r_rolo1

Well, I guess you better pack some 30.000 m/s of dV and a good heatshield for the return

Well, we do know that Kerbals bodies themselves react to radioactivity ( by glowing ). One of the ways that could happen is if the Kerbals themselves are radioactive P.S. Now that I think on it, it actually makes sense: Kerbals do not need food because they use radioactive isotopes to power quimiosynthesis ... Wait, did I just justified a design decision?

Well, the devs said somewhere ( IIRC in a SQUADCast some weeks ago ) that most likely 1.1 will not break savegames ... and given the structure of KSP saves, I tend to believe that it will be like that. That is NOT the same as the saves giving similar behaviour in 1.05 and in 1.1. We already know that atleast antennas will not work in the same way and who knows what the optimization code cahnges will do to individual ships ( I do remember the issues Harv rework of the fuel lines code in 0,90 ( ? ) made to preexisting ships ) Oh and SMAC, great, GREAT game, probably the best Firaxis ever made. It is just too bad the game can't really handle better resolutions ( the game can be upscaled, but ... )

Just wanted to point out that the Infernal Robotics modders budget has less zeros ( atleast on the right of the significant digits ) than SQUAD All in all , good news , but nothing actually earth-shattering. And as a side point, be careful about who you hire for the translations: if you go cheap, you'll get some chump from a Languages course that , while probably well versed in both English and the language he/she will translate, will know very little ( if anything ) about rockets and physics. That is a recipe for literal translations that ultimately don't make any sense.( like happens in so many games )

On 7) : Rockets do not leave smoke behind. They leave a trail of rapidly condensing water vapour at best And I think you are being decieved by the scale of things ( the RL rocket in your pic is far bigger than the KSP example you brought ) and by the fact that in the RL pic the vapour plume is blending visually with the clouds and the scattering in the backround ( if you look at it well, you will see that the plume continues to the ground ... ), something that you don't have in stock KSP and even if it did, you would not see it in the oblique angle the KSP pic has. What is diferent between the KSP pic and the RL is that the vapour cloud in the KSP pic does not attenuate as fast as RL one, but TBH I think that is a farly minor issue and that the KSP plume matches pretty well with reality .

Yeah ... if you could hack the Mammoths to take the Vectors out of it, you would make a tidy profit

May I point out you to the OP? He's not asking for not using the "materials bay" designation, he's asking that when the game means "9001 Science Jr" and not "general materials bay", the game actually says "9001 Science Jr."

Hum, the interface looks slightly diferent from the PC version ... and the skybox looks better looking [/envy]

Definitely agreed.The vague descriptions do not help in anything ... Technically in game terms you can only "land" on land ( in theory, atleast ) ... and splashing is a completely diferent thing. But yeah, the diference should be stated clearly to avoid confusion. Other issue with the contracts wordings is the meaning of the word "flying" in contracts, that is not the meaning of "flying" in terms of science collection ( TBH I got somewhat baffled by the first "get gravioli reading in flight above X altitude" because you can't get gravioli readings while in a "flying" situation ) and that the "in flight" expression means two diferent things inside the contract system ( I have filed a bug report more than a year ago on this, if you want more details ). Indeed another pass on the wording used on the contract system would surely be helpful ...

Fair enough. It has some logic behind and it works in terms of doing the planned propose. But TBH I think that other parts of the game ( say , the contracts subsystem ) could deliver the same function without incurring in issues like the one the OP describes. Say, since this update we have contracts that require that you are in control of a certain ship , so why not have a contract that for some lump change asks you to take control of X station and do something there ( some science, for a example )? Just a sugestion ...

Hum, I think I can see 2 or 3 better ways of making poeple to visit their stations , Roverdude While effective, the data cap seems a little ... crude

I'll tell my story in the form of cautionary advice: Never launch anything while there are still debris from a failed launch falling on the KSC ...

Well, about clouds, Maxmaps said with all the letters in one Squadcast ( about 2/3 months ago, maybe? ) that that the devs were planning to add clouds to the game ... eventually, and only after the Unity 5 port ( and probably some other mem leak patching ). Not sure if that makes clouds confirmed or not, though ...

