jeti140973

My suggestion for a name for the next update would be "On at the ninety" It was a callout during the last stages of descent and landing for the space shuttle when following the heading alignment circle for lineup with the runway. Seems like a very fitting name for the update to me. For reference: http://youtu.be/Xtfnl_KOuCM?t=3m35s

Regarding the black skybox I must redirect you to the Universe Replacer mod - this mod can replace the background with an image of your own choice. My method no longer works, and his does it better. Regarding the sound effects I do not really know what Iannic-ann-od's plan are, but stay tuned for news

Hi all. Sorry for neglecting this mod for quite a while. Never found the time to complete the next version. Of course, Universe Replacer took over the part about modifying/removing the background, so I tried to focus on more sound effects. Got started on adding atmospheric sound effects on certain planets (kerbin, eve, duna, laythe, jool) which faded in/out with air pressure. Also added manley mode (forced IVA view) and cockpit vibrations during launch/reentry/landing. Never quite got it to a state I was satisfied with. Also, forced IVA mode might not be a good idea at all, since you can't perform experiments and such. Bad news is that I won't find any time in the future either for this mod. Good news is that I am handing over the source and "license" to Iannic-ann-od - the author of the Chatterer mod - who may integrate parts of it into his own work. Or release it as a new mod, whatever he chooses. I sorely miss more (/better) sound effects in this game, and hopefully Squad will make this mod obsolete before long :-)

I have not tried that yet. I suppose this is super useful when planning planetary interception, but makes it more difficult to plan gravity assists?And the axial tilt thing: if you orbit a tilted body in a 0 inclination orbit - would that then be aligned with the orbital plane, or the body's equator? If that makes sense...

You think science could be turned into a minigame? I mean, to avoid the mindless clickety-click and make it a more interactive, conscious thing? Just thinking aloud... I had the same experience as the OP.

I never use seperators. They seem redundant by using decouplers and/or docking ports.

Would be neat with a more precise way of identifying different biomes with an overlay option in map view.

Busy with 0.22, and I like it. However, I think over time you are going to need some sort of overview of past conducted experiments. Say you want to be very structured about it and gather soil samples from all biomes, you need a way to see which ones you are missing. Would be handy in planning new missions and equipment.

By the time I realized it was released Steam had already downloaded it in the background. I only had to press play :-) Steam is easy, but not perfect.

Yayy, End Flight is back! ... wait ... We sure are an easy crowd to please Well, seems to be a much better solution. Thumbs up.

Science result during EVA around Eeloo: "Far out!"

That may be your opinion, but I respectfully and wholeheartedly disagree ;-)No new big things. Finish the incomplete things first.

Most, if not all, games have progression as a major component. You start out small, and develop over time. It is part of the fun to get better, and encounter harder challenges. True, you could say that is what tutorials are for, but I think the trend is, generally, to integrate tutorials into the main game. KSP is not a sandbox game anymore. Is is a game WITH a sandbox mode.But again, listen to Scott Manleys interview with Harvester. The tech tree will probably see lots of changes.

True, some of the choices seems odd - like the struts being considered high-tech components. But like the OP says, focus has clearly been to provide an easy learning curve, and not being too distracted by realities. Harvester has earlier explained that making a game such as KSP is not about realism, but about authenticity. It is primarily a game. So the tech tree is not a mistake, but a deliberate choice. Of course, some disagrees. However, I wouldn't worry too much about it. One of the previews from the media groups mention that the tech tree is EASILY moddable.

Instead of new features, I would like the next update to focus on polish - to improve the overall "look-n-feel" of the game. One major area (IMO) that has been neglected so far is sound effects. I really wish to see some improvements in that area soon. It would have a huge impact on immersion to have RCS thruster sounds, docking sounds, improved rocket sounds, comm sounds (a la chatterer), rover sounds, etc. Totally ignored so far (but for good reason, that is). Also, I would like to see some of the placeholder texts to be finalized, and not least to finally get some individuality to kerbal appearance. Little things, yes, but still very visual (and auditory) reminders that this game is far from finished. Each release should be treated as if it is the last one, so I am hoping these issues can be addressed soon. But in general, anything that can't be done by mods, primarily.

