Greenfire32

Unfortunately, offworld bases suffer the same fate as satellites. There's really no reason to have them other than..."because." It would be nice if stock would include mapping for satellites and maybe make bases gradually unlock the ability to build colonies and even include new launchpad locations. It would be awesome if I could actually build things on Laythe instead of just, "we made it...yaaaay..." But around here, "dreams," are often confused with, "there's a mod for that," so...grains of salt and all.

Nope. I'm a gizmo user all the way. More accuracy means I can spend less time doing the whole, "....come on, just go where I need you...almost...too much..I just...I just cant...FINALLY!" dance.

But that's my entire point. There isn't a whole lot of feedback and a lot more whining going on right now. So much so, that someone felt the need to create a thread on these here forums to address it.

Right there with you, OP. I mean, there's different versions of career mode (career and science) and then on top of that there's 3 different difficulty defaults, and on top of that there's custom sliders and options to further tailor the experience to each individual's needs. It's like the majority of people saying, "it's too hard" or "unbalanced, fiiiiiiiix it," are completely, and without a doubt, oblivious to the fact that these options exist for a reason. "Hurr durr, I only play with defaults, but they're toooo haaard, so now I don't play at all. Thanks for ruining the game, Squad." Squad, if you read this, KSP Career is fine. It's more than fine, it's great! As a former Sandboxer who didn't really like career mode in it's early stages, I'm telling you it's pretty damned good.

Highly speculative. Mostly since the Alcubierre warp drive doesn't exist

I guess this is where I have to take a little and give a little in return. I'm not at all new to KSP. I've been playing since...I don't even know how long ago. But I'm super new to Career mode (didn't like the first or second iterations of the mode and stuck with sandbox). So the fact that now I'm finding career mode fun and enjoyable unlike before possibly means I'm in the minority here, but I firmly believe it's much better now than it was previous. I guess what I'm trying to say is that as a "new player" (to career mode), I find neither the default difficulties too hard, nor do I think that as long as the option for "custom difficulties" exists, then there is zero argument for it being "too hard." If it truly is too hard for any given person, they have the ability to adjust the settings accordingly. And that is the sole reason why I think this entire discussion (not just between yourself and I) is 100% without grounds. Agreed. However, I will say that not having maneuver nodes in the beginning has opened my eyes as to just how spoiled I've gotten XD

Still though, it's really off-putting when you can say you've been to the moon... ...but you haven't been to Kitty Hawk.

I refuse them partly because they make no sense 80% of the time and mostly because the payout is like literal cents. Like they want me to build a $100,000 craft, test a tiny little part, and then pay me what basically equates to $.05? Erm...no. Also, I'm not testing airplane landing gear whilst on an escape trajectory from Kerbin.

Because before you put people in cars, you test them. Both in the lab and in the field. You need a test pilot. Because before you put people in trains, you test them. Both in the lab and in the field. You need a test pilot. Because before you put people in planes, you test them. Both in the lab and in the field. You need a test pilot. Because before you put people in space... Scientists didn't make it to space until Apollo 17 with Harrison Schmitt being the first of NASA scientist-astronaught group. Until then, many/most/all astronaughts were pilots of some kind (mostly test-pilots). That's how it was in our early days of space exploration, that's how it is in the early days of Kerbal Career. You know what I would like to rant on? The amount of "Kerbal Career is Haaaaaard, Guys" threads. It's career. It's space. It's hard. If it were easy, we'd have colonies on mars and a walmart on the moon. Now I'm not saying there aren't balancing issue (because there may be some), but I've seen way too many threads that are in the "I don't like it/I cant do it, so it must be poorly designed" category today. Opinionz ---edit--- re-read my post and while I stand by it, I realize I may come across as dickish in nature. I assure you, this is not my intention.

It would be nice in the future if Squad would implement a part that mapped out biomes (similar to scan sat, but maybe increase the area that satellites can see so it's not soooo tedious) so that we didn't have to cheat...I mean...use the debug menu to see those things. It would also provide an "in-game" way to gather more science and just general information about planets. Not to mention giving satellite's a purpose other than... ...but it looks cool

First order of business: upgrade the launchpad. Makes the early-game much more manageable. The other building upgrades are nice and all, but what good is being able to plant flags and go EVA if you cant even get anywhere other than LKO. Also, if you can, go for jet parts first as it makes the survey contracts less of a pain. I had to do two survey contracts with rockets (which isn't terribly hard), but it would be easier if I didn't have to aim for pinpoint landing-style flights.

