Temeter

Hi random stranger! ^^ 1.0 looks rather great to me, there are complaints about it not being hardcore realistic, but it will bring all the basic functionality you could expect from KSP (and a bit more). Ofc mods still bring a lot of additional and more realistic flavored stuff, but it sounds indeed like a perfect occasion to come back.

I usually care very little about the gender in games, to me its more about how a charachter is done (if that charachter matters at all). Concerning KSP, I like the addition because it'll give some more personality to the small green men. Also, now we got 4 Redshirts to throw into our interplanetary death machines.

The usual stuff: Put her on a rocket and send it to another planet. Damsel' her if necessary.

We should try to mine Kraken essence!

Counted, that should be around 38 part if there isn't anything special hidden. Assuming the main wings are one part, 4 wheels and the rear elevators to be additional parts.

We have have working weapon mods using projectiles, so I don't think they are limited to a specific framerate.

Way to blow things out of proportion. Just asking would have told you that we indeed have free choice, as with most things in KSP. So, since this is basically settled: OP, your poll is a joke. What are you trying to achieve with that thing? If this is about getting a general opinion, then it failed hard. Giving the choice you're not favoring some mocking name a la 'confetti shell', even making the font italic, is around as manipulative as putting some giant pictures below telling people what to vote for, or limiting all other choices to thing you like more. At this point it's just some thing where you try to tell people to support your own opinion. Which would be pretty low.

Reaching orbit is never hard as soon as you've learned the basics (especially with patched joints). Making the game easier for accessibility shouldn't really be a factor, you could use that argument for every single part of the game. KSP's difficulty level has been proven to be accessible enough to reach a, maybe surprisingly, huge playerbase. It will scale down the part of building rockets though. Which always was a central part of KSP, especially for a beginner.

While engines will have less thrust in low atmosphere, I expect starting rockets to be a lot easier in general. FAR needs around 30% less D-V to reach orbit compared to our beloved soupusphere, and we can expect the new stock aero to behave similarly. For the early stages, just follow the classic KSP solution to everything: Add more rockets! In this case, SRBs. Tbh, I'm kinda hoping the engines will get balanced back to be a lot less efficient in atmosphere, FAR feels a bit too easy at times compared to the haywire monsters I send to space in old stock. Otherwise there will be scalers and mods for all kinds of tastes.

Yeah, I was talking about the spikes. To me the arrow rather served as a big spike in case the COL was below the COM. Implying the (pseudo-)direction of the generated lift isn't really needed, although it's helpful to make the whole construction more intuitive beginners (it was for me). Writing about the thing, I don't really see why that thing was removed at all. It's a net loss. Well, a very small net loss. Otherwise I just want to eyeball during construction. Finetuning, if necessary, comes later anyway, and having infinite precision isn't even that usefull if I'm still tweaking the craft and everything might be broken by weight-disposition through fuel usage. I appreciate the tips, but that doesn't really help the cause. Not that it's even that important, the construction is just a tiny bit more fiddly without it, so I wanted to know if there is a easy solution.^^

I know, I'm playing with FAR for a while now. And I'm pretty sure It still would be around a million times more annoying to build planes without actually having any approximate COL marker. For example, my last plane had it's tail drifting away during some of my maneuvers around 20k 1200m/s. A short check of COL/COM easily betrayed the issue, notably the COL moving too far ahead at a very specfic inclination (that only occured late in flight or during reentry). FAR is far too good (huehuehue) to not use it, additional markers or not. The arrow is just a small useful thing missing, nothing more, and nothing less.

Thx, got that fantastic mod already. Still an impractical solution, considering the markers are made to overlap.

You can get one with MasseFliegers modfied ivas. Mind it brings some visual issue: The mod is apparently made for the SPP mod, so while perfectly usuable, cockpit displays and RP-monitors don't align. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/96148-AeroKerbin-Industries-Modified-IVAs

Btw, Is there some easy way to bring the arrow back? The arrow isn't important to show the direction of lift, but it makes it a lot more comfortable to align COL and COM. The latter tends to swallow the former when they get to close, not to mention it's a bit of a chore to play around with the camera, when that helpful arrow just points throught the COM and perfectly displays their disposition.

