Tw1

Yes. They can sense it. How much lag though? A slight stutter or are you reaching seconds per frame territory? Also is there debris in the save you could clear out? If it's just an un-precedented amount of parts, perhaps you've just found your computer's limits for this KSP version?

Exactamo. I can empathise with those who feels that there's something odd with HarvesteR's departure. It's easy to get emotionally invested in creative projects, it can be hard to imagine leaving such a thing in the hands of others, who could change it ways you'd never want. But recall how detailed HarvesteR's original idea was. At the start, kerbals hadn't even been visualised, they only had the name. Plus, KSP seems to have settled. Over the past few years, few of the features added have been major departures from the core of the game, more like extra layers, or refinements. I'm going to try being optimistic about this. KSP is far from flawless (cough career mode cough) and some changes could increase the chance we'll see the game expanded in ways we've talked about for ages. There's a chance they run it into the ground, but optimism is a choice here.

People do sometimes leave in bunches. When one person leaves, another whose had in on their minds can also decide it's finally time. Humans are social,relational beings after all. We can either be negative about this, inferring that there's something wrong within Squad, or that the game will loose the original spirit as the directors change. Or be optimistic, many recenr additions to the devs have been forumers, with as we've discussed and debated, likely to be familiar with the thoughts of fans. New blood may bring fresh though, new ideas to places where the game is currently lacking. Some of these ideas may be improvements.

1-2: Tend to be engine toggles, or if the vehicle is more of a rover, different wheel functions. 3: Ladders. Always. Unless I have a complex system of ladders, then it's just the main ones. 4: A few craft have this as intake toggles, but I'm not sure I make SSTOs enough to call it a standard. 5: Toggles solar panels, radiators or anything else vulnerable during atmospheric flight 9: if there's a specific set of lights I want to switch on and off separately to the rest, like spotlight/headlights or landing lights. 0: Toggles steering on back wheels. Occasionally also does stuff with breaks, the general idea is this switches the vessel between distance driving and precision driving mode. It's useful to have some standards for frequently used features. Then you only have to remember exceptions for a specific craft.

Nothing like getting a chance to show of and everything a actually working. 

It is kind of creapy though. So far from anything... No way back....

I'd like it to be like KSP is now, with a few improvements on the solar system and physics, but with a big departure in the way career works. I'd like to see it being a management simulation worthy of the well made spaceflight sim it currently is, giving the player full control at every level. And also bring out the potential of the exploration and discovery side of things which science in game fails at. -Overhauled and detailed planets Our old favourites would stay, and keep their basic maps and key characteristics, but get a art pass with some consultation from a geologist or too, and ideas from fans, and from various fanworks. -Planets becoming detailed and interactive. With some seasonal and random change to make revisiting or permanent bases more interesting. -A few new dwarf planets. -Science for more of its own sake. Science which is more like exploration, graphs to make, maps to complete. Continuous data, rather than discrete biomes. -(Also changing Biome to Terrain or something which makes sense) -Use contracts to actually bring space endeavour to life, rather than just short points quests. Make tourism to set bases and stations a thing. Add contracts for experiments it would be difficult to model with one part- cassini's relativity test, etc longer term data collection, long term studies in stations and bases, etc. -Refraiming the came's management aspects to be more about gains vs costs over time. A set budget per time period, where you're earning are based on what you achieved in that period. Reputation and historical achievement could be multipliers. KSC maintenance, crew on rosters, and crew in space etc, would be on going costs. Research in space, commercial satellite services, etc, could work like contracts with long term payout. Make it feel like I'm running something here, not just scoring points. -Making the game focus more on sustaining the space program over time than unlocking stuff. Make there be feed back about the different areas which your program is pursuing, like different types of research, your public opinion rating, environmental impact, etc. Some nice big positive vs negative dials to manage. Have difficulty of these's ratings slowly increase. -Less involvement of others groups in space until you've done quite a bit. This is more personal taste, but I'd like to be the pioneer, not a later upstart. -Let the game live up to it's full, multi genre potential.

To me, career mode should be there to bring to life all the non- piloting, non engineering parts of the game. Not a fan anything which sets the player on any pre-defined path, or set list of goals. We need things to inspire us out there, and ways to earn money, but I'd rather the only explicit goal was to keep your space program afloat. For me, KSP has never been about the competition, or completion, scoring points. It's about the dream of space exploration, and what could happen if we we're able to fund, willing to do a lot more than we currently do. One key thing a seriously reformed career mode should have as its goals is the old authentic feeling. Paying for a Kerbal once, insta scans, nonsensical tourist trips, clicky science, random request to ship stuff between planets, all this doesn't make me feel like I'm really managing a space program. Setting up a space hotel stations or base, or a spacious tourist vessel, then having requests to visit those places would. Happening across an area of high scientific interest, then realising based on the instrument readings, that this would be a site where a research base could run for years, would. Getting a schedule of launch windows, planning ahead, and pacing out launches to fit a monthly budget, and that schedule would. It'd be more about Identifying opportunities as you and choosing to take them, rather than just choosing tasks from a list. The role of planning would be a big part, tied in closely to all the other parts. One thing I like best about KSP, is the way you play so many different roles. You're in command of every stage, from mission concept to vessel engineering, then pilot, right down to the astronaut on the ground. Planning and management should be yours too. The other main thing which doesn't seem to have been raised here so far- a lot of the current career is finite - you unlock the stuff, collect the science, then it's over. An overhauled version should make sure that they game keeps going - and doesn't reach a point where most things are over. Kerbal salary, a need to ship life support, new areas of science value popping up, slow changes in what tourists want, etc, could help keep the game fresh. KSP could be about the long game, like real space programs.

