Temeter

Btw, you can add the KSP executable to steam if you just want it in the library (its the same place like 'activate product'). Yeah, that might be true. My info is a bit out of date. Maybe writing to support might be the thing to do?

That's some sey hotdog. I'd rather worry about the CoM being to far to the back with all those engines. With those voxels? Probably godly. It's kinda funny how adding realism tends to create new exploity ways.

Afair there is a button on your product list on KSP's website saying 'migrate to steam'. So yeah, if you want to sell your sould for a bit of comfort, that's easy to do.

Oh yeah, I love that stuff. At one point i just aborted my rocket launch and vtol'd my rocket around launch pad and vab to watch the effects. Also starting and landing on other planets feels very different now, there is just something less static about the rocket engines whirling up all the dust. There is also the little side-effect of making it very easy to judge your altitude above ground.

They also get a red outline and start glowing red when they get hot. There is even an 'overheat' marker for engines (not for tanks/equipment, tho), so most players should understand the system quite fast. Depending on how long the RAM survives.

It doesn't actually make any difference for a player, does it? Most of our issues and disputes won't even be noticed by new players. They just see a fantastic game like, and here i'm going on a assumption, we did when we first played unfinished betas, which didn't even hinder our enjoyment. For players playing since early access and before those numbers are kinda pointless anyway. Who care if we're going to 1.0 now or get some beta-releases inbetween? Development is going to continue anwyway, and that beta/release-thing exists only in our head, it's an arbitrary spot in development.

Nobody does that. If you talk about the 'lol look how broken the game is (lulz hotdogz)', 'squad is ruining ksp' or 'hopefully far will redeem me from this bs' stuff, yeah, toxicity creates a counter reaction. I haven't seen a single reasonable bug report that got shot down. So, if you claim tendency to do that, link some examples. Should be easy to find a common occurance on a public forum.

I like the engine balance, every single one has it own quirks and there isn't really any bad engine. Btw, did anybody noticed they Aerospike got stealthbuffed? 340 ISP in VAC now and 180 thrust at 1.5t weight. It's actually a quite good vacuum engine now too. You might want to try the Cryogenic engines pack: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/117766-1-0-Cryogenic-Engines-Pack-(high-Isp-chemical-rockets!)

LOL, that's crazy. Never underestimate the function of a lifting body, tho: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon_(spacecraft) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_X-33 What you have here looks like a fuselage section, but it basically acts as a flying wing. This is, as said, part caused by unrealistic reaction wheels (do not dare to criticise them :< ), and otherwise the toughness of cockpit sections, which is generally quite a bit stronger than the fuselage. If you can get a horizontal touchdown with minimal vertical speed and avoid tumbling, which is again stabilized by our wonderful hercules level reaction wheels, then you can land at very high speeds on the even runway without dying. Think about the countless planes we all crashed during starts, and how often the crew sections would miraculously survive. That's basically what happens here.

Lol, Nice. I don't think that plane get survive a reentry, though.

You know, when you feel obligated to arbitrarily suspect some damaging logic behind a behaviour, that could be easily explained by being nice and helpful, then it might be time to calm down and take step back. Nobody tries to defend the bug, which is obviously a very serious one on his own, but not using the ultra-simple workaround for the time being would be stupid.

Yeah, I remembered some ariane concept having a 2nd cryo-stage and wanted to try it. Ofc also makes sense putting low t/w high efficiency engines at the later stages. Kinda what lead me to think that the pack kinda misses a 2.5m 500 to 600kn skipper-style engine. Two volcanos do at good enough job, but they seem more like low stage lifter engines. Thanks for the tip with SRBs, somehow typical that I first think about various combinations of different engine types and than completely forget the most obvious solution. An Odin with some SRBs is surprisingly efficient. Just a tiny bit better than LFO's, but there are some interesting applications to try.

For me the t/w seems to be the deciding factor. Yeah, Cryo Engines can bring a specific weight of fuel further. It's just that Skipper/Mainsail are not only lighter, but also carry more weight with less engine tonnage. Attempts at sustaining the T/W automatically puts conventional engines ahead. That said, I find it hard to judge what the superior atmo ISP of Odin, Mars and Volcano does. edit: And yeah, there seems to be a weight advantage for cry engines for superheavy lifters. Tried one and got 1.7kt compared to 2.2kt. As a whole it was slightly more expensive. edit2: Oooooooooh, making the upper stage cry and lower lfo actually saves a lot of money. I assumed so, needed heavy freight, tho. I love experimenting.

New players don't bother with nitpicking, that comes only from a small number of experienced players. New players also notice that Kerbin is ten times smaller than earth and has little more than a quarter of earths orbital velocity without getting a stroke. Also, can we please stop talking about that shuttle? It's interesting how everyone talks about that little gif, but can never actually document his own experiences. I did indeed build an aerodynamic MK2 based spaceplane with only two (big lego 0.2t) wings and two surfaces to stabilize the CoL, and that thing did indeed heavily stall at 60m/s. And MK2 is actually very good at creating body lift compared to MK3.

I'm not colorblind and the color of the text isn't completely obvious.

Is it just me, or are these cryogenic rockets/stages just more expensive and heavier than their LFO counterparts? Especially Skipper, Mainsail, Rhino and Mammoth just seem to be much more efficient and cheaper. I mean, they look awesome and that's already reason to use them, but they seem kinda weak. Especially the tunguska feels a bit out of place: It's to heavy to be an efficient long range low t/w engine (not to mention nukes), and otherwise the volcano just beats it in every regard. On the other hand there is a bit of a lack of a lighter 2.5m mid-stage engine that can compete with the skipper. Said volcano looks like the most efficient engine of the pack, but according to kerbal engineer ships with it are on the efficiency level of a poodle. And the bigger KSP engines only get better after the poodle. Tbh, I was a bit afraid the pack could be op, but it seems more like the contrary.

Or you just press the button to deactivate the heat gauges and continue playing. Really, are you so utterly and pathetically obsessed with being enraged on an internet forum that you torture yourself in a game? Helps to know the most basic things about a game before judging it.

At some point in 0.18 one of my missions stranded there, mostly because of the brutal inclination burn. Never got back to it.

You'll get there in not time, until then just keep your rocket in the prograde marker. Add fins and half the work will be done by aerodynamics.

You have to keep in mind that these are much more realistic engines. This isn't some magical turbojet producing thrust following some arbitrary graph. The turbojets aren't even turbojets, but turboramjets. That's why they are rather bad below Mach 1, their power output is very reliant on the airstream, which radically differs depending on height, speed and the angle of attack of your intakes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramjet

Yeah, that's KSP for you. Brillant game. Just don't forgot to eat and drink.^^'

Look at this. There is nothing bad at not being good at playing a game, but being rude about is. The change was minimal, as every experienced player should now. FAR, 1.0 atmo, 1.0.1 atmo, all of the reward very similar concepts. There isn't some huge 'learning barrier' between them, I played FAR for a long time and most of the lections can be applied to the new stock atmo.

It's not the fan community's negative reaction, but a bunch of drama queens. Just to keep things in perspective. On other forums the voices are like 99% positive.

Imo going flight mode and using wasdqe + jkilhn is the best way to dock. If you want to avoid this kind of disaster, just quicksave.

Frankly, I don't even care about the aero changes anymore. Having a lot of fun with planes, and that's enough to me. Press F10 to disable the heat gauges and you'll get rid of the leak.