Stargate525

You're probably looking for Infernal Robotics.

"We're going to have you stretch hab canvas over the hole." "Oh, a ragtop. Much better."

Not true. The cost is in development time, of Squad putting in yet ANOTHER half-baked system in lieu of bugfixing, balancing, and general polish.

Helps if we have pics. In general, if you're adding fuel tanks and you're not getting farther, your thrust to weight ratio is probably off. If it's real sluggish off the pad, you're losing a lot of fuel keeping your rocket moving against gravity.

All of this. This is the only game I know off that didn't perform a single release DURING THEIR BETA. It entered beta, and the next release was 1.0

For the first time in several version iterations, I've completed the tech tree in career. Beyond the 80+ pieces of debris forming a rather horrifying cloud (6km flybys on launch) around Kerbin, I have three major abandoned pieces around the system Eisenhower 4 Station - Not... exactly a station, this is the science module of my manned mission to Duna. The thrust module was at bingo fuel, and I was quite happy I opted to stick a docking port there in case I needed to strip the vessel down to save weight. It has power, some science experiments, and could theoretically be operational with a command module of some sort (and a crew, obviously). Eisenhower 4 Voyager - The remains of the thrust module. Five liquid fuel tanks, four NERVAs, a command module, and a solar panel. I re-entered kerbin retrograde on accident. The crew was de-orbited via shuttle (carrying over 2000 science in their backpacks), and the vessel has been left to orbit until I decide to try and recover it, or let it crash into the sea. Munar Ore Miner - This thing managed to fly itself to Mun, land, and mine 900 ore. I forgot to attach radiators to the thing, it's underpowered, and under-torqued. Launched into munar orbit, and I'll probably deorbit the thing when I need more ore, since it's a clunky piece of junk. There's also all the satellites I've launched: ConSats 1-7 (short for Contract Satellite), and Observers 1, 2, 3, 3a, 4, and 5 (crapton of asteroid-finders in various solar orbits, which I used to test some of the new engines that came with Near Future Propulsion while filling out contracts.

We're not asking for flawless, we're asking for functional.

I know better. I work customer service.

Wasn't replying directly to you, more for the others watching. Debate's around to sway the listeners, not the opponent. My point is basically to remind people that's the main crux of the problem.

For a game that is being SOLD AS A FINISHED PRODUCT, 'nearly' isn't anywhere NEAR good enough. Old-timers need to get it into their heads that the game is no longer in beta. Come 1.0, the game should be feature-complete, relatively bug free, and fully functional. That includes saving. Something that should have been tested, and never allowed to get out of QA.

Someone ought to tell SQUAD that, if you think it's working like that. KSP's career mode has always struck me more akin to a 'campaign mode' in citybuilders or simulation games; no real story, just objectives and hoops to unluck towards what you start with in sandbox. Making it less of a toy, more of an actual game.

Welcome to the club. I think everyone who's landed on the mun has had to try and recover a tipped lander at one point or another.

It's a Mk3 fuselage. It's attached to the back via the main node. And I tested it empty. COM is still forward of COL

I do. Ahhh... Hmm. That would do it. The only reason I built the thing was to recover one of the heaviest, most expensive engines in my game. And of course, it's bolted onto the back.

Okay. I've got a shuttle-esque replica that flies... sort of. I've got a problem with it I've never encountered before: At low speeds, it flies fine and normally (tested at manual launch from runway and low-speed approach from orbit). At high speeds, however, any deviation more than about 10 or 15 degrees off vector results in it flipping. After which time, it flies perfectly happily... backwards. Attempts to slow in reverse, then bring it back to forward flight are 50/50, but I suspect it's at least partially my piloting in that. COM and COL are appropriately placed.

No one's mentioned that the frikkin CIA decided to mandate the thing needed to be able to hit a polar orbit as well. Mission creep indeed.

That's what he wants, yes. Basically, a way to 'revert' a quickload.

You could have said the exact same thing about ISRU, multiplayer, spaceplanes, orbital mapping, and telecomms. In the case where they didn't simply purchase the mod for assimilation, the version they implemented (or plan to implement) was similar enough to the original that, were this game Youtube, they'd have been hit with copyright strikes.

No. Especially if they add it like they added mineral processing and currently have flight statistics. Unless there is a way for me to see, in game, without manual calculation, the maximum flight time of the ship at the current loadouts in the VAB/SPH, you're only adding another layer of useless undocumented complexity.

I'm sorry, is this a charity or a product? I presume you paid money for this game. Simpering gratitude does no one any good. The way you're saying this, you'd think we're talking about Doctors Without Borders.

IRL planes are much harder than rockets too. The reason you're probably perceiving them to be the opposite is that a) we've had over 150 years of trial and error in manned aircraft development, and b) rockets are much, much bigger than your average aircraft, and so there's much more incentive to get it right, and get it done as cheaply as possible.

That's not what he's saying. He's saying that their rationale is flawed and based on data which is affected by confirmation bias of the issue itself. Squad may or may not listen to the request for stock dV and TwR, but it does ignore the rebuttal to their reply. There is no conversation here, there is decree from on high. That is not communication, that is PR. If that's the relation they want, then they should expect complaints fitting that relationship.

It's... really not. Besides the parts list, the major functions of the game have been in place for a year now. Hell, DOCKING was the last major new functionality to be added, as far as I can remember. Docking, shipbuilding, and a flightsim/physics engine. That's basically it. No story, no plot, a barebones career mode...

Let me rephrase. If any part of the orbit intersects with anywhere the SOI can be, there is a chance of deflection. It becomes less likely, but it is still non-zero.

Small point of order; an inclination change will greatly reduce the chance of an SOI interaction, but not eliminate it. Unless they're in a perfectly resonant orbit, anything within a SOI-shaped shell around Kerbin will eventually succumb, as long as the orbit is inside the nominal SOI on the ecliptic.