Don't have enough time to read the full text right now, but I got to the part where it goes: “You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,†England said. Aaaand that's one HELL of a claim...Not quite sure I can get behind this one as based on the above alone, there should be life on just about every planet in our solar system/galaxy/universe...and there isn't. So first things first: cool theory, now get to work on some of that pesky evidence. Second, maybe this theory needs a partner theory. If life is inevitable, why hasn't it cropped up more? Right about now is the part where I tell you that I, myself, am no scientist. But this sure does feel an awful lot like pseudoscience rather than actual science. Not saying this new theory is ridiculous, but without...really anything to back it up other than "you know what I think?" I can't really accept or appreciate it yet.

I don't care much for Career mode either and I'm not entirely sure why. I think it has something to do with part restrictions, but again, no real concrete idea as to why I'm not a fan. I play sandbox primarily and every time I play I set limits for myself. Things like, "Robotic missions before manned missions. Manned missions MUST return Kerbals home with little to no malfunctions," etc etc. Maybe the part restriction is it? Maybe it's the way you "do the science," or maybe it's the limitation of travel zones due to the part restrictions. I really don't know what puts me off about career mode. I have the same dislike about the science-only career mode so...I don't know...

Confession time: I've been playing since like .16 or something and the farthest manned mission I've ever done was to Minmus. Farthest unmanned mission achieved was to Eve. So...you're already farther than I've ever gotten...

Such is the life I guess XD

Look 2 posts above yours. Already closed that book. But since we're going there, here's a video illustrating exactly what I described above. "Gravity" generated with centrifugal force (spinning ring) is uni-directional. It works so long as you limit travel to one direction and falls apart when you go the opposite direction (ie: going right=gravity, going left=no gravity). Either skip to 3:45 or click the link for the quick and dirty. Now, again, regarding the OP: I misread it and have acknowledged that. A constant increase in velocity (acceleration) would indeed result in an artificial "gravity" of sorts. I misread that as "accelerating to 1g's worth of speed and maintaining that speed" which is why I posted what I did in the first place.

Yep. I misread the OP. Disregard my above post.

This wouldn't work as both the Kerbal and the ship would be traveling in the same direction at the same speed and as a result, the Kerbal would just "float" there. "Artificial Gravity" (and I use that term loosely) comes from the forces generated by a spinning object, and not an object...going really fast. That's why you always see these giant spinning wheel-like structures used for "habitat zones." It's the spinning that causes you to stick to the surface, not the velocity of the whole ship. And even then, "gravity" generated with spin is uni-directional. Walking to the right all the time? Gravity. Try to turn around and walk left? Now you're floating. tl;dr Going fast does not make gravity. Kerbals would need either magnetic boots or a "gravity generator" ship part.

Hover your mouse over the top of the screen. A bunch of icons for different kinds of crafts should show up (things like probes, landers, stations, flags, asteroids, etc etc). Chances are, your craft (let's say it's a probe) is turned off. Simply click it's icon to turn it back on and you'll see it on the map again.

Your computer uses resources for literally everything you see (and everything you don't!). The more processes you "kill" the more resources you have at your disposal. If closing youtube and skype significantly increases your KSP performance, it could mean you need to upgrade your computer. Likewise if you're playing on a laptop, this is fairly normal behavior as you can only fit so much hardware in such a small space.

Really? I always thought the stock crafts were just poorly made and haven't ever used them. I didn't know they were just needing some tweaks

I don't use FAR so I cant tell you exactly what to do, but it feels like you're not starting your glide far back enough. Cut the engines totally (or very minimal thrust) farther away from the runway then you do now. Also, flying in an "S" pattern should cut your horizontal speed QUITE a bit, so try that too. All in all, it seems like it's just an issue of getting to know your craft and working with it instead of ignoring your craft and redesigning it.

I love how you "threaten" to leave a relatively solid-built game because the independent and unofficial mods are crashing it. Raptor pro tip: If your game is crashing a lot and you have mods installed, uninstall the mods and maybe do a fresh install of the base game before you go blaming SQUAD and KSP for your issues.

See, I'm more of a Sandbox guy so I totally understand the "meh" factor of .25 KSP. However, you should upgrade to .25 because it comes with new parts (which are awesome!) and the all-important bug fixes (though it may also bring in new bugs so...)

Might want to change the OP to make it more clear then... Not meaning to start any fires here, but I can certainly see where the confusion stems from.