DocMoriarty

Just a reminder. Who bought KSP i think up to 0.19 or so on Steam gets all future expansions, dlcs and whatnot for free, because it was advertised like that. Later they changed the text and who bought after that will have to pay for DLC's. But i bet they forgot about that already.

Only members with more than 7199 posts get the info about the event. Actually i don't care too much about that stream or event or whatever its called anyway. I want the game, thats all.

I'd be fine with chatterer becoming stock. Don't need the other toys. I'm a KERBAL!

when when when when when ... I mean it's 10/11/2016 8:00pm here ...

Gets obsolete faster than the ink on the pages can dry. Not recommended.

Hmm Munich is right next to Mexico? Riiiight ???

After playing for a few days i must say this is probably the most buggy version of KSP i have ever seen since 1.19. I seriously hope this gets a big bug-fix patch soon. I'm playing plain vanilla right now, so its certainly not mod related.

May 2013

Not sure i like this 'awareness of what contracts I like' feature because it might be pretty missleading and actually make me see less of the missions that i really like to do.

Oh no the small landing gear has been reworked!

Here is my attempt trying to merge the 1.0.5 and the 1.1 branch of this forum message together working out roughly 1597 conflicts: Very nice!

Upgrage is a lot better than Upgrade! Awesome! If the MFD's show meaningful data (which is really missing in stock KSP IVA's) then it would realy be a huge leap for Kerbalkind.

well ... +1

I would actually prefer to wait and not see a rushed out 1.0.5! Other than that good work so far.

Question is, do you also get a lift vector in VAB/SPH for them ?

At least it has no weight!

^This. Saves me the work of making my own post. Thanks.

Stock ships? Really? I thought the whole fun is about creating your own stuff? Seriously I never ever used anything of that stock stuff.

After a while in a career all my payloads and all my rockets are subassemblies. So I usually start with a separator as root part, load a payload assembly, some lander or so or mining rover, tanker etc. and then I load a suitable rocket subassembly that gets this where i want to have it.

If KSP would just be about engineering or about flying or about managing or about researching it would be like any other game. But it's the mix that makes it really outstanding and a challenge and not too repetitive. A lot other top 100 of all times games are genre mixes.

Balloons have a lot of use. Practically all atmospheric planets/moons would be targets for balloons including Kerbin. Especially when we get electric propeller engines for them. Allows great exploration vehicles without the need for huge amounts of energy to propell them or keep them up in the atmosphere. I'm all for balloons!

There is a lot more to 64-bit than just probable improvements due to multithreaded physics. It starts with all memory access commands of the processor being up to twice as fast than now simply due to the double integer width compared to 32-bit. That alone will improve performance quite a bit, especially loading/saving stuff actions and other stuff that transfers a lot of data to/from the CPU. From what i read here though the physics aren't the current reason for the lag and bottleneck of KSP so improving them won't do that much. It's the currently not very bright coded logic of resource (fuel, mono, electricity etc.) access which kinda creates a 'resource map' for every iteration (frame) of the vessel which is not very performant. A logic is needed where this is only created once and then only updated when the composition of the vessel changes (parts exploding, undocking, docking, separating etc.). If this isn't gonna be fixed vessels with 200+ parts will still be laggy, probably not that much but the times where we could do 1000+ part ships won't return without that being fixed. Not holding my breath.

Yeah tweakable thrusters would be nice. Also RCS-thrusters are usually not used to rotate, only to translate and thats why the above post is kinda pointless. Either tweakable or different sizes. I'd kinda prefer the latter and I'd prefer actually new 5-way RCS-thrusters because then you only need 2 instead of 3(!) or 4. They should come in strengths of 0.5kn, 1kn, 2kn, 4kn, 8kn or so. Currently it's really a problem for example to create dockable lightweight probes because their RCS setup weighs as much as the rest of the probe.

Actually impact tolerance of parts landing in water should be taken x 1.5 or 2 or so. @XrayLima Had a weird experience with a detached lab that landed near me on gras. It should have impacted hard but it was in great shape. It broke off some km above ground including the claw it was connected to (due to another bug) and no parachutes or rcu or kerbal on it. I was glad that it didn't vanish though because it was part of the recovery mission I did.

I had this bug very often since my trainings shuttle as well as a recovery ship use the small triangular wing as structural part. And like every 2nd time they had this bug when aerobreaking. I think it might actually be a structural failure of the wing but who knows.