Shuttle

1.1 feature list, please.

I agree. You need to spend recources to upgrade a space center so if Tier 1 is removed balance in career mode will be ruined. Isn't 5° too much? It looks like it is possible to clip parts into the fuselage using new gizmo system? I still don't understand why you decided to implement destructible buildings. If I want to blow something up, I'll launch Battlefield, destructible buildings simply do not play major role in KSP. You said not all new Mk3 parts would be included in .90. Is there any chance we'll see all new Mk3 models in .90? I don't understand. If you care so much about community feedback, then why do you show your assets at the last moment? It would be more logical to show WIP content in order to gather feedback until it is too late and the only option you have is to start from the blank page.

You can use Windows Enterprise for 270 days, actually. All you need to do is to use slmgr -rearm command. Run command prompt as administrator, type slmgr -rearm, press Enter, reboot. Guide with pictures: http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-7/extend-the-windows-7-trial-from-30-to-120-days/

I have a stupid question. As you can see, two vertical stabilizers are clipped into the fuselage. I guess that if I press and drag the green arrow, I will be able to move them up and down? In other words, it is possible in .90 to select a stabilizer, place it on the fuselage and then clip a stabilizer inside the fuselage using green gizmo?

Nostalgia? Nostalgia.

OK, I have a stupid question. As you can see, two vertical stabilizers are clipped into the fuselage. I guess that if I press and drag the green arrow, I will be able to lift them up? I am asking because all parts in current version of KSP are attached to the connection points or surfaces and you can't clip them into the fuselage.

If Kuznetov say their engines worked fine because they worked fine then that means they are pulling statements out of their ass. To say honestly, I don't understand why they might want to do that because the truth will get out anyway.

YES! I am so glad!! It must be Ukrainian fuel tank then, poor guys

I can't google this statement. Help needed

I made screenshots of this moment, watch them from top to bottom: http://i.imgur.com/dS6979Y.jpg http://i.imgur.com/2ga1NXM.jpg http://i.imgur.com/fKvO2zj.jpg http://i.imgur.com/XZWfhwh.jpg Looks like an explosive bolt (?). Also, as someone has already said, flame color changed a couple of seconds before the explosion: //top to bottom http://i.imgur.com/tPlyvtT.jpg http://i.imgur.com/C94SJry.jpg http://i.imgur.com/ZNog7AB.jpg

I am not a rocket scientist but it looks like 100% engine failure to me. Reminded me of the second N1 launch: http://youtu.be/TqUG5NnHlCs?t=5m45s If the engine is indeed the reason of failure, I definitely would like to know if it is an engineering error or fundamental design flaw. Also, how did this engine pass all Aerojet QA?

I think it is an awesome idea! Two new contract types: Ignition test: ignite the engine in certain conditions Max burn time test: burn the engine for 50/110/150 seconds in certain conditions Hm, I've just had a thought: why not to add Max burn time parameter to all engines?

I didn't know about CVEL and Velcro, thank you. Does Velcro have the same physical model as in KSP where physics is calculated for every part of the rocket or it simply welds all parts together and calculates physics for the rocket as a whole? I hope my question is easy to understand, my English is pretty bad.

What?! KSP is still the only game that allows you to build the rocket yourself.

Sorry if repost https://twitter.com/Maxmaps/status/524974197551149056

OK, here is what I think of traits: reducing heat generation - NO!!! boosting thrust - NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! increasing fuel efficiency - NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! boosting science output - I can live with that Why? Two reasons: 1. Pilot can't increase ISP or thrust no matter how skilled he is 2. KSP is a game about sharing your experience with others. There are 96,630 posts in Spacecraft exchange forum. If you implement Kerbal Exp system as is, players won't be able to share crafts from the career because ship performance will depend on pilot. Ships made for sandbox will also be useless in career mode I vote "no". Please, don't turn KSP into Call of Duty.

http://i.imgur.com/DKc4Pzt.jpg http://i.imgur.com/v7dDhdO.jpg I saw this image under the title "Houston, you have a problem":D http://i.imgur.com/xgmYvVR.jpg My favourite: http://i.imgur.com/AWPyLkr.jpg Another one: http://i.imgur.com/pe7giBl.jpg

http://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/2jk4cz/short_on_funds_commit_space_fraud/ I am so glad there will be game over. I like challenge

I personally think developers should add as many contract types as possible. I don't understand why this particular contract didn't make it to the release.

If your GPU is supported, use ShadowPlay (Nvidia) or Raptr (AMD). These free official utilities allow to record games using GPU's built-in hardware encoder without any fps loss (~5% in the worst case). Otherwise use MSI Afterburner. It is also free.

Yes! KSP2 on UE4.5 with SVOGI and Havok

I am uninterested in .25 at all because I play only sandbox mode. I am afraid it won't be interesting for me to finish career mode more than once so I'll give career mode a go when it is scope complete - that means when .90 is released

I am very glad to hear aerodynamics will be reworked. I hate current physical model because it has nothing to do with logic and basic laws of physics. Plane doesn't fly better if you install 133 wings on the nose. However, I am disappointed nothing was said about other important features currently lacking in the game, such as: separate thrust control (useful for shuttles) reworked UI (why not to place navball closer to the left/right edge of the screen?) Proper ISP implementation (in .25 fuel consumption changes throughout the flight instead of thrust) fairings (have you ever seen a rocket without fairings?) clouds/weather effects (because it is funny to launch a rocket right in the middle of the thunderstorm. Just don't forget to switch SCE to auxiliary ) deadly reentry (because it adds excitement, right now the process of reentry is plain boring: just make sure your Pe is lower than 70 km, press space and go drink some tea. I believe de-orbiting shouldn't look like that, it is a very risky process, you all know what happened to Columbia) If developers are going to add these features in beta - I am ok with that, if not - son_i_am_disappoint.jpg Yes! That's exactly what I was thinking! I hope Squad won't forget about hardcore players.

It is not Stockalike Station Parts Expansion Hello, Tsar!

I think this mod will be integrated: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/91814-0-25-Stockalike-Station-Parts-Expansion-%2809-10-2014-new-3-75m-parts%29 Squad will never add any mod like FAR or Transfer Window Planner to KSP because they add 3rd-party code. That means Squad will depend on modders in case they need to modify the code in the future. They surely don't want that (do you remember what happened to the intern they hired? He left the company as soon as new parts were ready!). But that's just my opinion