Yes, but lack of playing due to computer problems and businesses is a factor. I'm hearing here, and on tumblr that there are still issues? That's a pity.

Regular old career mode critics chiming in here. Yep. The lack of authentic feeling management, time considerations, and gamey fetch quest/click to collect grind makes career quite disappointing. I prefer to go and do where and what I feel inspired to go and do. Career mode seems more chore than challenge.

Wasn't that an idea they had ages ago, using the shuttle to take it down? It's a pity it would probably be far too costly. I wonder if it could be at all feasible and plausible to put it in a museum orbit. Like a graveyard orbit, but with different connotations.,

Though the wheel colliders don't actually turn, it sort of simulates turning. The force between the wheel and ground is determined by a torque factor and a friction factor. Wheels have a mass, and radius, and unity presumably calculates rpm based on all these factors. Presumably, they're comparing the slip between the ground touching wheels, and reducing torque based on that, leading to the false positive on slopes, as you suggest. I still think linking it to the SAS system would work better.

Just remember: A trip to Eve is not just for Christmas.

Nah, unity wheel colliders have a radius value, and you can get rpm values, I'm not an expert though, so Idk if there are other technical things getting in the way of something like this being done in KSP.

Haven't yet read through any documentation on the wheels, but this sounds like a terrible way to measure wheel slip. I was under the impression that the way cars did it used the difference between how much each wheel was spinning. As this is a computer game, couldn't they directly compare how fast a wheel's surface is moving compared to the ground, and check if it's touching the ground? Or have it work via SAS? Some of my larger rovers have landings gear bumper wheels, to protect from the troubles of busted tires. It's quite useful. I so agree about the new mk1. Nice model, but a poor design choice. It's a bit annoying for ladder placement, complicates water landings, and limits craft design more than the old one. Kerbal parts need to maximise the different situations they can be used in. There's still the inline for when you want a propper cockpit, but it's not quite the same.

It's all just GCI! Wake up sheepkerbs! For the record, I quite like Dres, it was my second ever interplanetary landing, which I sent Jeb on. It's cool and dark and bumpy. But these threads are just fun.

Personally, I think the fact that we'd just come out of another time intense challenge contributed a lot to those teams decision to leave. It wasn't just your one. The paceing of the whole Kerbin Cup was pretty gruelling, and then there were bugs beyond our control... it was certainly one of the more stressful things I've been involved with with KSP. It's nice to look back on now though, everyone managed to churn out some pretty impressive creations, in solving the problems.

You could try another "some assembly required" version. http://imgur.com/a/2wfhC Ah, memories....

I like Minmus. The Mun is somewhat familiar, we've seen the moon in movies, pictures, video, etc. Minmus is something new, alien, and beautiful. Looking back and seeing Kerbin and Mun at a distance, it feels like deep space is just a step away. And it's shiny, bright, smooth and pretty.

Surely it's a hint about the magic boulder, even if they haven't fixed it yet.

What's wrong with Esc just activating that little Esc menu? (For the record II, haven't played 1.1 yet due to computer problems,)

Yep. That's about right.

Bit of a Kerbal - human role reversal there. Interesting idea.

Nice to know I'm not the only one. When you read a lot of webcomics, stuff like this is useful.

Yes, but you're still missing the point of this discussion. We're using the term magic in its common, every day use meaning powers, abilities, etc, derived from some some unknown, possibly spiritual source. The point of the quote is that someone does not understand the principles behind something's operation, it might as well be supernatural causes to them. Imagine showing showing a smart phone to the wrong person in the middle ages, you could be accused of witchcraft, as they'd have none of the concepts of electricity or computation needed to understand what's going on in the little box in your hand. Conversely, if what is described as magic plays by understandable, constant rules, it can be analysed, examined, investigated via scientific method. Everyone is well aware that Mjolnir is a plot device, and can behave as nessesary to tell the story, (though there's a solid argument that consistent world building is a part of good writing.) What we are trying to do here is discern some consistent rules explaining the behaviour of the hammer, from how it's seen to behave in its fictional universe, and discuss implications of those rules. That's how this discussion must be framed.