Well, I can give to the OP a reason why people ask for a mod to be stock: SQUAD has the source code, the modders for the most part don't ... so SQUAD has the resources to make a more integrated ( and hopefully better ) solution than the modders, that sometimes need to hack the way around the base game. Say, for example sake, the Quick GoTo mod , that allows you to jump from every scene to any other instead of having to get back to the Space center in between . While I do use the mod and it is a very useful add to the game, it basically hacks the functionality by doing two scene changes in quick sucession ( and the buttons do not mesh that well with the current UI ) and I'm pretty sure that SQUAD, if it wanted to get this feature stock ( like it did with so many others ) would be able to do a better job simply because they would be able to not hack around the game. On the second point ...well, for any modder that kept developing his mod after the core feature was made stock, I can show atleast another one that simply considered that his job was done and moved on. Say, stuff like the original Sub-assemblies mod ( AFAIK ) ...

TBH they could pick a page of the Science archives page ( on the R&D building ) and list a sorted ( or sortable ) list of what you have stored in a part where clicking in one item would lead you to the science report in question individualy. The current system ... well, reeks of placeholder :/

Yeah, that was pretty much my point. At this point of the game, where waiting out with some kerbals in a far far away outpost has no consequences and time warping is actually encouraged by the current stock game structure, forcing a data storage cap serves little propose. If there was any kind of life support in stock, , stuff would be diferent ...

TBH I don't really see any real exploit that could be done with the science lab that the data cap could prevent ... It is not that you can't simply store the science that you have that you can't convert ASAP because of the cap and convert it piecemeal as you get space for the data. On other words, why do we have a data cap at all? *dunno*

Well, in general I always thought that 500 data per science lab was ridiculosly low, but if you can't even run some experiments through it because of that ...well, it definitely is in need of a fix.

Hum, TWR at launch of 1.8? You were asking for trouble

The devs said that the update would not break save game compatibility ... but again, even if game compatibility is maintained, some parts will surely not work ( or even look ) in the same way and that might bork some ships out. See what happened to some planes with the Porkjet parts getting to stock ( the parts that already existed had diferent weights and shapes ) or when probes got their SAS/autopilot changes ( any scientist transporter that relied on a Stayputink core for SAS became useless )

"Serious" proposal is taken seriously! More on the 7 o'clock news !

Well, regarding the OP ... always, ALWAYS the lighter option needed for the mission profile, that might not be the ligher option Say, on your second example, if the objective is simply to send a ship to X, A is clearly my favourite option, but if part of a mission to get science, B is obviously better ( you can do always more science of a crewed mission ) .Cost is a mostly irrelevant issue for payload ( the cost of the mission, though, might not be ) That said, on a somewhat related issue, what is the deal with Vectors and Mammoths prices? I could buy Mammoths, hack them to take the Vectors out and make a hefty profit ... if the game allowed that

Well, I am 100% in agreement with the OP, but it would require that scatter objects would become material ( aka you can interact with them ) . The only other object in game that resembles what scatter objects would need to be are asteroids ( that are actually "potatoroid" rocket parts ) and I shudder to think about how the game would deal with some hundreds of thousands of "rock scatter" parts on the phys load radius in planetary surfaces ...

Well, let me adress a couple of the points you brought: -First of all, KSP in not just a game. It is also the basis of a educational plataform called KerbalEDU, that ,among other things, is aimed to provide a space for virtual experiments that has a realisitic enough set of physics laws. Having two sets of physical laws would clash against that -Second, about the realistic vs fun: even assuming that Fun is more important than realism, tell me: exactly how the pre-1.0 atmo was any more Fun than the current one? TBH I can see both being pretty much equal and even better for the side of the post 1.0, where planes can actually pass Mach 1. If you're holding to the "up to 10 Km straight, then 45º" rule, well, I can't see that being any more fun ( or easier ) than a rocket that can actually turn by itself without input -Third, the 0.90 FAR situation was completely diferent. The pre 1.0 atmo was always a admitted placeholder, something that the devs always vowed to fix sometime in the future. Ferram just chimed in and made a atmo mod to fill in in between ( that he kept developing after 1.0 because he feels that the devs job was not as perfect as he thought it could be ). Regardless of the merits of your proposal, having a better atmo mod filling in while the promised better stock atmo didn't came out is a completely diferent turkey of having two sets of atmo laws given by the game ...

For that you need a little more...but not much more, maybe some extra 500-800 m/s