razark

We've got the WB-57s in the area. These are a sight to see. Those huge wings look so odd.

I'm not saying it wouldn't require a bit of thought to implement. I'm just saying that the "players will use timewarp" excuse for not doing it is invalid. It's not just construction, either. This excuse has been brought out in response to science experiments that take time. However, let's say there was a science experiment that gave you 100 science after 30 days in orbit. A player could launch the experiment, timewarp for a month, and collect 100 science. That's fine. The player could also launch the experiment, and spend the 30 days landing on Mun and Minmus. At the end of the month, the player gets 100 science from the experiment, plus whatever science they get in the meantime. This also provides a solution to the "satellites serve no purpose in stock" complaints that pop up from time to time.

I've never gotten this reasoning. A player can timewarp through it, but the time will still have passed. If a contract needs to be completed in a certain amount of time, and it takes time to construct the rocket, the player may need to make a tradeoff between how big a ship they choose to build and risking not completing the contract in time. This tradeoff will occur whether or not the player chooses to timewarp to the completion or not. It's like saying that the Mun should be moved to a 100km orbit around Kerbin, because otherwise a player will just timewarp until they reach their intercept point.

Well, it is labeled "Postmortem: The Active Development of Kerbal Space Program". Postmortem means "an examination of a dead body". The title could be read as meaning an examination of the active development of KSP after it has ended. A better title could have been found. Such as "Postmortem: The Early Access Development of Kerbal Space Program".

Inability to modify Kerbal classes.

If you add Part A, test it, and find a problem, you fix Part A. If you add Parts A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J, then test and find a problem, it's much harder to find the solution. If getting it right at 1.0 adds six months to the dev time, I will not complain too loudly.

1. Add things as they are ready, test the hell out of it, release, test the hell out of it. 2. Fix the bits that need fixed, test the hell out of it, release, test the hell out of it. 3. Repeat step 2 until everything except very minor issues are fixed. 4. Test the hell out of it. 5. Fix the bugs. 6. Test the hell out of it. 7. Slap a 1.0 sticker on it.

I lived in East Texas at the time. I remember hearing the rumble from the multiple sonic booms. It wasn't until fifteen minutes later that I found out what it was. That was a very long day, and only the first in a long string. My father said that the engineers reviewing the telemetry would be in a meeting looking at some data: "At this point, the vehicle experienced a left roll of <high number> degrees per second, that must be when the vehicle lost the wing. <pause> My God, the crew must have..." They'd stop for a moment, and think about what the crew had been going through at that point. There were quite a few silent moments in the meetings as they each kept reminding themselves that the numbers they were dealing with represented the final moments of seven lives.

Add in some minor science equipment that triggers on reaching apoapsis, some smaller boosters, and a parachute that automatically opens a a certain altitude, and you've got a simple sounding rocket, which makes the barn thing make sense.

Well, if it was just "women", that would exclude younger female players.

That works with flipping coins or rolling dice. It doesn't work with things such as patterns in human behavior.

Not only could it launch satellites, it could bring them back to earth.

I've started career mode with a capsule on top of an SRB. That's a one part "launcher". If you want useful answers, define "smallest", "useful", and "launcher".

Point of thread: Is there a non-negative, non-zero number of female KSP players? Answer: Yes. Lock thread. Anything beyond "Yes." is off topic.

It's a game built around a simulation of the behavior of vehicles. The simulation in this case is not particularly precise, and the world/universe it simulates is different from our own. This does not make it any less of a simulator.

It makes one wonder that we ever managed to cross oceans, reach to poles, or climb mountains.

Kerbal Space Program 1.0: Go Fever!

And you've failed to read what I posted. I already stated that the existing Traits.cfg file would need to have an index added: Let's give up, because you're not really following what I've said, and insist on arguing points I've never made. Good evening.

But all that work was done two years ago or so, by someone that no longer works for Squad. I don't recall hearing anything form the current devs about adding in GP2, or in fact, any other planets in a long time. The last I remember was something about waiting to add anything until after the planet discovery mechanism was in place, and that seems to have disappeared as well.

Sure there is. It's even been pointed out that it's an extendable list by... someone. All it needs is one additional integer field for an index. But what if my installation has had pilots completely removed from the list, and replaced with another class, like "Driver"? It would be just as incompatible until I updated things to work properly. Aside from that, it's not the community that has to manage my Kerbals. That's my responsibility. I do not insist that every modder make things work for me. If I want to combine mod A and mod B, I must be willing to A. accept that it might not work cleanly out of the box; and B. fix it myself if it doesn't (although the modder may be willing to assist if asked kindly, it's not his job). However, if all my Pilots have a "0" as their class index, I can go to the file that defines these (GameData\Squad\Experience\Traits.cfg), change "Pilot" to "Driver" for index 0, and not have to go through the save file and reclassify every single Kerbal by swapping the strings. I'll say this again: Strings and integers both work. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but neither is undeniably superior. For some reason, you've taken the position that integers are so unwieldy that they must be consigned to the ash-heap of computing history along with punch cards and vacuum tubes.

I was in Fourth Grade. One of the other teachers ran into the room, and said "The space shuttle blew up over the ocean." That's about the only thing I remember until that afternoon, when I got home from school, and saw the endless replays on TV. It was a hard day, and the weeks following it are kind of hazy in my memory. Everyone was in shock. There were the memorial services going on, and a lot of folks working long hours. I grew up in Clear Lake City, Texas. Aside from one family on our street that were college professors, everyone worked for NASA. My dad was an electrical engineer who had designed the EVA radio system. He was friends with Ellison Onizuka. His daughter and my sister played on the same soccer team. Nearly every family in the area had those kind of connections. At the time, I was a college student in East Texas. I was up early that morning, finishing up an assignment for school before I had to go to class. I heard a rumbling sound, and looked out the window to see what it was. A little bit later, I got a message about the "Loss of Contact" from a news service, and turned on the TV. By that point, they were showing the film footage, and I realized what I had heard. Called my parents, and my father was already working. He was pulling 18 or 20 hour days for a while following Columbia. Tonight, I'm going to take a walk and look up at the Pleiades my father showed me 29 years ago, and remember those who have risked so much so we can all learn.

Wow. Aren't you just a ray of sunshine? If one is in the middle of flying a plane, one does not always have the time to grab a calculator and run the math. Said pilot may be in the process of trying to regain control of a vehicle, or trying not to put it into a mountain, etc. In such cases, having a simple display to read airspeed from is much nicer.

I was thinking twitter.

I grew up on games that came with huge manuals, even for games that had tutorials. Hundred page+ manuals that would explain the not only the game, but simulator manuals that went into strategy and tactics for both my side and the enemy side, the background of the vehicle, the background of the campaign, entire history lessons if it was a historical setting, etc. I miss those.

Started with 0.13.3, bought 0.16 when it came out. Still took me until 0.18 to do my first docking.