DocMoriarty

I don't really care. It has always been a good idea to start a new career in new releases due to minor, often hidden, incompatibilities. And there is still the option to copy craft files from old saves to new ones and refine them if needed.

- Navball in map view sunken in + blocking input - total superflous and every flight I have to pull it up, every single one - Butt-black planet shadows in map view. Map is for navigation and therefore there should be some ambient light so that i can actually see something, for example where KSC is when it's night - Destroying action groups when mirrored parts are detached and re-attached and declaring that total stupidity as 'intentional'. If I want control on a single part I attach a single part! - Inconsistent part design, for example 1.25m mono tank not side attachable while all other 1.25m tanks and the same looking 0.625m tank is side attachable - SAS, SAS and SAS, and probably SAS - Unfinished stuff getting into release version like the medium and large gears which lack turning wheels, steering and lights - unreasonable balance like the old rover wheels weighing 75kg while the much larger gray ones are 50kg a pop - Super sub genious flight UI with altitude displayed on top and speed on bottom of screen. Any engineer designing a dashboard like that in aviation would get fired ASAP. Of course all important information has to be displayed in one place. You always have to look up and down and up and down and up and down and up and down and up and down when trying to land somewhere. How retarded! - 'Disable Crossfeed' on docking ports ignored and people seriously trying to explain this is intended or this has been in always which means it's a Bug since ... always, guys grow a brain and then think about what the words 'disable crossfeed' mean! - Missing close window buttons in some UI-windows such as the new scanner UI or the review science stuff window. ... do i have to right click the scanner part to toggle it there off? Anyone find a more tedious way? Or click thru all that science stuff ... - Lack of Multi Function Display (MFD) that displays most important current trajectory info and current target info in external view as well as in internal view as instrument (HarvesteR should not only have advertised KSP in Orbiter forum but also played it). - totally sub-average coding of parts of the program (resource lag) which should never have made it into a release version -> total dev and QA fail! - and so on and so forth, I bet I forgot quite a few things - SQUADs track record of not fixing anything of the above which shows major disrespect of paying customers

Another thing related to action groups would be the generation of "dashboards" for each module in an assembly that consists of multiple modules so that you can access the action groups only for one module. Example: tug + space station + landers + rovers + satellites. People using AG's usually have standardized action groups but the action group to start main engines would start them on all the modules. With a dashboard UI that lets activate AG's only for one module that wouldn't be a problem. The UI would be kinda tree on the left side showing all "modules" and their hierarchy and the dashboard for the current selected module (a lander or a rover etc.) on the right side which consists of buttons for all AG's but probably also all the property settings for parts in that module.

Good find. Always wanted to rename stuff in tracking station. Yet one of these totally unintuitive features hidden in the game since SQUAD is simply too lazy to add buttons for them in the UI.

0.22-0.24 were the best. I had space trains up to 1100+ parts which played like 300part ones today. I hope this will be fixed with the new version.

There are a couple more problems with current jet engines and VTOL capability. 1. Reaction Time of Engines Currently small deltas in thrust setting take as long to process as large deltas. Small deltas should take only a short time to be executed though. The current simulation makes it really hard to precisely fly VTOL's because usually you are overdoing thrust changes due to that behaviour. 2. Changed COM It's now impossible to create a well balanced VTOL with current jet engines due to the totally superflous and false change of COM of jet engines. COM comes out always way too high. COM isn't even ok for normal airplane building now anymore and completely unintuitive being way outside the model. The current COM really doesn't make sense, this is what you get when combining intake+nacelle+engine: Resulting COM in this assembly should be in the center of the nacelle. Turn this vertical and you know why it's impossible to create a well balanced VTOL that looks somewhat non-retarded.

I really hope that TriggerAU being now in dev team also means that Kerbal Alarm Clock is now added to stock game which is really really missing! Once you start to go to other planets it's a must have.

Not a lot of us have the T-shirt to prove it!

I don't necessarely need more realism because i like that it is a GAME. But i would pay premium prices for a more professional development and bug fixing attitude. Right now they hop from topic to topic leaving a trail of unfinished, inconsistent parts and bugs delivering half baked stuff.

That has nothing to do with selfishness or so. Multiplayer will have impact on the game by making otherwise unnecessary compromises in design and functionality which might pretty much destroy the original game. Selfishness expresses itself pretty much tho in people demanding MP for a game that is the perfect example of where not to add MP.

I have landing gears on my recover pod vessel and use them even when I land in water. They take the initial shock so that the payload on the claw doesn't get hurt.

