georgTF

Well in the above example, it all depends how much time the Kerbal has left before life support runs out. With TAC way back when, i've had most manned craft equpped to survive 7-20 days per Kerbal if they were intended for Kerbin and it's moons, much more if they were interplanetary. I did have to rescue 4 Kerbals from the Mun within that time limit. Initially just one, but each recue attempt failed and needed rescuing... Eventually they returned safe and sound to a MKO station and then home.

I have played TAC previously and loved it. It did eventually boil down to having to add the same bunch of parts to each manned craft without adding to gameplay. If you forgot a part, Kerbals died so you made sure not to forget. Net result was generally a slightly higher part count for craft and very little else. I do like TAC still, but i can understand why Squad would skip integrating a feature with trivial gameplay benefits. It's one of those ideas that doesn't seem like it can miss in theory, but is not so impressive in practise.

Not everyone moaned. And nobody expected the soup to return. Also, seems roughly half the players are happy with 1.0.2 aero, with the other half split between complaining that it's less fun or too draggy for their taste.

In flight (landed too) F10 - temperature warning. on by default. F11 - heat overlay F12 - aero overlay + Steam screenshot you can toggle each on/off as you please.

Yeah but then you have 1.x parts flying in 1.0 aero or other issues.

I like the career in 1.x and don't play sandbox. Previously career was a thing to try but not really much. The one thing i have allways like about it though, is the way it restricts parts and forces me to create craft witin limits. It's probably not perfectly balanced or intuitive but so far i have enjoyed the lower tiers without any grinding. On hard, managing basic suborbital and athmospheric flight opens up contracts and raises funds/science to unlock orbital flight and upgrade the launchpad to support heavier rockets at which point rewards increase with satellites, rescues and Munar flybys. It's sucky if you don't like dealing with aeroplanes or sats or using low tech parts, or having a budget or other restrictions.

I meant the overall rating they give when enough are piled on. Overwhelmingly positive games tend to be actually good, while "mixed" reviews indicate either some problems or a hit-or-miss game. For example i really like Shattered Planet or Risk of Rain but a lot of people find them too simplistic or otherwise lacking. Individual reviews are a good source of fun or depression, depending on what you're in the mood for.

I don't think the poll is entirely fair. There are issues with 1.0 and 1.0.2 and the aero model has to work accurately for all planets which makes tweaking it a problem. For me, 1.0 was by far the most enjoyable but parachutes and shields were badly broken so how can i endorse it? It had no soup so it gets the vote i guess, but it's not perfect.

Steam reviews, though usually the absolute worst in quality and biased as they are, are a pretty good gauge of wheter a game is worth bothering with or not. No stars, no numbers, just yes or no and tell us why. Flip through a few, then read the negative ones to see if there's anyone serious about the game's faults and i've got a pretty good idea what to expect.

I don't know how i can completely agree with the OP with regard to 1.0, but at the same time i cannot escape feeling deflated after trying to enjoy 1.0.2. I have tried 3-4 times and played for about 6-10h but i allways close the game feeling it's not how it should be. Funny thing is, i spent most of my game time in 1.0 complaining. But also adapting and re-trying and having a good time overall. Invulnerable parachutes sucked though ^^

On the subject of fun v realism, it may have been a tad unrealistic to rapidly fly a 2-seater plane with a single Basic Jet over to the desert west of KSC, but in 1.0.2 the thing is so slow i got bored just flying over the mountain range. My early career science is invested in aeroplanes and i'm pretty put off by the patch. Honestly "all that was needed" was to make parachutes vulnerable, and i suppose the nukes and whatnot else was fixed. So some players went nuts going way too fast and breaking certain mechanics, but so what? It's their game too. No reason to make it tedious for me. I'll wait for the wahmbulance now...

I too feel this way. Most of the debate revolves around SSTOs, but i've only played career and never got that far. 1.0.2 is not a fun/good/sensible KSP to play for me. I'm very dissapointed and don't really have much of a choice. Play 1.0.0 with the indestructible parachutes, 1.0 bugs but aero i enjoyed and stay away from 1.0.2 that the rest of the world is now playing and getting used to OR... play 1.0.2 with the inconsistent aero i strongly dislike? I really feel stupid starting 1.0.0 but, but...

Yes. Setting it to 700 in the VAB is a good idea. Maybe more.

