Parkaboy

That's how many points of experience they got from doing an orbit around Kerbin. Only the first orbit is worth any experience. That's what the number in the log means, the XP earned from that achievement. Edit: To be honest, I didn't understand that either until I managed to land on the Mun. "Plant a Flag on the Mun" was showing up with a value of "5", and I noticed that was the amount of experience my kerbals had earned.

Nope, the satellite has to be launched after the contract is accepted, or it won't work. But you can use an existing sat for "get science" contracts and test part contracts.

Basically what I just posted in another thread: So far I've put about 6 sats in orbit around Kerbin, and did 4 airplane survey missions. A couple more missions and I'll be able to upgrade my R&D facilities, and maybe I'll have to do a few more to earn cash to unlock the parts I need for a Mun mission.

I have been playing in hard difficulty and I see no need for doing "billions of part tests". I don't like doing part tests either, so I tend to skip them unless they fit with a mission profile I'm planning. So far I'm struggling with gathering enough cash to upgrade the buildings, but was able to follow a slow and steady progression that goes somewhat like this: - 1: Launch vessel and break altitude record contracts; - 2: Break altitude record and reach space contracts; - 3: Reach orbit and get science from kerbin space contracts; - 4: With these three missions I was able to get a reliable orbiter and unlocked batteries, allowing me to do multiple "Science from kerbin space" on the next launch; with a strategy to convert funds into science I unlocked the tech to a probe with SAS, solar panels, and everything needed to build a small jet plane - 5: Multiple plane "survey" contracts; - 6: Multiple "place satellite" contracts; I upgraded the launchpad and plan to upgrade either the tracking station or the R&D next. It's tough, but then again I'm playing hard mode. In normal mode should be a piece of cake.

It's updating! I feel like I just arrived at that hotel room at the end of 2001 - A Space Odissey!

If it comes out today we shall forever celebrate Kerbal Christmas at december 15th.

Not for everybody. I've played career 6 or 7 times, and each time I enjoy it more. I've been even using the updates as excuses to start over. The last update gave more flexibility to the play style, and I could advance mostly by sending satellites to test parts in orbit; with enough sats I had a steady flow of cash (since contracts to test those parts in orbit kept popping up) and could focus in bigger missions. The secret, I guess, was picking the right contracts to match my view of the progression, instead of accepting everything. There's a lot that can be improved, though, and Fine Print will be a huge step. Tech tree placements can be better, and we should have more stuff to do after the tree is completed, such as improving efficiency of already researched tech.

I hope so. Something like that has been mentioned by MaxMaps when they were first examining the idea of kerbal experience, but I'm not sure if it made into the version we'll see in .90

Difficulty is not the main point here. The operative word is "fun". If it is fun and difficult, you want to try harder, but if it's boring and hard, the you might as well be studying instead of playing. Most of the time, fun can only be judged by trying - stuff may seem fun on paper but nor when implemented in the game, and vice-versa. Personally, most of the changes proposed here seem fun to me, but I'll wait until I actually get to play the game to give a veredict.

They should probably have the inticator on by default for ships launched from the SPH, and off by default for ships launched from the VAB, since the gear bays usually start deployed but the other landing gear don't.

Yes, you're understanding it wrong. Max is using the term "scene" in the game programming sense. The game can very well call a scene, which is a portion of the game world with unique rules and parameters, and then switch the visual aspect of that scene entirely depending on whether you've clicked on the VAB or the SPH. Mostly it just means they'll be using the same code.

Check the texture on the cap end of the parts. You can see a smaller circle inside that looks like the circumference of a 2,5m tank. Also, pay attention to the adaptors. If you look closely you'll see that the width of the pieces is larger than your estimation, meaning a cargo bay of this size could fit a 2,5m tank easily inside it.

Of course it's immoral. Can't you see how many people it hurts? And it sets a bad example for children. Also, it hurts the environment.

You guys know that Fine print is getting implemented into 0.90, right? This probably means we're getting the kind of contracts included in the mod, which is awesome.

Okay, thanks! I'm definitely giving it a try, then.

Quick question: if I install Fine Print, and later decide to uninstall it (such as for the 0.90 update, when it will have become stock), will that break my savegame?

