satcharna

You expected otherwise from these forums? Personally, I'd probably have gone for something like Yuri and Valentina, the first man and woman in space respectively.

Mr. and Mrs. Rover.

Indeed, the screens were simple paper cutouts illuminated from behind.CGI is an amazing tool and can achieve greatness with skill, but the classic approach requires even more skill, and is even more rewarding when performed properly.

For anything meant to be long-term or self-sustainable, Laythe is the obvious choice. The oxygenated atmosphere and readily available water, even with the likely contaminants in both, is just too valuable. Submerged bases offer a cheap and reliable protection against radiation. For something short-term, Minmus is superior. It's a lot closer to Kerbin, and generally cheaper at the beginning. Nonetheless, it's too close to the sun to be composed of solid water, and so would need to ship in food, water and air from Kerbin, whereas Laythe could be made to sustain itself after some work.

Your new Minmus is beautiful. Perhaps it might benefit from "oceans" that are a bit darker? The lander looks lovely, especially the way you handled reflections on the metal.

I'm from the Netherlands and Poland (yes, we can into space), and have spent much of my life in northern Sweden. The Netherlands is a beautiful little country in western Europe, perhaps most famous for large tulip fields and windmills, but also featuring such exciting things as canals, dijks, Roman ruins, and a large swath of land located below sealevel. Poland is a country located in eastern Europe, with a long history and a lot of culture. You can find everything between high mountains and dry deserts there, and it is one of the fastest growing economies in the EU. Sweden on the other hand is vast, undeveloped, and composed mainly of mountains in the north, forests in the middle, and agriculture in the south. It is one of the least densely populated countries in Europe, and also one of the larger ones. There's a lot of beautiful undeveloped land here, but also one of the most high-tech societies in the world. The Swedish economy is based on selling iron and paper. My real name means dark rose.

Actually, it has the same amount of torque as the small ones.

Indeed, Mun. It got awful, then Ted made it better, and then his departure made it worse again. Still, you can't criticize them publicly, because that's a ban, and if you criticize them in PMs nothing happens. It's an amusing dead end. Nonetheless, you mustn't forget the good things they've done. They got rid of the MLP and furry threads, and they eventually got around to banning Chobit.

It's just a shame that the IVA is so poorly done. The modelling is sub-par compared to most earlier IVAs, and the textures are all washed out. Besides, the labels are too silly for me, I'd rather have had something more serious. And what's with the control sticks in the chairs? A new animation for the Kerbals that doesn't involve them grabbing control sticks, or simple armrests, would have looked a lot better.

Dedicated SAS-only modules are now useless for everything, with the lone exception of vehicles with only a control chair. This includes the avionics package. Hopefully, this was just a slight overlook, and they intend to fix it as soon as possible.

Do note that the number of frames used for the animation could be counted on both hands. Purchasing a proper render would certainly have been possible, but it would have been prohibitively expensive to produce, and more time consuming as well. While certainly possible, it simply wasn't a practical approach.

I greatly support the idea of a more serious description rewrite. Some of the silly descriptions are fun, but there are too many of them, and I feel like it would be better to have just a few such descriptions. Getting a basic category system would be nice as well, for example grouping certain sizes together.

3/10. Is that a rover on Duna? It's very hard to tell at that tiny size. That's Dalek Sec, one of the more interesting Daleks.

Those were illustrations, and not proper renderings. No part of 2001 used CGI, which is both good and bad. The mission is to Saturn in the novel, but the film changed it to Jupiter, as there was no way of producing realistic ringed planets.

I'm not happy that quicksaves are in career at all, no, but I'm content with the fact that hard mode, the "proper" mode, is going to be without it. I would have been content with leaving it at that, but your post was just too aggressive. What's wrong, someone sneak in and murder your puppy while you were preparing your morning cuppa?You're right, I would absolutely love to go to space in real life, but as you say, I'm not going to be able to. I don't have the physique (my bones would literally shatter if I get close to takeoff acceleration)and I don't have the proper contacts to get recommended to a space programme. Scientific skills I could probably manage, as long as the experiments in question have to do with quantum electrodynamics and the like, as those are fields that I actually do study. Bringing up the moon landings is a bad example, the personnel involved in those were literally pilots that received a quick course in how to use equipment. They couldn't and didn't interpret any of the scientific data they received. A better comparison would be payload specialists for space stations. So you're right, KSP is a sort of outlet for me, a way that I can have fun with realistic spacecraft in realistic situations. Why should that stop it from being as realistic as possible? KSP isn't a "direct-action" simulator like a flight simulator, but if it was, I'd certainly want to try playing it inside a centrifuge while sitting on top of a bomb that detonates when a random number generator hits 0, while checking a literal wall of instruments in front of me, with mission control chattering over the radio. Wouldn't anyone? But like I said, I'm content with the hardest difficulty not offering quicksaves, and frankly I couldn't care less what they add to the lower difficulties as I won't be considering them part of the proper game, but rather a learning tool for people to prepare for the real career mode. Contrary to what you may have deluded yourself into thinking, I don't have a "Stop Having Fun Guys!" attitude, and you certainly don't get to have any say on what I do with my life, seeing as how you have no bloody idea of what my life is like. Now, I'm off to enjoy a book and some chocolate. Do try and calm down.