I would not mind having to readjust to a new model so soon, if it were a better model. This is a different model and not neccesarily a happy one for all. Right now i'm too butthurt to offer a valid opinion, but i can at least say that making parachutes destructible is a good thing. There are a few more issues to sort out regarding drag at low altitudes or possibly the new fins are buggy. The merits of finned rockets descending to low altitudes aside, it is surreal that a rocket pointing upwards sheds velocity, while the same rocket accelerates towards the ground when pointed down. Having a parachute attached but not fully deployed seems to have very very little effect. I don't know what is going on. Is this some bug with the new fins? Here is an example (480p on stream, not the greatest quality but you should be able to see m/s. might need to squint): http://www.twitch.tv/frumple1/v/4589148 Another low altitude oddity. Once again parachutes behave oddly. http://www.twitch.tv/frumple1/v/4588651

The soup is madness. I'm happy that chutes break up now, but the aero can behave very unrealistically in some cases. Maybe 1.0 did not allow air and drag to affect returning rockets (i'll ignore planes because i 've no dog in that fight) but the 1.02 is "weird" and inconsistent. Maybe the new fins are buggy or my head is screwed on improperly but i have never seen KSP change laws of physics mid-flight before. I don't know how to fly anymore.

Thanks for the tips. I just eyeballed it and got it completely wrong. If it makes me look less bad, i haven't played KSP since ARM came out so my memory was a bit vague. I also prefered Minmus because of it's feathery gravity and never really tried a "Mun rising" burn before. Because Mun is too gray and too heavy and not made out of ice cream.

Ow. I did a boo-boo. I tried a Munar pass without conics thinking it's reasonably easy to get close by burning prograde when the Mun is above horizon. That part was easy and reaching the Mun was no prob. Once in Mun's SOI, i realised that Jeb was on a collision course. So without nodes i tried to recall how i used to do it in the past and luckilly guessed right and managed to raise Pe to 33km. Wonderfull pass, lots of thermal readings and EVA reports over the biomes. Then Jeb left the SOI and went to see how the gravity affected the trajectory... whoops i seem to have given him a hell of a slingshot. He's practically a comet now. Not dead, but it will be a looong time before i can attempt a rescue. Fair warning to all who would skip on the expensive conics upgrade. You may reach the Mun's SOI, but you have no clue what happens next (Obviously this applies only if you're passing, not if you're landing). As luck would have it, Val got stranded in a craft with no parachutes and needed a pilot to bring her down. I hope Bob+OKTO probe can pull it off otherwise our program is out of luck. A rendesvous without conics is not too difficult to pull off, but will surely waste a lot of fuel. The reason i skipped the upgrade is because i spent money on EVA and launchpad upgrades. That tonnage limit was making it impossible to reach orbits higher than LKO.

I've found the suggestions helpfull and in case anyone is reading through and struggleing with the same i'd like to report back with a few "findings". Mastering a simple aircraft 2-seater, preferably with a thermometer can be a huge bonus to science and cash income after the early windfall from establishing orbit peters out. It's quick, easy to fly, typically easy to land though your mileage may vary and you can score some survery contracts that pay pretty well. Typically they involve flying around KSC area and radioing reports. Since the basic jet engine is also a powerplant, a simple aerial will help you nab plenty of science, and you can easily fly over highlands or towards the desert. Best of all, landing back at KSC recovers at 100% so the only cost of the trip is spent fuel. Make sure you pay attention to survey requirements, because some require a high-altitude Turbo-Jet plane. Another (smaller) benefit of having basic aircraft parts is that you can build a wingless one that acts like an early rover. Load up on Science Jrs. and Goo, slap some thermometers and cruise around KSC collecting science. if you run out of power for radio transmissions, engage the brakes fully and power up the jet engine to recharge. It wont yield too much, but enough to offset the cost of investing in tech. Tourist contracts turned out to indeed be a bit of a dead end. Sub-orbitals can be done dirt cheap but pay about as much and orbitals plain suck. Without a solar panel, it's still posible and desirable to have a satellite in orbit. I filled up a service bay with 6 batteries and 1 thermometer, stuck an aerial on the side and attached it all to a stayputnik. It fulfilled 3 "science from Kerbin orbit" contracts so far and still has 620 power left. A munar pass is very risky to try without solar panels. Battery spam might help. A biger headache for me was the tight restrictions on the size and weight of my contraption. I can get (maybe) 1 Kerbal into the Mun's SOI, but other than a crew report and EVA report, it won't get much science. It will fulfill a Munar Pass contract though. EVA suits upgrade is totally worth it. Much better than upgrading the VAB first. Don't forget that you don't need to achieve orbit to perform EVAs over Kerbins biomes, you can make a suborbital hop and pass several. I covered grasslands, highlands, shores and water on my way to a polar landing, so that was a very succesfull flight for it's cost. Finally, considering how diverse the KSC is regarding science farming, i was disappointed to find nothing but grasslands at the island runway. Finally, finally. Though some have labeled the early science farming programmes a "grind", i have so far enjoyed every attempt. They can be tedious, but they can be fun too. It all depends on how you approach the problem and how you try to solve it. I usually do "a bit reckless" followed by "irresponsible and haphazard" and the results have been fun. And firey. And costly.