It's not drama. The hyperbole is merely ment to show how the prevailing rationale here argues against a basic tenet of videogames, which is character stats. Should all Street Fighter characters have the same moves because we want only the player's skills to matter? Should all the athletes in a FIFA game have the exact same stats (and this could even be said to be a simulation game) for the same reason? I hear many people claiming it breaks the laws of physics, some implying it breaks immersion - though I'm not convinced of either. Far more importantly: it would add to the gameplay. It would give us a reason to care about the characters - an in-game reason, not something that's only in our heads. It would make us invest in our kerbals. Instead we're probably getting bonuses to funds and reputations. So instead of becoming ace pilots, our astronauts will be cash and attention grabbers. Thanks, but no, thanks.

By the end of the week this thread may have convinced the devs to remove the kerbals from Kerbal Space Program. After all, if the player is the one flying the spaceships, anything that implies otherwise is unwelcome, right?

Both of you are missing the point: the rookie doesn't know the limits of the engine, so he has to respect the limits put before him. He doesn't overthrottle. If he did, he engine could explode. The veteran knows the ship as his mistress and can disregard the safety limits. Hould he be fired for that? Maybe in your game: your program has stricter procedures, so you go and turn off the option. Not in mine: I'm the one running the freaking space program in my game, and I decide who I hire or fire. I don't follow NASA protocol, unless I want to. I'm not just the pilot in my game - or I would be playing Orbiter. No, you just don't agree with it. It's fine, you're entlited to your opinion. But you're defending your opinion as the fundamental law that governs the universe (physics!!!), and you want all our games to conform to your vision, when we should all have the option to play as we want, matching our different styles and interests. People could have a lot of fun with this feature. If you can't or don't see how, that's okay. But if you don't want other people to have fun, because of "physics", well, that's kind of sad.

Just want to stop by to adress some of the arguments against the engine perks: - Thrust/fuel increase bonus would break the laws of physics: as MaxMaps pointed out, the system is being approached as an experienced pilot knowing the limits of the spacecraft and being able tu push it beyond the safety margin. I hear some actual spacecraft can reach thrust above 100%, such as the space shuttle - it would be akin to that. It certainly is more believable than a suggestion that was thrown around: increasing the power of the SAS (the game reaction wheels are already far more powerful than real life "physics" would allow). - It would make impossible for people to share designs or to copy designs from youtubers: MaxMaps has said that the bonus would max out at 5%. That's not that high. In a ship with 4000 m/s dv, it would mean a 200 m/s dv bonus. For most missions, you should already be carrying an extra reserve of about that, it just increases your safety margin. And if you want to share a design that everyone can use, it's just sensible that you don't make a ship that can only be flown by a freaking lv 5 veteran. - It would ruin my game, I hate it!: would it still ruin your game if it was a toggleable option that you could turn off in the difficulties panel? Do you have to stop everyone - even people who want this feature - from getting it to be happy?

I feel the very same way.

Honestly, if kerbal experience only gives bonuses for science, reputation and funds, they might as well scrap the whole experience system. We already have the strategies for that. I wish we could get an actual bonus from an experienced kerbal, but it seems that after all the complaints we won't get anything that adds to the gameplay, since the community seems to be allergic to the whole "gameplay" concept.

Hey, RoverDude! Just want you to know that I found out what was causing the issue, and it wasn't really your fault (kind of). I've downloaded the latest ModuleManager version (2.5.1) and switched it with the one that came with the mods (2.3.5), and everything magically started working. I'm bumping my head in the wall right now for not doing this earlier (I just assumed the ModuleManager version in the USI mods was the latest one). I highly reccomend you to change it in your files so no one else comes across this issue! Thanks a lot for the attention, anyway!

Nope, the issue is still there with only ART installed. And testing isn't a big deal, since with HyperEdit makes it pretty easy to rendezvous with an asteroid. One thing, though: the line "Const. MoltenRock Full" appears on the right-click menu of the Jaw part even before docking it with the asteroid. Is that normal?

Gah! I'll try a complete reinstall as soon as I have the time, and let you know about the results. Edit: Good news is that KSP downloads way faster than I thought on Steam. Bad news is that reinstalling everything from scratch haven't solved the issue (but it seems I'm no longer having the problem with stock parts not loading).