kujuman

I really doubt it, if only because there's not that much you can customize for an astronaut in a space suit. Although this brings up a good question: Will the kerbalizer be updated to include female kerbal model?

I don't get why any "original three" female kerbals would be named after real astronauts. Jeb, Bob, and Bill, as far as we know, aren't. Did any of the original kerbals have female names? (I can't find the picture) I like this, it seems like a reasonable plan.

Harv's expressed that he knows the most important rule of software updates several times in the past: if an update is worth it enough to break existing saves, break as many things as you can at the same time. Several of us have lived through updates that broke our rockets and saves. When that started happening less and less in the .20s updates, I figured we'd have to endure at least one last great breaking event before 1.0. There's no compelling reason for Squad to "rebalance" in such a way as to make it so rocket A performs the same in 1.0 as it did in 0.90; in fact, such a "rebalance" would not be a rebalance at all because nothing is changing. We're going to have to start designing rockets for the new atmo performance, adding room for upgraded engineers, rebalance on every part (including cost, big factor in career), new engine flow etc. So we're going to have to learn a whole neeeeww gaaammeee!

They said the big boat is about 25km from splashdown site, and the IXV is landing on parachutes, so we should at least get that (thoguh maybe not live)

about 65 minutes in, 88 minute flight total. Vehicle separated from upper stage of VEGA maybe 30 minutes ago. Video from recovery ship looks like a calm day in the south Pacific Update vehicle just passed over the eastern edge of Indonesia Update 2 alt ~90km vel ~7450 m/s. vel is constant, maybe descending at 200 m/s

That VEGA is one sprightly rocket. Must. Build. One.

Huh, I wonder if the atmo density is taken from the vessel or from the part. Not that'd most users would ever notice the change, but it would be pretty fun seeing different thrust on the top of a very tall rocket as from the bottom

I hope the Isp curves extend past 1. having the same thrust at SL on Kerbin and SL on Eve is annoying. (this may have been fixed...but I haven't been to Eve in a LONG time. With constant fuel flow, thrust is lower deeper in the atmosphere (aka launch). This is also the time when your rocket is heaviest. Therefore, launchers will see lower TWR than we're used to. SRBs are a good way to add thrust for little cost.

This is, of course, fantastic news. This will make Eve even more of a pain And give us a great reason to use SRBs again! Oh happy day! Not sure about mods the change the stock engines, but I can think of one for SRBs that has always had thrust controlled by Isp.

yay, another in-game dV calculator that won't work with custom engine modules! It's really the only thing that's holding me back from finishing adding all the features i want to AdvSRBs. Although, that's an edge case. I think dV in VAB will be great, but maybe not instantaneous updates in flight. Count how much dV you've used on maneuvers, I say

I'll just post this, from the reddit post by Iron-Oxide transcribing key points of the presser http://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/2uuskl/rspacex_dscovr_official_launch_discussion_updates/ So they landed the booster with the last ~20-50 seconds (assume at least 5m/s decell, from 250m/s) without grid-fin control. That's pretty impressive.

Yes...I tried searching how to get Windows to search inside .cfg files, but it's not abundantly clear if it's even possible.

This method may be...awful...but it'd work. 1) Build a vessel in the VAB (or SPH) and attach only one of each part you'd like to find. 1a) Save the vessel with a name you'll remember. 1b) Close KSP. 2) Open your file browser and navigate to the main KSP install. 2a) Open your .craft file in a text editor. 2b) Open KSP.log (in the main KSP directory) in a new text editor window. 3) In your .craft file, use the search function to search for "part = " 3a) You'll find a line like "part = dockingPort2_4294534820". The portion before the _4294534820 is the name of the part. (The _4294534820 is random and is added to create a unique name for the part on the vessel). 3b) In KSP.log, use the search function to find "dockingPort2". You'll get a line like "[LOG 18:53:32.896] Config(PART) Squad/Parts/Utility/dockingPort/dockingPort/dockingPort2" 3c) This means that the part is defined in your GameData/Squad/Parts/Utility/dockingPort/dockingPort.cfg Do 3 - 3c for each part in the .craft file. Cheers!

The constant twitter updates seems a bit reckless, too. In general, we've had several miscommunications about upcoming features before, and limiting oneself to 160 characters is just asking for trouble. Now, this isn't to say Harv's responses to posts on reddit or the forums should end--far from it--but a post of clarification is different from an official announcement. On a more philosophical note, lots of little dribbles of info (basically what reddit and twitter do best) tend to reveal too much, leaving little unknown for the release. The first thing I do before playing a release has always been to read the change log (Harv either posts it or I check in the install directory). That's where the best feature of 0.24 was hidden: - - - Updated - - - ^^^ This is an example of smartness here.

