Temeter

Meh, i'd rather wait a short time instead of transfering a bought game into a rented version.

Ty for the headsup^^

The link on the Download-site is down. Parse error: syntax error, unexpected end of file in /host/www.kerbalspaceprogram.com/htdocs/lib/multiplayDwn.php on line 132

You mean: Infinite Easy Medium Hard NASA ESA European hardcore^^ Although Nasa funding doesn't look that low. Even the normalized Dollar worth is only rising since 1970. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA The budget especially shouldn't be so scarce considering they don't have to deal anymore with one of the least cost efficient vehicles of all time, the space shuttle. lolwut? I thought the stuff just gets deleted? Oo

Interesting. I was aware of irregular struts and to much burden on decoupler causing this behavior, but never factored in fuel lines, even though i knew of their function as strut.

I think the best way to do it would just to not only automatically remove, but to recover every debris around KSP. In my mind Kerbal technicians wandering around the spaceport and and picking of every debris remaining from their experiments to reuse them makes totally sense.

I think he means prograde-, and retrograde-indicator? Tbh, i can't even remember if i had them, or if it was actually 1.7. My first starts did rely on written down angles and terminal velocities, following a set of rules. The marker's wouldn't help at all, and i learned relatively late (after duna and moho missions) how to use the nodes (and homann transfer's even later). I think the marker and nodes rally add to the game, though. Correct, It makes missions easier to execute, but the base of using them is knowing the gameplay principles. They actually allow to execute your imagined maneuver with full precision and support learning the mechanics by showing the result of your actions. Again, these features should be pretty easy to disable via mod (or ingame-option at some point), if they aren't desired.

It took me a few tries until i reached space and could establish an orbit. Including an internet search finding out about the drag and terminal velocities. Was afair in 0.18.4. Or the orbital rendezvous and docking. I needed like six hours the first time... But the feeling after managing to stack two ships together. Now it's like the easiest thing in the world.

Not that unrealistic, considering how many rockets you tend to crash at the beginning (as long as you don't spam quicksave/revert). I expect the starting contracts to be really generous. Yeah, that'd be rather strange.^^ It was just to say that a 5 year old being able to send a rocket into orbit doesn't mean the game is easy. Especially at the beginning, KSP is about grasping difficult and unusual concepts we normally don't deal with. For example, stuff like the whole navigating in a orbit. Imo that's why the game is hard at the beginning, but get so much easier with experince. Children are good at grasping new concepts, so that's why they can be suprisingly good early in this kind of game, even when it still might be a challenge to older people. Compared to MP-FPS, which relies on learned motorical abilities and reflexes. 5yo and people working at Nasa can play the game. It's kinda like saying Demon and Dark Souls are easy. They feel that way if you are experienced, but they really aren't the first time you play them (or have no experience in the genre).

And that's the idea behind it. There has to be the threat, the idea that completely screwing up can cause you to fail. But just failing a city and losing all progress isn't really fun, so the game will give you every chance to get back on track. Still, i think mods or settings will allow some stricter rules regarding complete failing. Squad even added another game mode (purely resulting from 'early access' updates) so you have a more customizable game.

Didn't say squad in the past that 64 bits just weren't to high on their priority list? I have no old quote at hands, but there is no reason why it shouldn't be possible as longa as unity supports it. Also, it's pretty logical that people don't want to lose their saves. That's not what the failure state nerdcube is speaking about means at all, otherwise we just had roguelikes (which are pretty much in the minority btw) and saves were never invented. The failure state comes from your projects and missions failing for various reasons. Should be pretty easy to spot, stuff spectuacularly failing is the most obvious element of KSP. As i said, failing and learning is the basis of KSP. Now arguing there wouldn't be failure is absurd. It's literally the reason KSP got succesfull. And following, you might survive in Career mode, but you want success. Missing the latter one would be a failure state people like Totalbiscuit talked about. Tbh, the failure state is a very ellusive thing. Everything can be a theoretical failure. Thinking to much about it just limits what you can do with games. That does not make sense at all, doesn't it? That's why it also wasn't my argument. Well, that's the reason i'm posting here right now.^^'

What are you talking about? Kerbal Space Programm can be difficult as hell for newcomers, there is a lot of stuff which takes time, experience and learning. Childrens are better than everyone else at learning, btw. Take the first time getting to space, orbiting, moon landing, rendezvous-maneuver, docking (especially bigger ships), interplanetary travel, space planes, etc. That stuff can be extremly hard to achieve and you just might fail time and time again. Now it's mostly routine for us, since we can see the simplicity and logic behind all these things. This game is basically building on the idea that failure is important and a means to learn. And you will fail a lot getting to there where we are. For SQUAD the most important thing is that failing is fun. And just running out of funds, loosing your safe you built a month on isn't for most people (and neither for me after almost 2 years). Even roguelikes mostly rely on runs being relatively short. So allowing people to get back into career after failing is most important for the early versions of this mode. Everything else can be changed in the options, carrer is supposed to be very customizable, so everyone gets the experience he want. There are already a lot of options allowing you to go full iron-man mode on your missions, in the first carrer update. On this basis it's absurd to argue SQUAD tries to make the game easy for everyone. And if it's not hardcore enough? Let them know, they e.g. included the 64 bit version early just because of community feedback! Otherwise there are a lot of mods making the career as hard or masochistic as we might want it. I think it's a bit to early to complain SQUAD is going in the wrong directions with career, when not even the first and most basic version of it is out yet.

See? That's good information policy. And the reason you shouldn't give out dates.

So basically moar boostas = moar risk = moar win, nice to see the update keeps all kerbal traditions alive.

Cool, i like that idea. Not sure if it's a good idea to change part costs, though.

Yep, i instantly checked steamdb when the site started producing bad gateways^^

I thought the same, but the way it's worded sounds more spectacular to me. Also bad gateway

Mind that the FAQ also said over hundred parts had been modified for a rebalancing. So some the calculations might be a bit off beginning with 0.24.

I doubt the advance will allow you to finish anything but the earlier and simpler tasks. Otherwise there wouldn't be much of a a point in earning money.

I don't think they need to do much to encourage rockets. They are much easier to use and the turbojets are afair rather late in the techtree. Depends on how they rebalanced the tree, though. Rapier engines are indeed extremly expensive. They are currently the most expensive part in the game together with KS-25 engines.

I like the new parts. The loss of flexibility and weight are clear disadvantage's of the vernour. You need like 10 of them for full rcs coverage, weighting 0.8 ton. And that's only if you can actually put two of them directly at the front and back. Monoprop will remain standard for more reasonably size craft. The ant engine is just utterly terrible.

I'd assume the KS-25 or Science Lab. There isn't really anything else oversized in KSP stock. Aside from fuel tanks ofc.

Ofc Daring. Grinding is usually an issue when you can't do something riskier and/or more profitable. And you don't get more risky than kerbal space program. I'm planning to go iron man mode in my new 0.24 safe. At least as long as it stays fun.

I got an E-Class and A-Class orbiting Kerbal at 256 and 100km. My original plan was to connect them via a claw-bridge to create a giant space station. Didn't really do anything with it until now, though. The station is planned for my 0.24 mission save right now. Will be much easier with LF-powered RCS.

Your words unleashed something you can't control. O_O