I designed a new arc-class space transporter. It's probably one of my best space planes ever due it it's functionality and simplicity, at least the final version. It's for payloads up to 3t though the other main payload determining factor these days is drag but we have no numbers for that in game sadly (such as a cw value estimate or something). Here is the first version with a payload of 2 atmosphere landing test satellites for my upcoming Eve mission. The wing setup with the front elevators was choosen due to the f'd up COM of jet engines or otherwise perfect balance and alignment wouldn't be possible. Here it's delivering the satellites to the Eve mission assembly. Due to the extensions that hold the rudders and the 'spine' docking them to the ship was pretty tricky. Actually had to bring the docking ports on ship and sats (they are stackable) close together and then undocked them from space plane which pushed them right onto the port on the ship. Then did a 2nd payload - a lander for Gilly and remodelled the plane saving 7 parts but keeping same functionality and even improving weight, drag and performance. Part count matters a lot these days. Removed the extensions that held the rudders and replaced the spine by a single wing part. Payload on this plane is during atmospheric ascent inside a fairing ... ... which is then removed in space. That completed the assembly of the Eve mission vessel and it was finally ready bring it's crew and prepare for launch to Minmus for final refueling. My 'space trains' are somewhat small these days due to resource/physics lag. They had 1000+ parts in former versions but nowadays I try to stay below 300 and send more ships if needed.

Of course KSP 1.0.x was rushed out, there are a lot of indications for that and it's certainly the most bugged version ever, at least since 0.19 or so when i started to play.

I hope KSP never ever becomes any type of multiplayer, be it online or offline because due to it's nature of relying on real physics it needs time compression and anything deviating from that (such as FTL, Teleports or Wormholes, Supercruise or whatever) will take away from the true core of the game. That said, any type of MP will certainly drive me away from the game. Not every game needs multiplayer or is suitable for MP. IMO they should improve the game and stick to single user instead of wasting time and resources on MP.

Beta already? Are you sure?

I wouldn't mind getting some worth to mention sounds at all, not only for rockets but also ambient sounds like in chatterer (wind, breathing in space suit, ...) or more rattling while in aerobraking and so on and so forth. Currently we have broken sound and music in space center view, crackling sounds in map view, no ambient sounds at all. Sound is the worst part of KSP and have always been except for the music itself (IMO) which find suitable and good, just could have a few more tracks.

To make it short, what would be nice would be full access to the games options while in game and apply those immediately that are applyable without restarting. That also depends on what Unity allows to do of course and is certainly not full under KSP's control. I'd personally be content already if the top buttons that get available when moving mouse up would also add a button 'Tracking Station' aside of 'Recover' and 'Space Center' because I'd often like to go directly to tracking station and not have to load twice to get there.

My Jeb usually dies early on in my career saves! Dead Jeb: And tell you what, that sucks!

Of course you can use struts on a vertical rocket, just need to be a bit creative. I use girder segments to do vertical struting like in this image: Edit: Also if I remember right binding forces have been way better in either 0.25 or 0.90 in stock game but they toned it down again because it really was too easy then to build big and heavy.

I don't think it should be stock. This is really a balance thing and this is Kerbal Space Program and not Orbiter or Human Space Program or Realistic Space Program. In Kerbalverse things must wobble and rocket sizes and the binding forces are kinda balanced so that rockets shouldn't get bigger than what you can build in VAB. Also strutting is an art. Always think about gothic cathedrals when applying struts and you are kinda on the safe side. And a wrong placed strut can ruin your day by making it worse, not better. It's a challenge, but IMO a good one. Edit: The only downside to having to use (more) struts is part count and physics lag which is bad in 1.0.x, but i hope unity 5.2 multithreaded pyhsics and hopefully better coded resource allocation in 1.1 iron this out.

I would probably agree with that if it were Human Space Program, but it's Kerbal Space Program which requires some idiotic missions. Also is a good lesson for users. Not fail safe! Hurray! Edit: Actually going suborbital makes sense in a lot of cases. The suborbitals for Mun, Minmus and Kerbin are no problem at all since i often take tourists to pay for my 3-star Kerbonaut trainings flights (->Mun Flags->Minmus Flags->Sun Orbit->Return to Kerbin).

I report it as a bug because IT IS A BUG! When I disable crossfeed this applies to EVERYTHING inclusive electric power, rcs and orange juice! When the program doesn't obey to it's own properties then they can remove the disable crossfeed stuff completely, it makes no sense. I know I can lock the tanks but whats the point? It's plain and simple the usual brainless lazyness and slopyness of SQUAD devs and their QA process, nothing else. Why would i want to disable all resources on a payload when i can have this with disabling crossfeed on the docking port? Thats what it has been implemented for and it would really be nice if that would get fixed after 2 years so that it actually works as intended. NB, this actually worked pre 1.0 when there was still the old logic for draining fuel by jet engines (same logic as for rockets), at least for fuel and it would speed up the process of searching for resources because the search resources sub can stop executing that branch of a model when crossfeed is locked.

I'm all for it although I rarely use mods and not KER or Mechjeb, just chatterer for immersion and Kerbal Alarm Clock for management. So currently I really do it kerbalwise, that is educated guess on dV and rule of thumb for TWR. Rule of Thumb = 12 x Takeoff Weight t = needed thrust kn for takeoff on Kerbin (actually it's 9.81 x TOW to hoover and anything better will make you go up). Example 200t rocket needs 2400kn+ for a good first stage, but anything 2000kn+ will do. They should have added this actually long ago and instead of the (foreseeable) totally superflous engineer report which usually lists 90% unapplying messages for my crafts.

I went thru old photos ...