r_rolo1

I'm expecting it to be in late April or early May, given the cues the devs have being giving in the last weeks.

Ok, I've been in the Squadcast yesterday and TBH I don't see where people here got the idea that all the fairings would be pointy. Maxmaps said specifically than that would not be the case and that the pics he had with pointy fairings were just because he had designed them that way for aesthetic reasons. That said, I'm not so hot ( pun intended ) on the fairings departement , or better said , on the lack of mention of ablative shields, especially with Maxmaps saying somewhere in the yesterday Squadcast that up to this point he wasn't able so far to do a sucessful reentry with a plane on the new atmo model on default settings. Not that max is the best pilot in KSP history , but i find that kind of statement worrying ...

You didn't understood me. if I go to buy the game today on KSP store or get it from other places, AFAIK the 0.90 version there still has the 64bit client ( atleast that was what was told in here yesterday ), while the Steam users do not. (P.S if I'm wrong about this correct me ). More, AFAIK there was no update for people that did not buy this on steam ( again feel free to correct me ), so if that is true your point is moot. And besides that, I still have my precious ( +1 snark point to you , fine gentleman ) 64bit client since I was already bitten once by Steam borking games via update and I keep a spare KSP install as backup Anyway, I still maintain this was a screwup by the part of someone in between SQUAD and Steam and that they are trying to limit damage, given that SQUAD tends to hint on changes well in advance. They even give advance warning about freeze dried KSP icecream, for heavens sake

Ok, this still does not explain why only Steam users got the shaft ... People that bought the game in other parts still have the 64bit client AFAIK

That was not what happened. Someone delivered a steam update that cuts the 64 bit client off of the steam installs of people ( or you really think that people play KSP on steam via remote acess to a server with the clients there ? ). And let's be honest, it is not the first time that Steam borks games due to updates without knowledge of the devs of that game ( example: Medieval Total war II ). Anyway, the OP is right. SQUAD did not say anything on this ( remember not having a 1.0 64bit version is not the same as erasing the 0.90 64bit client ). My personal bet is, barring that SQUAD actually did wanted to do this ( can be ), that someone in the experimentals inadvertently leaked the code that was to delete the 0.90 64bit client when 1.0 is to be installed to the Steam updates ...

I agree with cantab. They said properly they would not support 64bit for 1.0 ... not they would out of nowhere take out the current 0.90 64bit client. Those are very diferent things ANyway I backed up my 0.90 ...

So no Schrodinger Kerbal But anyway, that was a nice throwback to Nova's scenario and a hilarious handling of the evil twin situation

I just shudder on the thought of how the game will react if you try to get one of the twins out of EVA, given that the game think there is only one, but on two EVAs. So Aldner would be in EVA and not in EVA. So, Schrodinger Kerbal, anyone ?

Poor guy, stuck in Eve during 8 updates of the game. TBH I would not be surprised if he found itself inside the planet instead of simply being with the feet somewhat wet Well, about the 48-7S, it is not that ( AFAIK ) it's nerf is confirmed ( not that it doesn't need a nerfhammer in top, but given what they did to the aerospike back in the ol'days, I'm afraid they turn the engine in something absolutely useless ) ... and it might even be that even if they were to be nerfed, that you could still use that ship, given that getting out of Eve in 1.0 is promised to be less painful than now ( due to less soupy conditions and terminal speeds slightly higher than 50 m/s )

Hum, shouldn't the Herbert Kerman book be called "Mars"? I have to salute your dedication to driving rovers in this save. I've done my fair share of rovering and it is definitely the more grating experience you can have in KSP ( not that I have to tell you that after your Pol experience, right ? ). Most players would have simply reverted everything to rocket/ion planes and gone out with it ...

Well, technically jets work everywhere where there is a atmosphere. But they will give 0 thrust anywhere besides Kerbin and Laythe

Efficiency first, period. If a ship does not look good when it is efficient, the game is the faulty part , not the design

Daikatana or Duke Nukem Forever ? Pick your poison True. That is Game design 101 : NEVER change game engine halfway production. There is a 0% chance of that actually being overall beneficial

True enough, but there are things that could actually get better with other engine : we could have planets with axial tilt or surfaces that aren't as slippery as a icy road ( or even gravity behaving in mountains ). It might not be enough of a reason to change engine by itself, though

And here was I thinking I was the only biochemist in the house TBH i could do your words mine: it is not that I couldn't had known all that stuff earlier ( I definitely have the background to get there if i wanted to ), but having to apply stuff by yourself is always a good incentive to learn anything That said , on topic, there is a lot of online stuff. I strongly recommend you to any kind of introductory orbital mechanics page, but it surely depends of your background ... if you aren't familiarized with basic Newtonian physics, you might need to get a look there earlier

Obviously I just was pointing that it was most likely not SQUAD requesting the promotion, but Steam deciding to do one

Basing on RL stuff, it is probably possible to do a Venus->Jupiter->Pluto flyby chain ( with optional landing there ) that could maybe have enough fuel for a return, but regardless follow Starwhip advice: keep handy a save, because the more favorable alignments can take centuries to come by, due to the big orbital period of Pluto...

Actually, this is from a steam promo on the most sold items on Steam, due to their upcoming port to SteamOS . AFAIK SQUAD has nothing to do with this

See here .40% discount until March 9 :Time to buy some give away copies, it seems ...

Well, IMHO rovering to the mountain is actually the hardest way of going there: 18 h of driving at normal speed and the glitchy nature of KSP surface makes that even 2x phys warp is dangerous ... not mentioning the areas where gravity misbehaves badly. On the rules stuff, the only mention you do of rovers is on the " made it in style" section of your opening post ... and the only vehicles that you mention in the "I like it easy" area are specifically flying ones. Hence my question ... Anyway, I expect to do another stunt to get there, that no one tried so far. Stay tuned

Nice update Just a suggestion: for flavor, the highest mountain on Kerbin has 6763 m and a flatish area at around 6500m. You could mount a Duna acclimatation/ R&D center there And yeah, the lack of folding abilities will surely bite a lot of people in 1.0, not only the ones that want to put planes up there. Given that parts having 2 states are in the game for quite a while, the lack of hinges is baffling, TBH...

"This are not the results you are looking for" - Message that sometimes pops out when you try to do science in sandbox

Today I just been testing a gliding landing craft vaguely similar to the RL ESA IVX It actually works quite well in stock Kerbin, but I have my serious doubts it will work on Duna ( and even Laythe would be probably iffy ). And all of this will need to be redone for 1.0

@Daze Now that is a climbing angle ------- On my self, I've been developing a smallish analog of the ESA IVX. Had to take some liberties because we can't really shape the parts surface to better adjust CoL and CoM, but so far the unpowered tests are being satisfactory. BTW I've been able to land this perfectly on the grass, but for some reason all the attempts of landing on the runway end with one of the back landing gears ( and sometimes the front one too ) sinking on the runway without being destroyed with various messy and explosive things happening after that Anyone has a idea of why that is happening ?

Finally got time to arrange a album. To save you from the 500ish pics I have in store from the trip, I just posted some of the last day of the trip, from the North Ice cap above 80º N to the target P.S. So I assume that now, I can say I made it in style ?