razark

I'd debate this. I can't train Kerbals to do anything. The most I can do is use them as a discount flight computer. Training them to do stuff implies that they can actually learn to do stuff (like execute maneuver nodes, or follow a simple flight plan), and get better at it the more they do it. Of course, what we have now may well be what was being talked about in the interview. But I had higher hopes than this. Edit: You also missed the planet discovery mechanics in the "haven't added" list.

Thank you! I love this mod, I'm just cramped for screen space. I have no problem with the stock toolbar, but I really appreciate the option to use the other one.

This was my reaction, and the reason I haven't downloaded it. I simply don't have the room to fit it in the stock toolbar.

Yes. It's a known phenomenon. If you ever read any of the Apollo hoax junk, you'll come across them complaining about the lack of visible exhaust, along with people explaining why. The exhaust spreads out, excess fuel is not burning off in atmosphere, and in the case of the Lunar Module, the fuel provides a very transparent exhaust in the first place. Look up photos of a Gemini launch. The flame is visible, but not very. The LM and SM used the same fuel. Because the interstage starts burning when struck by a five large blowtorches. I've read very many stories from new players that say something along the lines of "I went straight up, and thought I'd be in orbit." Do you accept that as a reason to change the game to make it work that way?

There is a glow shortly after liftoff. The later glow appears only when the engine is pointed directly toward the camera. If we don't like the Ascent Stage, will a Saturn V do? Apollo 6, separation of the interstage between the first and second stages. Note that the exhaust is not visible except for the fact it is striking the interstage. Video, at about 4:20

But it also expands very rapidly due to the lack of atmospheric pressure. Apollo 17 lunar liftoff: Note the glow on the Decent Stage, but once the Ascent Stage rises a bit, there's not really any visible exhaust.

Or aim the game at the middle ground between the two, and let modders have access so the two extremes can be appeased?

Thanks. Understandable, and I have no problem with restarting games while testing. I've actually got this installed on a second copy of the game. (I actually haven't gotten into a serious campaign since 0.90 was released. I've been waiting on mods to update, or trying out new ones, or trying to motivate myself to actually rearrange the tech tree into something that makes sense to me.)

Speaking of new releases of the mod, I have a question. Is the data/reliability stored in the persistent.sfs file, or is it getting wiped out every time a new version is installed?

Customers: Give us more! Squad: It's not ready for release. Customers: We don't care. We know it's in progress. Give us NOW! Squad: Well, ok, here's some of the unfinished stuff. Customers: What the hell is this crap?!? Why would you release such obviously unfinished work?

I hadn't noticed when I made my last post, but I did later. Glad to know the minor annoyance will be fixed. One more: Is there a way to see part reliability numbers in the VAB? It would be useful to know how much I can count on the parts I'm using while building. Bonus if it let me know numbers for situations the part has flown in vs. a more general idea of untested situations.

That can be hard to judge. Some parts of the community might find more realistic to be more fun. For example, in a game centered around flight, I'd expect that airplanes would act like airplanes, and spacecraft will act like spacecraft. If the devs decided that airplanes should act like racecars, because it's more fun that way, then even if it's more fun, the game would lose some of what makes it what it is.

It makes sense that the more flight time a pilot has, the better their piloting would be. It would add some purpose to building a plane and taking it up for training flights. I wouldn't mind seeing the ability to hire some level 1 Kerbals (for a price, of course), instead of just out of school pilots/engineers/scientists. And as of a few hours ago, someone's got a mod for that http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/106487-ResetSAS.

Excellent idea. Thank you very much.

I like the new HUD, and the look of the new MSD window. Does a 100% reliability mean there's no chance for a failure? If so, it might be good to have an option to hide those parts that can't fail. Suggestion: Add a warning tone when a part fails. Issues noted: Option: "Short Failed Parts Only", believe this should say "Show Failed..." Settings Pane Selection: The background is transparent. I found it slightly hard to read with the test below showing through. Slider: "Minimum Time Between Failure Checks" does not fit the space provided, and is slightly truncated by the slider. HUD: I'd suggest either adding the failure type to the window, or the pop-up that lists repair conditions. HUD: If I can't repair a part, instead of the "R" button, can it display another button to acknowledge the status and clear it from the HUD? Does the Momentary Reliability field mean anything right now, or is it a placeholder for later expansion?

Hold down Alt. Then try it.

I like this idea. It would give the frequent early failures, but drop off as your team gets better a running a space program. Possibly an increase in reliability (or an increase in the rate that reliability increases) as the R&D facility is upgraded?

Just to be sure, are the thrusters firing when you use the keys? What speed are you approaching your target at? Perhaps the speed is too high and the thrusters don't have the thrust to slow you down in time?

With the knee, it's rather a simple thing to make a mistake, involving a moment of inattention by a very small number of people. Mounting the orbiter upside down on the SCA would be a massive investment in time and labor by a considerably larger number of people, not to mention someone would have to figure out how to actually invert the vehicle and hook it up to the Mate-Demate Device. It would be something that would have to be done intentionally, if it were even possible.

Hit "Esc", and sit there with the "Resume/Space Center/Revert" options. Hrm. And now I've gone from "not tracking vessel" to showing two failures.

This is just a quick observation from last night, as I haven't tried to replicate it. I loaded a ship on the pad, and then paused to go do something for a few minutes. When I got back and unpaused, I noticed that every part showed a failure status. It seems as though the failure polling is still taking place while the game is paused on an active ship. I'm loading up the game to see if I can replicate it. Edit: Same vehicle I was using for tests last night, but now I'm getting "TestFlight is not currently tracking any vessels."

I've been running 0.2.1 for a few flights now. 1. Failures seem to be rather frequent. Is this how it should be, or is it something that you're planning on toning down later? 2. I've seen fuel tank leaks and engine thrust loss. I previously had problems with the small capsule, but now it doesn't even show the debug option. Did I break something, or was this intentional? 3. Failures are now showing on the main panel. I'm wondering if it might be possible to have an option to suppress display of parts that have not failed, to avoid clutter. 4. Is there any thought on tying this into the contract system? It would make a lot more sense than the current part testing contracts. Maybe a "Get us X amount of data from part Y in Z environment". 5. Is there any thought on tying this into the science system? For every so much flight data you return, you get so many science points. The new UI in v0.2.1.e1: I've had no problem It moves! (But it doesn't stay in the new location.) What is the "Enable HUD in Flight Scene" option? Some of the items have mouse-over descriptions, but this was one that did not.

I think you should demand a full refund.

I think he did say it:

It never hurts to try to see if it works. Just make backups before trying. I haven't had any issues with it.