No, this is what you saw on Steam when you bought it: And this: I must say, based on your attitude, that it sounds like Early Access Games is not very well suited for you. Or at least maybe you should consider waiting until the product is further along in development. No offense intended.

True, consumers are pretty well protected generally, at least where I come from. Except perhaps in the case of software, which is still a gray area to some extent. And that is quite understandable, I think, because it is by no means a simple matter. By comparing it to a car sale you are simplifying the problem. Or ignoring it.Some of your points are true and valid. But software is by itself an intangible product, and buying software still under development only makes it even worse. This is something a buyer should be well aware of. Consumer protection should never relieve buyers from taking responsibility for their own decisions and actions. Afterall, it is also in everyone's interest to protect software startups from malicious lawsuits and unreasonable claims. In most judicial systems you look for 'malicious intent' when you try to determine wrongdoings. I don't think anyone can reasonably accuse Squad of that. They have a vision for a future product, and they are investing in a project to realize that vision. They have presented the vision as clearly as they can, and everyone is free to support it - or watch from the sideline. As a buyer it is an investment like any other. A high-risk investment (buying early) provides better returns, but no promises. If you want promises and guarantees you should opt for the low-risk investment - which is waiting for the finished product, complete featurelists and external reviews before you buy. The latter option being of course more expensive. Are you interested in the journey or the destination? You get what you pay for either way. Also, the vision Squad have for the game may not at all resemble the buyers vision. In many cases it is probably not even discussed or properly thought out yet. Or, it may very well change underway. That is also quite understandable in an ongoing development project. Again, this is something the buyers should be well aware of. As for marketing... well, I learned that a looong time ago. Always do your own research. The point here, and the topic of the thread, is to stay reasonable. Of course, con artists should not be allowed to swindle money from gullible buyers, and of course, con artists should also not be allowed to swindle money from naïve software startups. It never hurts to try to see things from the other point of view. As for your example. If Squad stopped development on KSP tomorrow it would still leave me with a very fun and entertaining product. Same can be said for Prison Architect, and a bunch of other titles. I am, of course, rather careful in which titles I choose to purchase and why, and I don't expect to be protected from myself in that regard.

I think a lot of people ought to reread the terms of service for this product (available HERE). I find it pretty clear what you buy, and what you can expect - and cannot expect. Again, it is sad that this level of clarity and such disclaimers are required in this day and age, as most of this should be common sense (and decency) when purchasing a product under development. There are of course risks involved. If any of the above conditions sound remotely unfair to you as a buying customer you should instead wait for the finished product. It ought to be pretty simple.

My thoughts exactly. I imagine kerbals should have three ratings - piloting, engineering and science. Piloting governs how well they perform maneuvers (it has earlier been stated that they may eventually be able to perform 'tasks'). Engineering should govern their effectiveness at repairing stuff, and science their ability to do experiments. It would make better sense to send three kerbals on a mission when they each serve a specific purpose than sending (risking) only one generic all-purpose jack-of-all-trades. It would also provide better reasons for varied training facilities and make crew management more important.

So performing science experiments earns you "science points", which accumulate to gradually unlock more advanced parts and technology? Sounds great I would propose that killing kerbals does the same in reverse - by deducting science points, and consequently (potentially) locking some parts again. This would serve two purposes. First, it would mimic real-life consequences where you have to rethink, relearn and reevaluate your designs, effectively setting you back a few years - a step back technologically. Second, it would serve as a way to adjust difficulty (or ambitions) for players that have (apparently) progressed too far too quickly without really understanding the necessary requirements or by taking too many risks. Killing crew is not a sign of a skillful player - and science level should be based on skill, not luck. So some consequences to failing missions and killing crew would be great. UPDATE: btw, question: will we be able to "buy" one tech advancement over another, or will the progression be linear? I mean, will we be able to choose between an advancement in parachutes over engines, for example?

