Brotoro

That only considers launching from Kerbin (and other bodies with an atmosphere)! If all of the engines are nerfed, you are going to kill the capabilities of ships in vacuum and especially for ships taking off from airless bodies. Try landing and returning a ship from TYLO before you get too happy with the balance of nerfed engines.

I'm not going to ponder what I *want*. At this point, it's only likely to make me disappointed if what I *get* does not match my desires. I doubt that Squad would be paying attention to what I have to say in this thread anyway. So, Ill just wait and see. Oh... But I will reiterate my oft-repeated wish for refueling hoses that kerbals can run from one ship to another (so we can do without the silliness of surface docking when kerbals should be able to figure out the advanced technology of hoses).

No. You aren't going to burn limestone or dolomite by raising the temperature a little. It takes temperatures higher than the surface temperature of Venus to burn limestone.

The vast majority of Earth's carbon is tied up in carbonate minerals in rocks. Burning up all the trees isn't going to turn Earth into Venus.

I thought the kerbals had found some way to detect gravitons with their Gravioli detector.

Good job, Darth. And welcome to the forum. Have a kerbal snack. Remember to take a picture next time so you can look back on your beginnings.

Feels the same to me. Or, maybe it feels a little better if I manage to do something under a self-imposed restriction that the game isn't forcing on me. I have certain self-imposed restrictions I use all the time in my missions.

Do they just change the length and not the diameter of the tanks? That wouldn't be so confusing, especially if they had some repeated markings so I could tell how many standard tankfuls there is in the extended tank.

I recall some post (in the distant past, so I don't have a reference, sorry) where some developer said it wouldn't be that difficult to make an editing mode that could be invoked elsewhere. Or maybe I was dreaming.

The thing I would dislike about procedural tanks and engines is: when looking at somebody else's rockets, I would have a hard time telling what I'm looking at. Is that a regular tank?...or some scaled up tank?...so should I be impressed that this got to Tylo and back? Is that a normal LV-N...or some scaled up thing? (It's the same problem I have when looking at craft with unfamiliar mod parts...I don't have an instinctive feel for what the capabilities are of the parts I'm looking at.) Of course, on the other hand, it would be nice to have a lot fewer parts causing lag. I have a harder time arguing against procedural wings, since I'd have the standard tanks and fuselage parts for reference when looking at them. And the way people have to build giant wings now out of a patchwork of small wings looks goofy.

They are caused by bugs. Bioluminescent bugs, apparently.

r4pt0r, In addition to hinges and rotating hubs, you need some sort of in-orbit attachment of struts. The last time I used hinges to make a folding rover (Damned Robotics mod...way back in KSP 0.19 I think), the problem was that the hinges were too wobbly. Being able to have kerbals attach struts in space would help a lot with this. Also, smaller-sized payloads forced by fairing limits also leads to building bigger ships in orbit out of smaller pieces... and, again, being able to strut your stuff is important if you want to be able to boost your assembled toys off into deep space.

I've decided to build a round of payloads with a diameter limit ...just to see what fun you fixed-width-fairing-lovers are having in a fixed-size world...and because I CAN, even if I don't have fixed width fairings to force me to. So... How wide can I make my fairings before you think they are impossible? 110% of the attached stage diameter? 120%? 150%? 200%? 300%? Where do you feel that the limit should be? I'm game to play!

First played the 0.13.3 Demo. Landed on the Mün. There was no getting out for an EVA. Bought 0.17.1. Went back to the Mün. Got out and found a Mün arch. Version 0.18 came out a few days later. Version 0.18: Docking, Minmus, Jool (not return), Duna, Eve (not return), Gilly, Moho, RCS Rovers, Laythe, Vall, Tylo (with return), Pol, Bop, Dres, Eeloo (v. 18.2), Magic Boulder, Eve return. Version 0.19: Circumnavigate Duna by rover, SSTO spaceplane, Longterm Laythe Mission begins. I guess I've been slacking off since then.

The biggest problems would be with the financial system. And I don't mean just the corporations and banks that will grind to a halt. How much money do YOU have to survive on if your cash machines and credit card transactions stop working?

I was just building a rover in KSP...and I was offsetting parts into other parts, and rotating parts that have been snapped into place... all stuff you can't do with legos. Let's not push the Lego analogy to far. This is KSP, not Lego.