I guess what I'm missing is why you'd want to see a parts list when you're not building ships, or see the tech tree when you're not actually unlocking it. Although I'd also like to see the full tech tree before it's unlocked.

Ever since we got roll control on gimbals, the lack of gimbal on SRBs has made them even less attractive, particularly for less than balanced loads or loads that tend to spin. Now, I love SRBs (otherwise I wouldn't have fixed them), but the stock SRBs (not the LET or separators) aren't really that fun for building launchers because they have so many shortcomings, particularly the inability to design a burn profile for them. Even the largest SRB won't contribute that much dV to a launcher of any size, but what it will contribute is thrust. So I do liquid boosters if I need dV, and SRBs for additional thrust.

I have a few comments. The first is that a centralized place for part stats and body information isn't really needed, since that information is already contained in the two locations you'd actually use them (the VAB/SPH and the map view). Now, outside of game we have the Wiki, but I don't really use it unless I'm talking to someone and I don't have the game open or unless I'm looking for delta-v requirements etc. The second is that a really good manual on the UI and just understanding the game (eg, how to read the navball, basic orbital mechanics (retroburn to lower, pro burn to raise), and how to translate what the game is giving you into the info needed for flight) would be amazing, and probably worth two or three dev-months worth of time to get very understandable. Same basic outline of say, the DCS A-10 manual: purpose, terms, UI explanation, how to fly, advanced maneuvers, etc. Tips to avoid common errors (backwards docking ports etc) would be nice. I don't know how long a great comprehensive manual would end up being, but maybe...200 pages? Split into separate docs (how to use the editors, orbital mechanics, quick start guide, career overview, etc). It should definitely be available outside of the game for printing or whatever, and maybe there could be a simple manual pdf reader in-game as well? The third idea is that videos of maneuvers aren't needed. We have the tutorial system for a reason, and a good interactive tutorial is an effective way to teach. The biggest hurdle to manuals and really good docs using language rather than pictographs is that they'll have to be translated into a variety of languages, although I imagine the community would help out there.

Yeah...but we're in for 3-5 months of it I bet...so why not enjoy it? And I'd much rather argue about pFarings and aero of Kerbin than the other big "controversial" item in the update. I came off a bit more harsh to CaptRobau than I intended, sorry. It's just that getting a good sample of KSP players is VERY hard to do with the information we have, so even attempting to do so seems pointless (KerbalStuff is probably the best info we have since it displays downloads by version as well as totals). And people who willingly mod their games are probably quite a bit different of players than those poor souls who play stock. It'll be neat to see how quickly the stock players adapt to the new update (I wholeheartedly understand the need to break the game to improve it at this point. And relearning how to play KSP will be fun. Adding so many new large changes and rebalancings should happen all at once, one round of break saves is better than 2 or 3).

Yes, this is a good way to measure interest. But before we think about pFairings, we need stock Mechjeb, and stock FAR, and stock OKS, and stock TAC, and stock RT, and stock RSS, etc. Or you know, all those views could be people posting that they have a problem or don't understand how something works, and then they need to check for responses. Or people check it out, and say, nah, not for me. It's just very hard to gauge how the community feels about something based on views, particularly when we have non-forum discussions of KSP etc.

Throw me in the camp of "bigger Kerbin, please". Not that I think 4.5km dV launchers are anything magical or anything, but it's something I've always wanted: space stations, even at 70km, look really distant from Kerbin compared against real pictures from the ISS. Kerbin just feels too small, and the resizing in 0.16 didn't help; 1m parts to the Mun and back was an epic adventure. I'm interested in seeing how much of a drop in dV to LKO we'd actually see from the new aero model. We're making assumptions it'll be like FAR or NEAR, but we really don't know how Squad will end up balancing it. Though anything will help with ascent from Eve.

That's perfectly fine - - - Updated - - - The code should work fine, but you'll need to create a custom runway definition since the real KSC runway is in a different location than the fake KSC.

The Teflon bar RCS prototype included in the newest boxsat pack is a bipropellant http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/91616 It has three thrusters on each block, and each thruster will fire...mostly. On the only orbital test of them I've done so far they sometimes are not responsive at all, though this may be because I'm playing with RT2 and all sorts of other things. When the block works at all, all the thrusters on it work.

Scroll down the list to the VAB/SPH section. http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Controls The wiki's a good starting point for a lot of info, but people don't necessarily update it much, so parts of it are out of date.

I use the translate mode (press "2" when in the editor) to move the forward gear up into the body of the plane.

You mean like this? Why not just do that?