Greenfire32

repost: While I'm glad you can change the colors, I really really really hope that you can also tone down the scan lines. That pattern is screwing with my eyes so hard. A different color scheme would certainly help, but the amount of optical dazzle generated from the lines is way too much. I can't look at it.

While I'm glad you can change the colors, I really really really hope that you can also tone down the scan lines. That pattern is screwing with my eyes so hard. A different color scheme would certainly help, but the amount of optical dazzle generated from the lines is way too much. I can't look at it.

Me neither. Mostly because you did the completely stellar job of recording at night. Post a snarky OP, get a snarky reply *shrug* Seriously though: If I were to guess, I'd say it's the wing/fairing causing some weird areodynamics on your rocket. I bet all the peanuts that if you remove the fairing, it'll fly as intended (provided you're on stock aero). Also, could be an issue of not having enough control authority. I know some of my rockets require more than one ASAS to function correctly so it's kind of backwards to assume that one ASAS unit can handle everything.

Looks like a texture failed to load is all.

Can we all agree that this conversation is hilarious?

lol pretty much

oof that's a tough one. My best guess would be to increase your Solar Orbit as much as possible (and as circular as possible, elliptical orbits are hard to rendezvous on) with the stranded Kerbals. Then send a rescue probe (like you've done already) about half way there. Then send another probe to re-fuel the first one. Using the first probe, travel the last half of the way and rescue your kerbals. Then fly back to the second probe to re-top off your tanks and then fly home. You may actually need 2 re-fueling probes depending... That is probably the most Kerbal way of doing it and it's going to be very time consuming, but if you're anything like me, those Kerbals' live are worth it.

The moment of successful mission completion is my favorite part. My first successful Munar landing happened after 16 hours of continuous planning, building, testing, and actual flight time. A friend and I played together with Skype sharing screens and the moment my lander touched down without rapid unplanned dis assembly was absolutely amazing.

And I'll agree with that. Unfortunately I see far more "Concept" Landers/Rovers/Interplanetary craft that are just...black... than I do artistic-vision screenies. Bottom line, if you want to show off the craft or get help, we got to be able to see it. If it's just artwork...well then beauty is in the eye of the beholder now isn't it?

"We need to come up with the advantages that players without helmets or suits would have - something that can only be done if the character has no space suit. Otherwise nobody will take off their helmet and the whole point of air in spaceships will be lost. On the other hand, we can’t penalize players in suits because that’s how almost everyone plays the game now." I don't think you can have your cake and eat it too. Something will have to make going without the helmet a thing that players strive for or else they'd never take them off. It would be waaay easier to penalize the suit in some way, rather than to buff the non-suit in some strange "makes-no-sense" way. Bite the bullet. Make the change.

Right there with you OP. There's nothing more irritating then seeing someone post "check out my craft!" and it's nothing but black. +1 Support.

What I mean to say is that there's a disconnect with the majority of players in terms of how surface speed is conveyed. Most players don't really know how fast 30 m/s is other than it's... 30 meters per second. If rovers could have their speed displayed in the much more common/understood/accepted format of miles/kilometers per hour, I feel that many people would "slow down" and much (if not all) of the rover "problems" would go away. Flipping is the biggest challenge for rovers. Most people will assume that it's due to lighter gravity, and that's certainly part of it, but a huge contributor to flippage is going too fast and slowing down too quickly. I feel that simply conveying surface speed in Miles or Kilometers per hour would help curve this. Not saying it won't solve the problem. But it'll let players know that going 400 miles per hour on the Munar surface isn't probably in their best interest.

Deactivating breaks on front wheels saves sooo much headache it's criminal. The biggest contributor to "rover suckage" is surface speed. Maybe there should be a "Rover Speed" category in addition to the "Surface Speed" category. I see a lot of people driving rovers at 30m/s and higher and that like....really fast (like 100 km/h and greater!) So maybe there should be an option to display surface speed in terms of miles per hour and kilometers per hour so that people have a better idea of how fast they're actually going, because lets face it, we've all looked at the speed indicator and said to ourselves, "30 m/s isn't that fast, I need moar powa!"

When I started playing KSP there weren't any Kerbals. Only the portraits. So....yeah I'd still play KSP if there weren't any Kerbals

We lost the Eagle!? This must be rectified.

