Daid

I'm taking a look at the code. As it's a nice example on how to make new contracts. And I'm wondering something. With the DriveParameter, what happens if you put 2 rovers on the planet and switch between them? Won't the parameters get messed up?

But lander-stage weight effects your over-all Delta-V. So I think your costs winnings here quickly are countered by extra fuel and other part costs.

Ok, that sucks. Distance traveled was also on the crash screen (as it blew up after that screenshot due to the runway lights) but didn't snap that. That craft is so unstable, I don't think I will manage to get at the end of the runway again. Not sure how I could have traveled more or less distance then anyone else. As it's not as if this thing can steer or drive backwards. But your challenge, your rules.

But, the Kraken is a cool easter-egg on ... bob? I think. Why would you want to remove that?

Does this count as making the end of the runway? (I hit the light the second I took this screenshot) If it does. This is my craft: http://i.imgur.com/VyHOFAc.jpg Proving it does not weight more then 20tons. Rockets only. All stock (except for Kerbal Engineer. But hope that's no problem) It might work better with a skipper then a mainsail, as I couldn't trust all the way. And the skipper is a whole lot lighter.

3.2 mil, of which the last 1.5 mil or so was earned by two contracts combined in 1 mission. Planting a flag on gilly while at the same time gather science around gilly. Kerbal made it home safely, and only spend the "advance" money on the rocket. It feels quite easy, but, I've played as of KSP 0.16 As for the LFB KRB 1x2 around Kerbin. I did that as with the thing reversed on front of the nose of a rocket. Directly acted as "putting me on a suborbit" without needing to turn around :-) With 90% of the fuel removed, it was quite easy to lift.

Those are exactly the reasons why I think blizzy's is worse. It has more "options" and options are not always good. They can be confusing. I've always had problems with the toolbar plugin being at the wrong spot, hard to move, and annoying the hell out of me. What should be done, is making a mod that replaces the default toolbar with the options you want. Not making a 2nd toolbar.

Actually, the name "Camper" in FPS games came from "Spawn Camper". Which was the bad sport tactic of having a heavy weapon aimed at the sole spawnpoint of players. Multiplayer games have evolved from that, and now this is generally not possible, but the "OMG CAMPER" name stuck.

ISP and Weight is what you care about once you are out of the atmosphere. As those new engines are really heavy, I think they are less useful then people would assume. As you would be much better off with the same weight in LV-N engines. And I don't think they are too strong, your graph shows a nice dip near the 24-77 and LV-T30, I think the engines there are just under-powered compared to the rest, as the rest follows a pretty good curve.

This is pretty much a natural reaction on change. "People resist change" Try it for 2 weeks, still feeling bad after that? Then you might really not like it. For the first 2 weeks, just just an adjusting period.

No you are not. You got early access, which is something totally different. The test team, those are playtesting.

Game engines try to get as much FPS out of the game as possible, and don't really care about pause or not.

This, and you can actually remove the "indie game industry" and replace it with "just about any software development". As this is by no means unique to games or indie games.

I have to disagree with you here. I got into KSP when the Mun was new. (Some might remember, no SOI switches visible on the map, trust when you see a mun rising over kerbal and hope for the best) I'm not a great player. But I really really enjoy the science system, even if I can build a rocket with the basic parts with can go to the Mun, land, goto Minmus, land, and get safely back to Kerbin. It gives me goals in a semi-sandbox. I quite often restart a new carrier mode (and do so with every update). It adds a nice challenge and reward system to the game.

Show us the math. That would help in your argument. Until then, my math says they scale great: [stronger engines] + [bigger engines] = [Moar power] = [Top of the Awesome scale]

Your poll puts the idea that the new parts are not properly scaled with the rest of the game as fact instead of an idea. Which is the first question, are they really over-powered? Which I would not know yet, haven't played enough with it. And I had enough problems with the power of the mainsail ripping my ships apart, but maybe the new joints will help here. So even more powerful engines then those might be powerful, but can also fail in most spectacular ways.