You cannot use the fact that the game doesn't have a multiplayer mode as an excuse here. People will and do compare themselves to others either way, you can quickly confirm this by looking at the banners people have in their signatures, and the fact that there have been multiple arguments about whether mods should be allowed for such banners. It's not official multiplayer, but it exists, and always will. This is true, and unfortunately there's no easy solution to it. Calling me narcissistic is 1) Not true, and 2) Not helping this discussion.Either way, I've gotten confirmation from official sources: Career will have multiple difficulty levels, and quicksave will be disabled on the highest difficulty. Which means that I'm done with this discussion. It's been a pleasure.

Testing your designs is what sandbox is for, but a limited amount of quicksaves in career might work. It would give some safety from bugs, but not really be exploitable. A limit to a single restore per mission would work as well. Have you read the thread at all? This was brought up almost immediately: In a gamemode where budget is important, a failed launch/landing/whatever is a catastrophe and has consequences. Being able to just go lolquicksave until you succeed ruins the entire idea behind the gamemode.

Yes, it simulates space physics. So what? Getting into space and staying there really isn't all that difficult, and career mode is going to be more than just orbital mechanics and physics, it will also contain kerbal training, economy, and missions. All I'm saying is that the career mode, made for people who know how to play the game, shouldn't have quicksave, which is a feature made for those who don't yet know how to play the game. I'm saying that sandbox should have quicksave and be a place to learn, and career should be a lot more serious, and thus not have tutorial features like that. My point would be very obvious to you had you actually bothered to read my posts rather than just skimming them over, and the only one being dishonest here is you.

And you completely miss my point.I know that we can impose challenges on ourselves, and that's great. I want the game to ALSO impose challenges on us. A difficult concept to imagine, I'm sure. For the record, I have absolutely no problem with self control, and haven't personally used quicksave in several months. I just don't want Squad to make the mistake of making the game too easy by adding too many crutches in the career mode.

It's not that we lack the discipline to not use it, it's that we want the game to impose challenges on us, to have a set of rules to play by. Sure, you could make a Mario game without enemies, and tell us to just pretend that there are enemies around if we want a challenge, but it wouldn't be a good game. You could make a GTA game without the police, and tell us to pretend that some NPCs are police if we want a challenge, but it wouldn't be a good game. Every good game has a set of rules and built-in challenges, including most simulators. All we want is for Kerbal to also have rules and challenges. Sure, nothing should be too challenging, but a career mode without quicksaves isn't too challenging, simply because we have a sandbox mode to experiment and learn in, which clearly should still keep quicksave around.Part of what makes modern games so simple and dull is that we can save whenever we want to, and how often we feel like. Sure, you'll beat the game easier and quicker if you can simply make a quicksave after every enemy, but it removes all the feeling of defeat you get from dying just before the boss of the level, and the feeling of accomplishment when you finally figure out the strategy. Sandbox mode is for testing, learning and goofing around in, and career is for challenging us to manage a successful space programme on a limited budget in as realistic a setting as possible.

In fact, most of the time, the recovered components would be so badly damaged that simply melting them down and remaking them from scratch would be more economical than refurbishing them for another launch. The fact that space shuttles turned out to be even less economical was just a sad result of the "need" for flashiness, which has sadly hindered progress in the SSTO spaceplane field to date.

OF COURSE they should remove the debug menu from career mode. I read your post, and read it again, and all you're doing is defending a list of cheats for use in the career mode, when there is a sandbox mode for you to play with them in already.

Are you seriously trying to justify using the debug menu in career mode?

Glitches that blow up your station are just that: Glitches. Major mechanics of the game shouldn't have to be planned around bugs that should be fixed by release anyway.

Oh. Well, that's a shame, the game really could use some additional difficulty and objectives.