macegee

Delta-v is the essential concept of space flight. It is a must have for my KSP. Devs are making big mistake by not implementing it. I do not want to be dependant on mods for such an essential feature. I want to play stock. And I want delta-v/twr/burn time info.

I delete default KER parts and create a new one with the same functionality, by cloning one of the stock sensor parts (using gravioli detector at the moment). I find default parts to be too large (especially for my small unmanned probes) and visually incompatible with stock style. Would've been better if I had an option to have KER available to me all the time, including the VAB, no matter what parts are "on the table".

Yeah, it's gonna be very cruel of them, after all this hype. Come on, guys, stop doing it.

Huh? Seriously? They didn't hype about that somehow.

No. I don't fall into any of the categories of your poll (since it's flawed). I'm not against any promotion SQUAD might do, as long as it is being made in a respectful (to us, players) manner.

Regardless, hype is a negative thing, so the poll in this thread is flawed.

hype 1. Excessive publicity and the ensuing commotion: the hype surrounding the murder trial. 2. Exaggerated or extravagant claims made especially in advertising or promotional material: "It is pure hype, a gigantic PR job" (Saturday Review). 3. An advertising or promotional ploy: "Some restaurant owners in town are cooking up a $75,000 hype to promote New York as 'Restaurant City, U.S.A.'" (New York). 4. Something deliberately misleading; a deception: "[He] says that there isn't any energy crisis at all, that it's all a hype, to maintain outrageous profits for the oil companies" (Joel Oppenheimer). hyped, hyp·ing, hypes To publicize or promote, especially by extravagant, inflated, or misleading claims: hyped the new book by sending its author on a promotional tour. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hype Promotion != hype. Hype is when promotion is applied in a disrespectful way. Thus hype == disrespecting the audience. The problem with SQUAD (before 24 hour stream) was that they promoted stuff with big empty nothing. They still (!!!) haven't published any info from the panel they did with NASA. But they hyped it using words "soon" and even "very soon". That's disrespectful. It took them ages to publish stuff (for us here) they've showed to everyone on SXSW. That's, again, disrespectful. Now, 24 hour marathon stream. Many (including me) thought they would release it afterwards, as they did before. But they didn't. Some people got offended. I, actually, did not, since they haven't promised to do so. I'm quite okay, got other stuff to do. What I am against is the usage of vague statements. You have to be definitive, or otherwise, not to speak at all, IMO.

Just stop saying "SOON" then. It's done when it's done, whatever. But do NOT hype us with "SOON".

It was a rhetorical question. Devs said many many times that they won't try to limit players in any way.

And how do you fix "MOAR BOOSTERS" spam?

I also forgot to mention that I'm laughing at the stereotype that "MJ = autopilot". MJ was always the most reliable, better supported and capable mod. Engineer and others appeared much later, and were not as popular/reliable (better supported) as MJ. Things changed a bit nowadays, but my point is still standing.

When I started playing KSP (August 2012), I figured how to get into orbit without any mods. But since UI in KSP is, well, lets just say "bad", I started using MJ for information panels. Got to use Smart A.S.S. in the process. Don't even remember if there were any automation functions (other than Smart ASS) in MJ at that time, but even in MJ 2.0, I've never used them. The most important thing MJ brough to me was delta-v calculator. I was able to calculate craft's parameters since like day 1 by hand, but it was too tedious. If it wasn't for MJ, I probably would've end up in "MOAR BOOSTERS" camp with more casual players, or just stopped playing. I'm glad I didn't, but now I hate SQUAD for their game design decisions (lack of informational panels in flight view, delta-v/twr/mass/etc in VAB, etc). Shame on them. I switched to Engineer quite a while ago, btw, but that's another story.

Another set of parts that doesn't fit visually with older ones? Really? That escape tower? Pfff. I'm refusing to believe these are real.

Bac9 said some interesting words in his "The Making of: New KSC" blog. Look at "It’s not Kerbal?" part. It saddens me to see that he left the team and other devs don't support his ideas, at just stick with sloppy designs (Rapier engine as the latest example, so as most of the inconsistency in stock parts, as other) and "moar boosters" theme. It's very, very sad.

Unmanned probes. Love them. Here's some of them, enjoy: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.

Here's how I put one materials bay on a lander, beneath the lander can. (clickable)

Materials bay is okay for it's size, but that doesn't mean that there's no need for more science equipment, including probe-sized experiments. There's certainly a lot of room for improvement in this area.

Community isn't hyped enough yet, so definitely no.

Right. Why would anyone stream or at least record joint NASA-SQUAD panel? Why would anyone post to the whole player base something other than a blurry image of an asteroid? It's not like it was a planned event, right, so that you have all your media material ready beforehand?

Greater than what? I've watched the whole thing, and Max didn't say much of anything that can be described like that. What you probably wanted to say is that Chad aka C7 was talking more about x64 bit version of KSP for Windows during (20:35+) with Scott, Doug Ellison and C7.

Oh, I've got a few lines ready for KSP 1.0 release that I think won't need any correction by that time: SQUAD is just like an SRB. It was flying up, and then burnt out. It got to its Apoapsis somewhere near 0.18, but then started falling back to the ground, failing to achieve stable orbit. They've made their "one small step", but were unable to move any further after that. That's how it is now. And I don't think it'll change. Unfortunately. PS: I can't forgive them for not giving us engineering/in-flight info and still not fixing the UI (anyone still likes to fly in map view? I don't).

Unfortunately, we're not suppose to talk about our concerns in this forum. And this thread will certainly get locked up.

I think you guys are actually missing my point here. Advanced reentry and consequential G-force damage mechanics (that are represented by Deadly Reentry mod) are great not because they're "realistic", but because it's a solid piece of Player vs Environment game design. It creates a set of certain clear rules about how Environment affects player, and the player in his turn can react on it in a way he thinks is better for him. What are player's options? Doing aerobraking without use of heat shields in upper atmo, or using them to get deeper and being able to aerocapture, use smaller landers with smaller shields, or using larger ones with inflatable shields, use his old space station as a disposable heat shield, or just go watch explosions on your way back home. Basically, it's awesome because it expands the gameplay in-depth, not because it makes the game realistic. And, actually, the way Deadly Reentry works isn't realistic too much as you might think. Wanna know what's actually "realistic"? http://youtu.be/aW5ozq4Tqew You're actually wrong about them leaving the community. They post stuff about development quite frequently. Dunno much about documents and part tools, I'm not a mod maker.

The way I see things are going? No, I don't think it will. So far, it doesn't look that it's gonna happen, even after 1.0. But I'd be glad to be proven wrong, though.

Probably, you got the idea wrong. What I was saying is that It's not gonna make it into 1.0. Not that it will be made somewhere around the release date.