Pancakes will live. They are actually still easier in FAR than they are in Stock. Just try to stay subsonice until you get to 20k, and you'll easily get a brick into space. While your craft requires a bit more Dv (i needed ~3800 instead of ~3300), the requirement stays under stock (afair was 4800 Dv). And FAR is relatively aggressive. All in all starting rockets should get easier.

I think Squad made the right decision. A heatshield is an integral part of a spaceplane, so it's completely irrelevant if you have to place a hs-part on it's bottom or not. Similarly every structural part of a rocket needs some basic structural integrity and being able to deal with force and heat. There is a bit of a difference between a starting rocket and reentries, but all parts in KSP are very general and versatile anyway. Heatshields would be nothing but a chore to most players and only a neglible piece of realism to pro's. KSP is great because it was made as a game first, not a simulation. The latter part was always and will be supported by mods. You can be sure that mods like FAR will indeed profit by being able to make use of the deeper implementation of systems like the new aerodynamics. It's just silly to find people in every patch thread complaining about their little pet feature not being in the game, not all features being aligned to their likings, and it therefor not being complete (games are btw never done). Usually from long time players who want more challenge and now think said challenge has to be absolutely enforced on everyone. Your idea of the game is yours alone, nothing else. Squad managed to make this game big, so they probably know better than you what's best for the game. Why do you think this game is build around customizablity and mod support? That's not just some vague excuse for being an early access game until it's the embodiement of perfection.

I think the most interesting patnerships would result in similar situations like the ARM, where the functionality of a real Space Mission is translated into ingame mechanics. Asteroids and Grabber are amazing additions, and they are usefull for much more things than their original purpose. I also ike the nasa styled parts.

See? Squad even taught you something about the internet. This time it's just a harmless joke, next time it might be a fraud.

Come on, 140 words per post? That point alone is such an utterly obvious joke, there is no logic why you'd ever want to do that to a forum. To be completely honest, it is kinda cynical to assume that was true for more than a second. Do you think SQUAD are total idiots? They made KSP, so of course they aren't. Their Early Access Program is one of the best, if not the best in the whole industry. It would need quite a collective mental breakdown to arrive at the notion implementing those ideas would be good thing. Or not flatout dangerous and illegal in a lot of countries. If you feel like blaming the initiator of the joke, which might well be valid, then you should also blame yourself for falling for such an obvious joke.

edit: Sorry, confused threads.^^

The only difference here is that pros don't even bat an eye when that happens. KSPs height indicator can be very misleading, since it switches very late from sea to ground-level.

Also happened once to me. Luckily enough it was an orbit around minmus, so i could literally turn around.^^ Otherwise it's actually pretty easy to get into the tolerance, using maneuver nodes or by hand.

To me, a spacecrafts form is a result of function. It's fun by itself to watch a craft changing by every iteration and the inclusion of new ideas. Doesn't need to be ugly, so some adjustments are ok, but the Space Shuttle isn't famous because of it's looks.

Flipping is often caused by a high center of mass. Just look at real cars, they are usually relatively flat designs with a low center of mass (this matters even more for sports cars). The m/s =! kmh point is also important. 100m/s are 360kmh. The one thing bothering me about rovers is the way traction is handled. Always feels like you're driving on ice, even more so under time acceleration. Also, i want faster ones without silly safety precautions (in stock). It's not like my rockets have any.

They do, Star Wars is a full application of rule of cool and 'soft' sci-fi. The ship-designs in Star Wars are pretty iconic for good reasons, to the point where we are discussing their realistic flight capabilities. I always thought the Tie bomber is a bit derpy, but the Interceptor looks pretty cool. Personally I prefer the Tie Defender for it's insane ability to wreck face.