Thank you very much for the suggestions. I do not have EVA yet, but will try to get docks for a Mun or Minmus lander. Minmus, if memory serves, is about as easy to reach as the Mun and is easier to for for science. Though not having conics and the 30 part limit might make it out of reach for now. But nevermind, the Mun is within reach and hopefully a pilot+scientis team can earn a bit of science for upgrades. Should be a cheap rocket too. My bigger headache is the VAB,EVA and conics upgrades as they cost a lot. The docking port is a great suggestion. If i could find Minmus i'd go there because it's low gravity allows for easy returns... and horrible re-entry angles ^^ Mun will be easier with a docking port. Part of me is overjoyed at being expected to do a return Mun or Minmus mission, with some usefull science, in under 30 parts/18 tons. o.O That's... hardcore. I will use satellites, thanks for that tip. Don't have any probes or solar panels yet though. Fortunately researching in that direction will also yield the thermometer and pressure sensor. Those unlocks help pay for themselves. And not having EVA sucks. I thought saving up for the VAB would be the smart thing to do, but am now seeing that might be incorrect. EVA reports should also help unlock parts, and at the same time contracts for those parts. I've got a few contracts for 2 tourists, sub-robital. Very easy to do with the Mk1 inline pod, and the only cost is fuel and some grabage cans thinly disguised as boosters. 14k isn't much but at least it's something. Now if they want a full orbit... let's just say the ticket price better increase to match. It does seem that i'm not getting any profitable contracts because i haven't unlocked some important techs. Without docks, or EVA, or comfortable Munar passes, most the contracts are for (difficult) athmospheric part tests or lously sub-orbital tourist hops. I'm going to steer my research towards satellites, docks and rescue missions. Once again. Thanks a lot.

I don't think it's lame at all. I tried full hard mode but having to safely land every single failed launch became very tedious. Once i was sure the Kerbals were gonna live, waiting to touchdown became so boring. I also went after unmanned probes early only to discover i can't lock SAS, then spent moar science on a SAS module... that also doesn't work without a living pilot. I was starved of science at that point and started a new career. I chose hard settings except i enabled reverting and quicksave. I've yet to use quicksave. I may never use it, but i do revert rocket launches on occasion (never to save Kerbals from death, i like the having to think about actually bringing them back in one piece). I spent forever trying to reach orbit in finless rockets and lucked into it early with Jeb, but after adding science bits to the rocket i failed a million times. Investing in fins turned out to be a huge success. For some reason (my s****y piloting) i can't reach the poles with a rocket that comfortably reaches orbit. Long story short, having the luxury of reverting flights is a huge bonus. Though if you use it too often you fail to learn and stick to the lessons learned. Think of every time you revert a flight as a major failure on your part. I like the idea of risking Kerbals and plan to use manned capsules for virtually everything, BUT i need some way of sanely testing certain contraptions. On the subject of hard settings... anyone got any tips on earnng money? I'm at 140k and have no idea how to raise 450k needed to upgrade the VAB. Contracts don't pay jack and i'm starting to think i may never even launch a flight "just for myself". I guess i should figure out the cheapest way to shoot tourists into suborbital hops and wait for the occasional 20k+ contract i have a hope of fulfilling. I like having restrictions in place and being forced to figure out a way around them, but i'm wondering about these huge prices and the meagre trickle of science. I have boosters, the T-30, 909, Mk1 and Mk1 inline pods and FINS of glorious rocket non-cartwheeliness. Starved for science, struggleing to reach past the Kerbin dessert. Do i milk tourism? KSC area science? Try for a Munar pass? All of the above?