I think I encountered the same "bug" yesterday when I tried landing on the moon. And it's not that the targeting is broken, but it does not (always?) auto-switch between "relative to orbit", "relative to surface" and "relative to target". Most likely you where still in orbit mode and not target mode when you did your burn. You can see the mode above the nav-ball, and click on it to change the mode.

Small note of warning on this. You will never know when the developers say they are done with it. They could release 0.24 as "Final" (and I would be fine with that, still awesome) Or they could go all the way to 0.99. I used to play a lot of Terraria for example, which received a steady stream of updates at that time. And all of a sudden, the developers post. "We're done with it. This is it". Still a great game, but lots of things they wanted to add never made it.

That never hurts. I haven't got a full grasp on Unity yet. I'm just learning as I go. And I'm abusing the Reflection API to find out some things (I'm looking at you, you sneaky private "deploy jetpack" function!), but that's slow to do. I'm also unsure how the IVA is actually build up. Is rendered at the position of the capsule? It almost has to be, else you could not look outside. That would mean all the collision meshes for the normal ship are in place.

That one does not allow science yet, but other then that, guess my idea isn't that new :-) seems they are experiencing the same issue I have, walking in circles. I'll see if I can expand it into moving in IVA, that would be something new :-) but I think that would require doing internal collision meshes.

Couldn't find them... got names/links?(And, yes, I'm dyslectic)

FPK [V0.1] - First Person Kerbal Ever wanted to see what Kerbals see? Wanted to look out of Jebedaih's eyes while repairing your station or riding a solid rocket booster? Now you can! With FPK! FPK installed you see out of the eyes of your kerbals with in EVA, or on a Seat. You can look around a bit, walk around, use your Jetpack to fly around. You can still do all science and actions. With KAS compatibility! (Only limited testing has been done with KAS) Note: You are always forced in First Person mode with this installed. This is not configurable yet. In the future I would like to have a configuration option to have this switchable between 3th and 1st person, or forced with forced IVA. So you can play a mission completely from the kerbals eyes. With the rasterprop addon this would be really cool. Download V0.1 Quick example. Make this lovely craft for Jeb: Bugs * Walking is a bit wobbly, and when walking forward you always seem to curve a bit. * Trying to walk backwards rotates you instead of walking backwards. * You sometimes see a floating black ball when looking left/right. These are eyes...

Took 2 hours, felt like an awesome accomplishment.

And you respond with exactly the same attitude reversed. Pot, kettle, black. Anyhow. I've tried a bunch of different mods. And I think I'm about the same as you. The stock game got a bit boring, but I'm not looking for mods that add lots of extra complexity and take too much time, but also not for mods that are overpowered. So let me comment on some of the above list: Texture compressor - Only needed if you have lots of mods, and run into memory problems. Universe replacer & texture packs - Just visuals, IMHO does not enhance gameplay. Visual Enhancements: Clouds & City Lights & HD cloud pack - Same as above. Kethane - Sounded like fun, but loads and loads of work. Not advisable if you are having problems with docking or targeted landing. RemoteTech 2 - I tried this one, sounded like fun. But I found it too complex and a bit buggy in the end. Could be fun if you 100% concentrate on only this mod. But building satellite networks is quite a lot of work. Alarm Clock - Useful if you plan a lot of advanced maneuvers. But I never really used it. As I usually do 1 flight at a time. Kerbal Attachment System - Just added this one, and it's fun. Adds a lot more then the name suggests. (As I found out in a recent Scott Manley movie) I found the life support more annoying then fun. But I do want to try KSP Interstellar because of the added heat mechanics.

1. Agree. Kerbal Engineer is the first thing I install. 2. Having played with deadly re-entry. I do not think it made much of a difference for me. 3. The tech tree is natural progression trough the game. It makes total sense design wise. 4. Probes are also lighter, costing less fuel. I use them more then kerbals, maybe your missions are not advanced enough to see the advantages. 5. Nothing to do with design of the game. And a good thing. Stuff on roapmaps get changed quite often, and silly forum riots would be ensured with a public roadmap. Just look back at the devlogs and see the stuff they talked about they might do and scrapped. (OMG, still no resource mining, gas-giants and various other stuff!) 6. They hired some of the top mod developers, rendering your argument pretty much useless. Also, nothing to do with design of the game.