Geredis

1. Propellers (and not as as jerry-rigged wings on robotic spinners) 2. Proper rover/crewed ground vehicle fuselage/structure parts 3. Robotics 4. Long-term scanning. 5. Life Support 6. Full Mission Planning (Being able to plan a mission from with the VAB, and then based on your maneuver nodes, tied to specific dates/celestial alignments, be able to see the actual delta-V budget required for the mission as envisioned). So you can say: I want to launch a mission on Day 273 of Year 2: see the e cexpected celestial alignment, as well as locations of all launched vehicles at that date), then use the predictive maneuver node system to be able to preplan the entire mission before you even build the ship. 7. Alarm Clocks that activate in any and every mode that passes time, so you'll get a ping whether you're driving on Mun, staring at the orbits in the tracing station, or just absently idling on the KSC overview screen with time passing. 8. Structural stability for landing sites (the surface material of your landing site should impact how and what you land) 9. Kerbals have proper careers/professional progression. A rookie pilot should be less capable than an expert who has spent 6 months flying an orbiter. But that same orbiter-flyer shouldn't necessarily be able to effortlessly fly an atmospheric aircraft if he's only done spaceflight. 10. Stat tracking for each crewmember. Tell us how many missions they've flown. Their furthest celestial body, a tally of all bodies, and the number of visits they've made to each, their longest mission, total days in space, or on solar bodies. How many crashes they've survived, or the number of times they had to change a burst tire, etc.

There should be a control-group panel option to move the sepratrons to the abort stage. I think the boosters will remain also on standard staging, so attach them to the abort system decoupler, where you launch the decoupler mounting the abort stack to the command pod. When you break the abort tower off (usually as part of the Stage 2 separation) you fire the decoupler, let the abort tower shoot off, as simultaneously the first stage falls away from below.

It's been a while, but in KSP1 , that's how it worked, especially during reentry, with every part heating individually. It allowed for some pretty interesting ideas such as eschewing heat shields, but then deliberately rotating your craft if you desired in order to put overheating parts into the lee of your your trajectory, letting htem cool off as other parts heat up, only to rotate once again in order to cool off that new section, etc. In one of the dev commentaries in a heat discussion thread (I can't recall or find it off the top of my head) they said that they wanted to do heat on a whole-ship basis, essentially in the name of intuitiveness. At least in regards to how radiators work as I recall in dissipating heat. It doesn't matter where you place them, it'll sink from the ship's heat pool, not from an individual part or localized area.

I voted for Jeb, but really...I am not terribly attached to any of them. Admittedly, I find them all Kerbals to be irresponsibly reckless at heart.

I think the general tone of things has improved as well, as Periple has noted. However, if your general issue seems to be the general issue on the existence discontent and unease about the game's present and future, I will simply state the following: The discontent will continue until the game improves.

4 months for heat Never for buoyancy a(at least not a timescale you had on option - I think we're looking at 12-18 months really for that, reasonably given their track record 6 months for science, and probably 2 years or even longer for CBT.

I am well past the point of caring what happens anymore to this game, and I think that we'll find that our February 2024 milestone, whatever it is, will be quite disappointing. I have this sense that we'll probably be at Science and a major bug patch. What exactly the other patches (probably 1 more between now and Science) will look like I don't know, but I figure we might have one more patch in Octoberish, then Science come December...and yeah, and as an anniversary I'll be sorely disappointed by all of that. I also imagine that around this point the roadmap will change severely and that PD/IG will start moving the goalposts, adjusting the roadmap so that they can finally get a 1.0 out in a reasonable period of time. But that it's gonna be a rushed job with quite a few substantial cuts - not so much to the headlines, but to the details. Colonies and interstellar will be in, somehow by that point, but a lot of the accompanying stuff will be left in the dust. Multiplayer is probably going to be on the chopping block for what will be available at 1.0 with a promise of it coming soon enough post-launch. That said, once the game hits 1.0 in whatever state it does, I figure that everyone will want to wash their hands of this game and move on with their lives.

