Stargate525

Someone is going to say it eventually, so with tongue firmly in cheek I present to you: Couldn't help myself.

I *think* the idea is that you attach these to your interplanetary CMs. For Mun and Minmus, it's really not that big of a deal, but I can see how if you're going to any of the mooned systems, especially Jool, the weight reduction not having to haul out six or seven canisters and bays makes the lab worth it. Though... I don't know why you'd be going to other planets that early in your career. I personally would have put it back a little, especially since you can't do experiments with it directly.

For #5, backspace also works. My personal list after a few hours playing: 1- I've noticed that the right click menus are...stickier... than they were in the last version. It used to be that when you click-dragged outside the screen it would remove the window. It doesn't do that anymore as far as I can tell. 2- I'm also getting some major, major lag on menu updates when I transfer science experiments. I hit 'store experiments (2)' and it stays in the menu. Thinking I mis-clicked or it didn't go through (which is also happening a LOT), I click again. and again. About three seconds later I get a massive amount of popups and side information telling me that Jebediah has been juggling all of my experiments in and out of the pod! 3- Would it be possible to let us type in the thrust limits or fuel amounts while we're in the VAB? I can't seem to ever hit exactly 50%, sticking me with either 49.5 or 50.5. It's annoying, and I imagine when I get to more complex mission profiles (space shuttle here I come), I'll need that precision. 4- Could you please make it so that we can change tweakable values via action groups? I have a lifter where the center column runs at 50% throttle until the boosters disengage, then burn full once they drop. Right now that requires manual right-clicking (with the sticky menus) and manually adjusting them up. God knows what I would do if I needed to bring them down in-flight. I'd love to be able to set up a set of action groups that let me run the booster separation and throttle up simultaneously. 5- I know this has been asked elsewhere, but can we get at least one fuel tank that we can fill with just liquidfuel, just oxidizer, or both? 6- Werner von Kerman's lab... yikes. It's shiny, but it is really confusing. Until I did some serious playing around, I thought the 'X found out of Y' was the number of completed experiments versus the total number of available experiments for whatever planet/biome I had selected. It's actually, I think, the number showing of the total you've ever collected. I'm unsure where I would ever need that info. When you click on a side section, it gives number shown, and then number hidden. I don't get this. To me, that's like Google's search page at the bottom telling me that it's found 5,000 results, but hidden 50 billion. Every time I see it I keep thinking that the menu is hiding entries from the category I've selected for some reason. Finally, I have no idea what those bars are underneath each entry. Some are full, some are completely empty, and I can't discern a pattern. As a possible suggestion, I'd make the X found out of Y be the total number of experiments you've done in that planet/of that type/in that biome, or whatever you've got selected. This would tremendously help completionists. I'd also suggest that von Kerman tells us some science he'd like us to bring back. By this I mean that when I unlock, say, the thermometer, I get a big list of greyed-out entries in there which show me just where I can use it. I'm sick of seeing 'temperature scan can't be done here.' >.<

I'd suggest the same drawback as the ion: Super-duper slow and takes a metric ton of electricity.

I agree it's a bad idea. I AGREE that people shouldn't get super angry about a dev decision. But there is a difference between validation and placation. I am a teacher, I've dealt with angry, frustrated children and adults. No amount of logic or reason or telling them to just 'not be angry' will work when they are already there. You admit you're being harsh. This is the WRONG tact. That action is the equivalent of shouting back. You are feeding that anger. Perpetuating it. Potentially turning disappointment and hurt into genuine rage. As cathartic as it sometimes feel to shoot barbs back at them, you CAN'T if you want any hope of a rational discussion from there on out. I recall in one of the earlier threads when you called everything I'd said up to that point... I don't remember exactly, but it wasn't pleasant. Fortunately, I've learned to take people who say that to me very seriously indeed. For almost anyone else... that is an attack on THEM. It's natural to unsheathe the claws and fight back. They might have thrown the first metaphorical punch, but that does not give anyone license to go weapons-free on them and fire back. In a lot of cases, THEY DON'T REALIZE THEY STRUCK FIRST.

I seem to vaguely recall there being a rash of bases suddenly finding themselves ten feet underground or in the sky when we loaded up .22 So there's always a risk. I know I'm starting mine again, simply so I can play with the new science base.

This. A hundred times this. There is no shame in asking 'what do you guys think,' and no guilt in saying 'interesting, but not what we're looking for.' We're going to give them our opinions either way. With more info earlier we'll be able to actually be more helpful.

Cubic octagonal strut? It's my bread and butter. The only real way to turn a hardpoint-mounted item into a radial-mounted one (duna dragchutes, I'm looking at YOU).

Tiberion, I've debated you all weekend. Lean back, step into the shoes of the people you're talking about for a moment. Read what you just wrote up there. It doesn't matter whether you're right or not, or how angry they are or how unreasonable it is. They are angry. And calling it a temper tantrum and them rioters and abusers is NOT going to make them sit down and say 'oh yes, how silly of me.' Well yes. But what instead of just grabbing a generic 'surface sample from X' we could use a drill to grab subsurface samples, or a laser spectrometer to vaporize a sample in orbit and transmit that data. And, it's stored as oxidizer or liquidfuel or any other thing. Insert 'surface sample' resource, hit it with enough power in a specialized part, and reap your rewards. The only problem is keeping straight which dirt is from where.

Very similar to yours, actually. I'm also going to take a look and see if I can't get some sort of high-efficiency booster out of them for my rockets. Jet engine while in-atmosphere, and transitioning to traditional rocket booster once they get too high. I can't wait to see if I can't drop short-stack boosters at 40 or 50 kilometers up. As for the wobbly-ness, I'd suggest looking up Ferram's joint reinforcement... but that gaping hole in its back is always going to be a problem. Have you considered strapping it piggyback onto it, or lowering the landing gear and having it slung underneath?