I suspect that at it's first implementation the mass-less parts will also be drag-less. Perhaps further down the line those parts will get a .1 increase to both values...maybe? Speculative at best for now.

DLC isn't necessarily bad. It's the execution of DLC you have to watch out for. As far as something I'd like to pay for: some kind of telescope to find additional systems and realistic interstellar travel to said system. None of that Star Trek Warp drive tech, but maybe something like near future tech to get there. I'd pay extra for that. Not saying that I'd be "omg thrilled" to have that in KSP, but if they offered it as DLC, I'd throw down some scratch.

Pros: • Can't forget to deploy them • Super hard to break accidently • Small surface area. Good for compact designs Cons: • Need multiple for efficient use • Small means less energy gain • Asymetrical designs risk "black-out" periods of no power

I discovered KSP and then quickly got a friend of mine into it. For the first month or so, we competed with each other seeing who could get the highest altitude. This was either right after the Mun was added to the game or just before. Either way, we had no idea it was even there.

It's not just you. I also have trouble seeing white on light-green. I've also found out that I'm juuuuuust a tad colorblind when it comes to bright neon colors. The navball? Really tough to see the markers on it. I'm a graphic designer so you can image my excitement when I discovered this...

Just keep the 3 originals for those of us who've gotten rather attached to good ol' Bill, Bob, and Jeb, and then have the randomly generated Kerbal list include at least 50% Male & Female. Boom. All parties satisfied. Not sure why every little thing has to become this over-complicated "how should we do this?" kind of debate. They're not humans. Male & Female representation shouldn't even be a thing that matters in this case. /opinionz

I did. That's why I replied to it. Please don't assume that because I said words, I didn't read yours. Then what is the point of adding in failures that don't exist if you check the "spend money" box? That's like saying, "Let's add a 1-year lifespan to Kerbals so you don't always use the same 3 every time, but you can buy special doctors to extend the lifespan indefinitely if you want." What. Is. The. Point. Besides creating an unnecessary and frustrating mechanic that does nothing to better the game? Again, I ask you: why add something to "make the game better" and then add something else that completely removes said "better thing." It's not even about how adding random and unpredictable failures is a bad idea anymore, it's about how you think we should add a feature and then add another feature that removes the first feature, rending the whole thing completely pointless and leaving us in the same state that the game is in right now. Back to the original topic: Be honest, would you enjoy Mario if he suffered random heart attacks? Would you enjoy Zelda if Link actually had to sleep and go to the bathroom every couple of ingame hours? Would you enjoy racing games if you had to check the oil, replace batteries, fix windsheild chips etc before every single race? Would you enjoy playing survival games if "Character genetics" were a factor? Like your in-game dad has diabetes so it's only a matter of time before you go blind and literally can no longer survive (ie: play the game)? Random failures would NOT add fun to KSP. ONLY frustration. And insurance is not the answer, its a cop-out.

I voted "yes" because this is the official forum. This is where the official news goes. That being said, unless there's some fine print in the employment contract that says otherwise, why cant the devs utilize their own "PR resources" like twitter and facebook etc etc? As long as it all ends up here anyway, I'm really not against getting info from a tweet. Besides, one way or another, someone usually posts said info-bits on the forums so...

Random failures is one of those suggestions. It'll never happen outside of a mod. And honestly? As someone who is super interested in space (and science in general), but not nearly smart enough to be Mr. Rocket Scientist, the last thing I need is for my rocket I've spent days designing to just...fail...randomly. If it blows, it's because I did something. Not because the game arbitrarily decides that Duna is a great place to lose all engine throttle control.

Real talk? I like to think that "real world" time travel isn't something that can be traversed, but rather observed. For example, whenever you look at the stars at night, you are seeing those stars as they were thousands (probably more) years ago. You are, in effect, time traveling. If we do find a way to actually "time travel" I sincerely doubt it would be the romanticized idea of actually going into the past and interacting with people (and ultimately changing/maintaining history). I think it would be more like watching a movie. Want to see Paul Revere? Sure. Wow, who knew that before he got on the horse he blew his nose. Crazy right? Let's try another angle. Maybe we can see him coming down the road. So basically, I think it would be more like the movie Paycheck where we invent some kind of lens that allows us to see (not travel) into the past (not future). But those are just my thoughts.