Ted

Change the resolution to your preferred one (what's your monitor resolution)? And then restart the game, that should resolve UI inconsistencies.

Please check what resolution is specified in the game settings.

Try deleting the settings.cfg file in the KSP folder and starting the game again.

Please read the following tweets, that was a miscount and it's actually 38. (It's late and we're a bit sleepy...)

Currently, yes. Will they in a release version? We will have to see.

I know this with pretty good accuracy and reliability, so I'll answer this. The fairings are set up like the broken solar panels are. When seperated, the fairings are not created as traditional vessel debris - this understandably means that having lots of little fairing segments breaking off isn't as much of a performance hit as it would be if they were debris.

It was one of the bugs found by the Experimentals Team during the testing of 0.90.

Moved this thread over to Support.

PM me the e-mail/username you used to sign up, I'll locate your account here and manually activate it if need be.

Firstly I just want to say thanks for playing KSP and taking the time to write up your suggestions and thoughts on the past, current and future state of KSP's development and features. I'll answer a few questions you've posed here and see if I can add some points to the discussion. That's fantastic that win64* has worked for you up until this point. As we indicate in the readme, KSP Storefront and a few other places the win64 platform is incredibly experimental and is the absolute bleeding edge of the platforms we support for KSP. To put it concisely, we offer win64 for those that want to give it a go, but can't guarentee that it'll work for all or at all. We find this to be a good middle-ground between having a community-led initiative for the win64 platform and the eventual full support from us for the win64 build/platform. In my personal, not professional, opinion it seems somewhat unwise to not play a game absolutely and miss out on new content due to an unstable optional platform, I would simply just use the win32 option until the win64 one was stable enough. However, opinions are just that, everyone's is different. This is an interesting point. I completely understand and appreciated what you're saying. Up until now you've played KSP in a certain way, with a certain flow, but now that flow has changed. I can only really say that this is a side-effect or 'drawback' to Early Access sandbox-based games. Essentially, because you've played the game somewhat backwards, starting with sandbox, then having career mode come about and create a mehanic of progression for the player. In most cases this allows the player to go from basic, barebones gameplay and evolve to playing with the complexity of the sandbox mode. Obviously there is much more that comes in over this time, the framework for a career mode namely, but at its core this is the main mechanic that changes as development progresses in the game and it appears to be the main mechanic that 'jars' most players. I like to think of it in the following manner, feeling that this somewhat validates the above hypothesis: If you (the player) started playing KSP when 0.90 was released with the upgradable facilities mechanic, would you find it odd or would you dislike said mechanic? If the above were false, then that would suggest that it is in fact that you have become accustomed to the gameplay mechanics that you had available throughout career and while the upgradable facilities mechanic isn't inherently bad, you dislike it because of the lack of familiar mechanics. It's definitely something to think about for all, I think. Not in terms of conclusions to draw from it or gameplay changes that need to be made, but in what it says about in-development games and how the player reacts to changes to the game that were planned from the start, but fundamentally change the way it's played. Now this is one component of the whole upgrade progression that I gave a particularly significant amount of thought and consideration to. While it's beneficial to a new player to not solely rely on the nodes to play the game (as is the case with Pilot UI as well), it's also extremely beneficial for new players to have the nodes there so they can use them as a learning mechanism. To me, both are equally important and both need to be equally satisfied with an implemented solution. Currently, I think that the former benefit is more satisfied than the latter and this isn't necesserily a bad thing, but something that could be tweaked in the future development of Career. Cases where we could tweak them would be if we had another, earlier, level of facility in the Space Centre, that allowed the player to unlock nodes earlier - only ever doing basic sub-orbital or orbital mission on Kerbin without them. Again, it's a good example of an mechanic that can be moved about and still have its benefits wherever it is, but it's about finding the point where it benefits the most players and fits in well with the gameplay progression. Thanks for the advice. I like to think we're pretty even in what parties we listen to on wider feedback and moreover are attentive enough to note where the feedback is coming from so we know what type of players are providing what kind of feedback. Ah, apologies if I'm jumping the gun here, but you appear to making a slight error of assumption. Unity, the SDK and game engine we use to develop KSP, is in fact a 32-bit environment to begin with! The editor is a 32-bit application on all platforms it's available on (only Windows and OSX currently) and so naturally when we're testing KSP in-editor it's a 32-bit instance of it. To go off on a slight tangent, this is one of the reasons that it's so difficult to track down win64-specific issues - the editor is a very key part of the debugging process. Anyway, I would disagree with the statement that it's both 4014 and 32-bit programming is "legacy". One could say that C programming is legacy as well, but it greatly depends on why you're programming in C - it's only legacy in certain applications, just like 32-bit programming. I've not seen the numbers in all honesty, but back in about 0.19 when we had Windows 32-bit OS specific issues, there were a suprising number of players that encountered these issues and were thus likely to be on a Windows 32-bit OS. So while that's only two components of any discussion that would relate to supporting win64 over win32, we can see that already there's significant reason not to go full-steam with win64. The issue of the Unity editor being 32-bit is a very, very significant one and there are numerous other hurdles that we'd have to jump over to solely develop a win64 build, tossing out win32. As usual, an initially simple-looking issue is actually composed of many, many complicated and difficult issues to consider. Again, thanks for the post and I hope I've answered some of the questions you had, while providing some nice information about KSP's Development. * When I refer to win64, I mean the win64 build of KSP, not the Windows 64-bit operating system.