I think it's because people are assuming a large amount of infrastructure needed to make use of them, which has to be developed. Even to get a refinery on the mun, you have to be able to get a presumably large drill there, power it, have tanks to store it, some way to make use of it... *shrugs* I'm kind of curious to see what they could do with surface samples as a resource, which pays out science when recovered. Or a device that extracts trace elements depending on the biome you can return for cash, or alien artifacts (reason to visit some of the easter eggs) you can collect and return for reputation.

That's the problem, ironically enough. If this were anything but a fantastic game, we'd all be indifferent enough to not be as vitrolic. But the problem is indeed that there also seems to be a perplexing air of anti-critique in here. This resources thing started as a simple question for information. Then people started rallying to squad against the perceived attack, they in turn felt unnecessarily abused... and the trenches were dug. Both sides feel that squad's devs are safe behind their lines, when in all probability they are somewhere in no-man's land in a foxhole, wondering what the heck happened to Peace in Our Time. ...I'm starting to really warm up to this WWI metaphor going on here. n.n

Just like the War of 1812!

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, summer of hope, winter of despair... But in all seriousness, I get you. I'm actually a little jealous that you don't have an entrenched bunker on one side or the other. How's the view? I can't see underneath this helmet and asbestos suit.

1967 Outer Space Treaty. Any radiactive engine put up there has the potential of being a dirty version of a Rod From God. It's a no-go.

I have found through this thread that the least useful parts I have actually BLOCKED from my memory as if they were a trauma. Seriously, I hadn't the faintest inkling that this or the toroidal even EXISTED before I saw them again in here.

I just had to do some serious thinking on this... and I can't tell either. I think they might be sidecommunicating. People here have a point; I've been satisfied with far less info from other alpha games. I think the amount we actually hear from the devs might be spot-on (weekly updates, occasional blogs, etc.), but the stuff we're hearing is failing to tell us what we want to know.

And to quote the footnotes of the same segment... ...Ah. You've removed that little asterisk from in front of the multiplayer. Good on you. Carry on!

tntristan, that's a BIG if. This is how it works right now, and it's a stopgap. Doesn't mean it won't change. I believe that the mission controller mod had a fairly decent simulation of spent stage recovery based on drag and parachutes versus weight. So it is possible.

And ironically, one of the things the community was pretty in-line on that was a definite no was apparently one of the main goals from the beginning... Yes. Communication, and the quality of the communication, is becoming a little bit worrisome to me. Which reminds me. Squad, Mods... If you're going to insist that multiplayer 'has always been a goal of the development team and has always been on the plans...' You MIGHT want to consider revising the 'what not to suggest' thread sticky to reflect that. It currently says what you've been saying to us prior to last week, which was that it wasn't going to be in the main game, so don't even suggest it.

That two people in the community can read the same statement and draw such differing conclusions is, I think, an indication of just how much we need someone on the dev side to be able to sit down with them, understand their position, and then relay it to us. Nothing against the devs at all, but none of them seem to possess that kind of PR talent.

I've done that before among many attempts to get creative with it. Problem then becomes viability in part count. In my Jool mission I was looking to cut parts wherever I could, and using a twelve part setup to get the exact thrust I needed lost out to two radial engines, and simply dealing with the absurd TWR

I disagree on those radials. They're excellent for heavy landers where you need to keep the bottom free for a docking port or something similar. I only wish that there was some sort of step between the and the 24-77 and it's 20kN of thrust and the 55's 120. Most of my landers fall between needing more than 80 thrust, but way less than 240. There's no engine currently in the radial setup for that. As for non-structural parts... I'd probably go with the stayputnik. Low torque, lack of a top mounting node, impossibility to get anything pointing straight out of that orb, means that unless I'm going for a very specific aesthetic, I'll choose the OCTO every time.

Don't forget the SPH. But yeah, I kind of agree. The building is the game, the rest is just performance metric.

Dear Squad, Firstly, thank you for the prompt response! This has cleared a lot of misconceptions and storming... stuff... that we as a community brewed over the weekend. But I do have some questions regarding your statement that I would love to see some clarification on. In your blog, you said that resource mining has been shelved. What does this mean? How is this different from 'on the back burner,' 'in the wings,' or other such positional statements made about various aspects of the game at different times? Is it cancelled, and is it cancelled completely? You've been very careful, I've noticed, to consistently refer to it as 'the old resource-mining.' Before we make assumptions, does this mean that there is some sort of resources mechanic, of SOME type, still planned? If this is the case, even if you're not ready or willing to reveal details, I believe it would assuage the hurt and disappointment amongst some in the community tremendously if you were able to tell us that we have something in the same general vein awaiting us. The way you've spoken (er, typed) seems to suggest you see career mode and end-game as separate items. How do you see these two things interacting? Will we be able to continue our space program from career mode indefinitely, or do you have in mind more of a system such as early sandbox-style games that when you finish the laid out career, you are left with what is essentially the original sandbox mode? Finally, I'd like to very gently ask what we can imply from this: There was very heated debate over the weekend on just what you guys 'must' do. It's got very little to do with the game proper, and I know you have every right to ignore this request, but can we get a statement on what you see your responsibility is to the community, what sort of community/developer interaction we should expect going forward, and how the community can best direct our efforts into helping you make KSP the best game it can be? I'm looking forward to seeing what you've got planned for us in the future, especially tomorrow. Keep up the good work, SG