Did Squad say if we get a new Demo version with 1.0?

I like procedural fairings to give players the most options. If you want the challenge of squeezing your payload into a certain size...then go right ahead a do that. Pick a size and build to it. More power to you. You can still put a procedural fairing around it. If you want to make your payload quite a bit wider than the attached stage...then procedural fairings are the only way to go. But you are going to have to pay the penalty for the large mass and drag of the larger fairing, and design your rocket so it will be stable. Different challenges, but more power to you. Fixed-size fairings would limit some people's game play, but procedural fairings can be used by either group. The other reason I would not want to force people to use fixed size fairings is that we don't have folding parts in KSP that engineers have available in rear life to fit their payloads into fixed-size fairings. The simulation Physics should be the determining factor in what people can fly. If they are up to the challenge of flying mushroom rockets and can get it past the new, more stringent aerodynamics model, then have fun. I'll have fun watching, even if I don't want to fly mushrooms myself. If Squad wants to impose limitations on procedural fairing sizes in certain levels of Career mode...that's fine by me. As long as maximum latitude is allowed in sandbox (where the Physics of Kerbal Reality should be the limiting factor).

This is an important point. I answered just what the question asks. "Is KSP ready for 1.0" My answer: No. But that is not the same as, "Will KSP be ready for release as 1.0 after the Developers implement their planned changes"... To which my answer is: Yes, if they can pull it off.

Hmmm... I've been reviewing the thread, and I'm confused by Maxmaps' claim that "...reentry heat is something we can hammer out in half a day with Mu's new drag model. To call it dope would be an understatement." If Squad is going to add reentry heating, don't we also need a lot of new heat shield parts in various sizes (not to mention those cool inflatable heatshields to protect large payloads)? Also, whatever interface changes are needed so that we can monitor the temperature of the parts of our ships to see what's overheating, etc. How are they going to knock that all out in half a day?

Kerbals have no ears, no eyelids, and no strut connectors on their necks. And they all think, "Fire GOOD!." We're safe.

SUMMARY: Squad says that they will be ready to end Beta and Early Access with the next release of KSP (version 1.0). Squad says the 1.0 release will include many new and improved features (see lists elsewhere). Squad says there will be a massive stomping of bugs before release of 1.0. Squad says they will continue development after 1.0... this is not an end. The reaction of the forum members ranges from belief to utter incredulity that the above can be accomplished in the estimated timeframe with no additional Beta releases. The main concern of many members is that the 1.0 label will open KSP to disastrous reviews, and that the Reviewers will rip Squad a new nozzle. Some forum members claim that KSP could never be 1.0 ready without some particular feature (not on the list of features Squad plans to include). Poll was 5 to 1 No/Yes, but has shifted to 4:1 No/Yes. Human Sacrifice, dogs and cats living together...mass hysteria. You know...business as usual.

Long before SCIENCE or Career modes, I wanted to have a Space Race on the Forum with a friend of mine. The idea was that we would be competing space administrations (each using the neutral ground of the KSC for launches). Each round, the players could build a rocket with n+1 parts, where n was the part count from the previous round. This was the limiting mechanic, since there wasn't any balanced money system yet. There were also some limits on the use of 2.5 meter parts until a certain time, length of time per round, etc. There would be no scoring. The players would each post Press Releases in the forum thread, extolling their glorious achievements from each round (including trying to 'spin' any failures into partial successes). The reports would be for the amusement and edification of the readers (who could vote on the winner after the end). But then my friend got busy and quit playing KSP much...so the project never took off.

"There's no financial motivations or limitations hampering the team"... does NOT mean that the decision to release 1.0 couldn't be financial. It just means they are claiming no lack of money to continue the project. Squad may have just done the calculation and determined that they would make EVEN MORE MONEY by ending Early Access in the near future. That's a financial decision...but not some ominous one portending possible economic collapse of the project. I don't need to know the details. I just hope they do well with the game I love.

Of course it'll fly. And if I had thrust vectoring and reaction wheels in my Piggy, it could fly without fins. You CAN fly bulbous-nosed rockets. It's just engineering. The reason we don't do it on real life space launchers is because of the drag and weight penalties. Both Jouni's Mushroom rocket and the rocket ObsessesWithKSP links to have fairings about 3.1 times the diameter of their attached stage.