Thanks for posting up this thread! We've looked through it and fixed up a couple of things with the OSX Launcher on our end, give this download of it a try - http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/kspstore/dp/launcher/ksp-launcher-osx.zip Please let us know if you have any further issues with the Launcher. We're still in the process of fixing issues that may be occurring with the Patcher.

Aye, please do the above.

Yupp, this is a confirmed issue. Unfortunately we didn't have time to patch this one up, though given they're such fun we're really wanting to fix it ASAP.

It should also mention in the part description for the Mk3 cockpit that the IVA is currently in shipping.

Hmm, interesting. Are you playing KSP on the server or the client? I play KSP on my synergy server in windowed mode and it works flawlessly. No doubt this is due to the Unity 4.5.5 upgrade, failing any quickfixes that may be possible, we'll have to hope this one is in the next Unity patch (if not 4.6.x).

Cool cool, glad it's resolved

Hmm, something is very much not right. It reports your local build ID as 297. Check that you're not running the 64-bit version and you're launching KSP.exe, nothing else. Edit: Why is the upload date on that output_log from July?

Porkjet will be getting to making those IVAs, but first he has to model the external parts and what's the point in sitting on those while he does the IVAs? Best to release them to you guys!

Good suggestion! Could someone pop this on our tracker?

Just a correction on that, while the released version of Unity is now 4.6.1, we're still using 4.5.5 for 0.90 and most likely will release it built with 4.5.5 across all platforms. We haven't upgraded the project to 4.6.1 as there are few fixes and benefits that it will bring initially and thus is best left for later.

Always. sal_vager methinks?

Regarding the old parts being released as a legacy pack by us. That is something we've discussed internally and do want to come back to the idea at a later date. However, as the Great Spaceplane Part Overhaul is still ongoing with the help of Porkjet we'd much prefer to gather them all up and put them up for download when it's completed, if that's something we do decide to do. I do agree it's a great idea though and thankfully some folks have stepped in a provided them for download in the meantime.

While I'm technically not a "Dev", QA is on the Production side of things, I feel that I can offer some hopefully useful input here. I actively read the Suggestions and Development Discussions sub-forum. About twice a week or over a slow weekend, as I'm winding down from the day I'll peruse the sub-forum for interesting topics of discussion and for suggestions about features etc. etc. As I'm sure you're all aware there is a lot of quality discussion on the sub-forum and there's a lot of useful suggestions. I really enjoy reading them, some can be a bit odd but that tends to be due to it being a new player not quite grasping the scope of the game (suggesting boats) or someone that is just brimming over with ideas and wants to let everyone know (these are always pretty great to read as they tend to be the most passionate). So why don't I reply? Here's where it's important that we remember that game development and production is a team effort. Just because I like an idea and it seems viable from my perspective, doesn't mean that it will be viable from a developer's perspective. If I were to reply and say "This is a fantastic idea, really love it!" then one might take it as canon that the idea is not only being considered, but developed and implemented as well. When in fact, while I liked the idea, when discussed with the rest of the team we came to realise that it wouldn't be so simplistic and intuitive in implementation and wasn't viable at all. Remember, it's a team effort and decisions about the content to be implemented are far from made on a whim. So why don't I say the suggestion is being looked into and keep the OP updated? This one is a pretty simple answer that I'm sure we're all familiar with in our lives; not enough time. The sheer amount of time it would take me to reply to every thread with my thoughts on it is far beyond what I have spare even on a good day. However, this does bring me to my next point. So why don't I join the big discussions? These are the ones that I try to pay the most attention to as there tends to be a valid reason that everyone and their Nan is replying to a thread. However, these threads move incredibly quickly and in some cases the latter pages of discussion have developed far beyond what the OP was discussing. Even if the discussion has evolved to a more viable point, jumping straight into that post without context can make grasping the gist of what the discussion is about very difficult. Here's where the initiative of summaries does become useful. I am on occasion passed a thread by a moderator, especially those ones about bugs, and they give me the gist of the thread thankfully. But in cases where it's simply me browsing through S&DD, a quick check of the forum can turn into an hour of reading through the various large threads currently active and here it would be useful for the OP to keep the OP updated with what the current conclusion is about. That's my tupence on the matter really, take from it what you will.

Hey that's my name! Starwhip?