I agree here, and I think my biggest issue with this (and other apologies) is that not once have they acutally stepped beyond this initial and most superficial step. The apologies are fine...I guess. But when you keep just doing a stage-1 apology that simply says sorry, and sometimes acknowledges the existence of the problem, but says nothing about owning the responsibility, nor offering a statement in a full and comprehensive fashion to the full audience to ensure everyone hears it, then very rarely if ever meaningfully follow through on the apology process to truly make good on what happens...you can see where the problem(s) lay in then constantly saying sorry as if that's enough. There are six steps/parts to an apology: Say you're sorry. State what you did. Show you understand why it was bad. Only explain if you need to; don't make excuses. (This step here is rather important I'd say; and at this point we do require explanations) Say why it won't happen again. Offer to make up for it. Every time we hear something along these lines, we basically only hear Step 1 and then they gloss over everything else and state Step 6 in the vaguest way possible. There's no actual remorse in any of it as I read these statements, no stated process to actually doing/being better.

I'm disappointed by that. I'd much rather read a meaningful update than waste 20 minutes on a video of dubious weight, which I'd much ratherread the transcript of in 5 minutes. Whenever they post them, there'd better be thorough and exacting transcripts of the videos. And sadly despite their general improvements in transcription with those AMA's...I do not have faith that they can/will bother with other video transcripts in a satisfactory manner.

The moment they decided to add in reproduction, they have to add in death of some sort, if only to create sufficient natural churn that the colonies don't either A) stagnate awkwardly the moment they hit population cap with immortal populations, or B) create a situation with an endless population growth situation that all but ensures that you have unrealistic populations abroad.

Lovely little diary. I've quite enjoyed it. However one thing I see that was rather omitted was thermal shock - that is consequences for wild (and especially repeated) swings in temperature. Let's say we have a small capsule with heatshield coming in to land in an icy sea. It's been heated to ridiculous degrees on the way down. The heatshield has protected the craft thus far. However, upon landing, the stored heat in the heatshield is then sucked away by the ocean at an incredible rate, such that the part cools down near instantly. In this situation, is it possible for the thermal emission, and the associated implied part contraction after severe thermal expansion experienced, in this case, by the heatshield, to be sufficient to break the heatshield? I'd love if the game required that kind of awareness and planning for landing sites, where you might want/need a slow and steady radiation of reentry heat in order to ensure a part remains viable/useful for re-use. As it stands from what I've seen in this, it does not appear that this kind of a situation is being considered, which is a disappointment of sorts, since it does not seem to consider thermal shock to be something to be considered. Instead, it seems as if, if you desired, that you could heat up a craft to 95% of its breaking point, with a whole mess of deactivated radiators stuck on it. Then deploy them all, and provided you have enough radiators, you could theoretically dump all of the ship's heat in 1-2 seconds to use a bit of an extreme example. Such a violent and sudden transfer of heat should have consequences, and it does not appear to.

Lol, no I meant it more as "Catastrophic Rapid Unplanned Disassembly" - basically a step beyond the "standard" Rapid Unplanned Disassembly.

To be whelmed means to engulf or bury. To be gruntled, actually means to be pleased by something. === But to be more on topic, I agree with the consensus that wobbliness needs to be resolved. I'd prefer if it was resolved through greater joint rigidity, as well as more "realistic" indicia for structural strain (bolts/panels popping, audible groans, creaking, sounds of pipes bursting, something of the sort) to be followed by CRUD. Failing that, the tutorial needs to fully embrace the issue and explain how/why the wobbliness happens, as well as how best to fix it, in a variety of ways.

When and where can we expect an indexed text transcript?

I believe the idea is that the sale is something that was decided on as a more general "Participate in the Steam Summer Sale" kind of deal, than anything else. Essentailly bandwagoning on an existing event, more than...anything else. Thus, there's no expectation, because the sale isn't (really) a milestone sale for the game, for it to be sold at parity across platforms.