn't show that reviewer doesn't pick the game in it's hands for two years, like the PCGamer one

That is the only thing I can say about this contract. It is doable, but the payout is too little to be interesting.

@Robotengineer Well, TBH, the nukes were ( and IMHO still are somewhat ) broken by even SQUAD standarts, otherwise they would had not hotfixed it , so that is a bad example. But yeah, on the SSTO spaceplanes, you're 100% right. They are supposed to be hard to pull, after all

Note that he says in the end that the Kerbal is still stranded in the Mun , with the company of other in orbit. If he started that game two years ago, I assume he hasn't played much in between ( that BTW was my point )

I've read the PC Gamer review. While in general the tone is highly positive, the reviewer points out two things : - The game does not help you a lot about how to build stuff. It expects you to blow things instead ( the reviewer points that as a positive point ) - Career has bottlenecks Oh , and there is exactly zero evidence the reviewer actually played 1.0 . In fact he references the ol'"get vertical to 10km , then turn " method of pre-1.0 as the way he got to orbit

In everywhere? Or are places that are survivable?

Ok, let me clear some misconceptions. SQUAD was never against we having dV readouts ... they were and are against we having them from start without having to earn them in some way. Their position has not changed a bit. That does not make their position less stupid IMHO ( it is like having a Sim City style game without a money reserve readout ), but atleast they are sticking to it :/

Ok, it seems that I passed out as too negative myself TBH, what I have to say is that this is a recurrent phenomenon on online communities centered about a game, especially a game that is open to the public in it's alpha stage. People get into the community with some expectations about the game and sooner or later the devs go in another direction than that person wanted to . So those persons get increasingly bitter with time ,especially when release date/ final patch of the game gets out ( because that means that the devs are increasingly committing to go in a direction that is not exactly what that person wanted ). OTOH the people that are happy with all the stuff the game has get also increasingly defensive about what they feel to be unwarranted attacks on a game they think it is fine ... and both this actions lead to a escalation to both fanboying and primma donna bickering about every minor defect. This is even worse in game like this one, when it was never really clear what was the end goal of the completed game. This is largely predictable ( especially for someone that has already passed by a cycle or two of this ) , not easily avoidable. And again, making threads about how negative the community is being is not the way to go. People that being negative about the game have their reasons to be negative, and some of them will actually be right on their judgement ( maybe not on the size of the reaction, but that is another issue ) ... and those people will understand this kind of threads as barely disguised fanboying and attempts to shut them up ( like I said in my previous post ). The only real way of dealing with this is simply to really eat your pride ( in both sides ) and try to talk in a civil way about what the complaining parts think it is wrong point by point. If there is still common ground enough, a solution will be achieved ... if not those people will eventually go to other game or to mod to their hearts contents and there was nothing you could do about it anyway. Disclaimer : All of the above is taken from my experience as a moderator in a certain game forums and for a long time fan of that particular series ( not anymore because the main dev has stated clearly that I'm not one of their target costumers and that they prefer people more stupid than me as costumers ). Take it with as many salt you want

The intended feature IIRC, was that the engines would drain equally from stuff in the same level ( unlike it happened in previous versions ). That is not what we're seeing here ...

To be fair, that is actually a relatively new phenomenon. You didn't saw this kind of hostility in say, 0.14, that was a far worse bump ( SQUAD had to make 3 quick bugfixes in a row to that one ), but then again in those days SQUAD didn't informed the forums about game changes via Orbiter forums and there was a clear sense that the devs heard people suggestions, that , for some reason or another, was lost somewhere in between ( if I had to put the finger in it, I would say that was around the time SQUAD launched the science mode or somewhere around that time ... oh and, BTW, I haven't said that the devs don't hear us ( I still have to thanks Harv for hearing my suggestion about fuel cells ), I said that the general perception is not that one ). Add that to the heightened expectations people had about getting out of Alpha/Beta status ( that, numbering apart, is a sign that the company believes the game is good enough ) and you would surely have some sterner criticism than for a admittedly "in works" version. If the game had no glaring bugs , probably that would had subsided for now, but the game ATM unfortunately has a couple of very visible bugs ( like the obvious first reentry ship you will most likely use being aerodynamically unstable with the heatshield in the direction it should be in or engines that are supposed to burn continuously for a long time to explode in 7 min of operation or cubic struts killing drag on 3,5 m parts ... ) and some questionable design and UI features, so there has to be some people saying they are not happy with the game as it is today. And on the OP, let me be honest. If I complain about a game is because I care about the game enough to think losing time griping about it is a valuable action ( say, if I don't care about AC:Unity you'll not hear me gripping about the graph glitches in day 0 release, because ... I don't care ). Assuming that you also care about the game, the only difference between you and the people that are complaining is simply the fact they are complaining about stuff they feel is not right as it is now. If you don't feel the game deserves criticism, I'm OK with that . If you don't feel that complaining about the game is worthy use of your time, well, I'm OK with that. But you have also to be OK with the fact that people might want to complain, otherwise you're just saying "I'm right and you're wrong, so stop yammering" , a attitude that is not exactly conciliatory

Well, I assume you know that only applies to the Kerbin surface at sea level, right ? Good enough for launches, though