Great idea, but I would like it even simpler. A kerbal can only hold ONE item. If they need to carry more, make a toolbox container that counts as one item itself. You can then travel to your destination with the toolbox, attach it to something, take the tool you need and go to work. Then replace the tool before you take another. I think that would make for more interesting gameplay instead of the huge-pockets idea.

ToM an arcade game? As opposed to KSP?! I think that's unfair ToM focus a bit more on real science and real scenery. That's why it is a bit slow and... well, more boring. But fascinating just the same. The equipment you can attach are real-life instruments used on the current Mars rovers, and the landscape you are exploring is real-world places - not fictional or procedurally generated. Try to Google the craters. It requires a lot of patience to go anywhere, and you don't just race across the surface with RCS thrusters (or rockets for that matter). If anything, I think KSP is the most "arcady" in comparison. But also the most fun. I like both, but they are different.

Yeah, I'm also hoping for something like this. I am thinking it would be great if you could strengthen your parts in certain areas, like improving their structural strength, making them more resistant to heat/cold/vibration, using less resources (or producing more). Make engines more powerful or consume less fuel, make parachutes more robust so they can withstand higher speeds, fuel tanks that can contain more fuel, solar panels that produce more energy, electrical systems that consume less power, etc. You get the idea. Of course, it should be carefully balanced so it doesn't make things too easy. But I like the idea that landing on Eeloo would require different research unlocks than landing on Moho, for example.

I have been looking for a good naming scheme as well. Wish the game supported some automatic format. The system I currently use is as follows. Prefix'es: KSX - Kerbal Space Debris KSP - Kerbal Space Probe KSR - Kerbal Space Rover KSS - Kerbal Space Ship (manned) KST - Kerbal Space Station KSB - Kerbal Space Base These are used when saving ships in the editor (VAB/SPH), so they are all sorted by type. I try to distinguish my saves into prototypes (classes of craft) and mission craft, which all have the prefix MSN. Mission craft are the actual configuration used in a specific mission, often using a combination of prototypes (eg. rockets, landers & command vehicles). Craft names are based on their intended target (main body of the mission) and intended role, as follows: Flyby craft are all called VOYAGER (eg. Mun Voyager) Impact craft are all called PROBE (eg. MunProbe) Orbital craft (unmanned) are all called SAT (eg. MunSat) Orbital craft (manned) are all called ORBITER (eg. Mun Orbiter) Landing craft (unmanned) are all called PIONEER (eg. Mun Pioneer) Landing craft (manned) are all called EXPLORER (eg. Mun Explorer) Multiship craft (combi) are all called ENDEAVOUR (eg. Mun Endeavour) Rover craft are all called SURVEYOR (eg. Mun Surveyor) Stations are all called STATION (eg. Mun Station) Bases are all called BASE (eg. Mun Base) The name is then followed by a numeral (I, II, III, etc) and sometimes a designator (IIa, IIb) when necessary - for example during joint rendezvous missions. Satellites are suffixed A for equatorial orbits, B for polar orbits, and C for synchronous orbits. My satellite on solar escape mission was called Stellar Voyager. The first satellite in orbit are always called Kermit, though. No exception ;-) When a multiship mission splits up I rename individual parts as necessary - so a single "Mun Endeavour" ship becomes a "Mun Explorer" lander and "Mun Orbiter" command vehicle, for example. Rocketstages are prefixed LFT and are further divided into Ascent (ASC) and Transfer (TRF) types. Have not settled on a good scheme for those, though.

Awesome. Can't wait to see how you did this :-) Would it be possible for you to dim the texture, so that stars aren't visible while you are in sunlight?