I apologise for possibly going a little off-topic but i find the parachutes unrealistic only when the entry angle is too steep or too shallow. To be honest that's most of the time, and abolutely they need to burn up or break off when the player gets it wrong (and Kerbals need to be killed by huge G forces). Initially i was irritated to see parachutes magically save Kerbals from certain death, but since i was trying to play permadeath i was also more carefull and kept re-entry speeds on my mind. I was pleasently surprised to find that in some cases parachutes worked exactly as you'd expect them to. They reduced speed very gradually and the g-force indicator hovered in the red zone but never maxed out. Visually it looked "realistic" as well. I guess these are the scenarios testers were using most of the time to see if things work as intended. Long story short, when the angle is too steep the craft experiences extreme heat and g-forces and the parachute is unrealistically strong. It does not burn nor break off and can reduce speed very suddenly in ways that nature never intended. When the angle is too shallow, the craft accumulates heat for a longer period of time at altitudes where the parachute cannot deploy to slow it down. The parachute should be incinerated once it's deployed. If you get the angle right, the parachute deploys as the craft begins to heat up then gradually and almost gently bleeds off excess speed. They are broken though, in the sense that they will allways do their programmed job, no matter what the speed, altitude or heat have to say. Yes, i tried deploying chutes at the moment the craft enters the athmosphere. In fact i've begun staging chutes before the last decoupler on rockets that do not use heat shields. Of course they don't work until the correct athmospheric conditions but once deployed they get to work immediatley. They currently forgive unrealistic flying, though if you fly correctly they work more realistically.

FTL Faster Than Light had tons of bugs and something like 10-15 patches came out for it after release, sometimes fixing bugs you could not believe were not spotted before. But it's been an awesome game since 1.0 and the patching did not hurt it's reputation. KSP has been awesome since alpha. Eventually Suqad would have to bite the bullet and push 1.0 out. That was kinda my whole point, that no matter how hard you try to eliminate bugs, you will allways have some once you reach 1.0 because it will have by far the largest player base so far (though KSP is an anomaly in this case because it already has a large base and a long alpha period), and it's better to get it out of the way rather than go through several incremental bugfix releases. Such releases lack the momentum of a major release and can sometimes delay the problems rather than help. What was unfortunate about this release was that all excited KSP fans got to watch the bugs on streams but Squad had already put KSP in code-lock. But they're only human, and humans miss bugs in the code. A month from now everybody should have happy memories of finding new ways to crash new parts, and not the release issues. Squad could have helped themselves by reminding the fanbase that critical or numerous bugs were likely given what a major release this was going to be.

Only once a game is fully released as 1.0 and hundreds and thousands of people install it and play it on extremly diverse hardware/OS/driver combinations can you truly discover just how many bugs are still left in the game. Bugs no dev team could hope to squash before release even if they took a year to bug test it. Squad has a good track record of fixing bugs and supporting KSP and i'm pretty sure they were aware that 1.0 would be a difficult release.

Just wanted to chime in and say that i've been a happy customer of GOG. DRM is a non-issue for me unless it's annoyingly intrusive (i'd forgive e-license, don't mind Anno 2070 using UPlay, etc.) In some cases having no DRM is usefull if you can keep several copies installed, mod/break them in diffrent ways or eliminate lag/CPU use since there's no wrappers/clients wasting resources. That said, GOG should hurry up and get a nice Steam-like client out already because the convevience of having your purchases in a library from which you can install/uninstall/update/whatever is nice to have. Contacting friends and playing together is another obvious bonus as is cloud storage. Whenever the client gets released it will stay optional so people who find clients abhorrent wont be affected, which is a nice bit of customer support. For now, the "library" is a webpage tied to your account with all purchased games neatly arranged. You manually download installers, update patches when they come out or bonus items such as avatars, wallpapers or whatever else. Though this process is manual, there is no DRM whatsoever. Just the bare game. [There are very rare cases of very old, hard to crack games that contain copy protection and you have to type in a word or correctly identify a vehicle or something. The correct anwsers are included for you. Master of Orion 1 does this, but the practise is incredibly rare.] By far the greatest appeal of GOG is the support they throw at older games. Retail legal copies may fail to work on newer hardware or OSs but with some black magic the GOG team sorts them out and makes them playable. Think games older than 10 years. The classics. This is partly why i like GOG and consider them as usefull competition to Steam. Origin or Uplay just do what Steam does but typically they do a worse job. Uplay has some nice features but also annoying issues and DRM levels that turn off many people. I can't accurately speak for Origin because i would not take even a free game from the service. Desura deserves a shout out as well, they focus on indies.

- Struts - Fuel Lines - Radial attachment point Can't build without those.