Raptor9

I was thinking the same thing for the stage and a half...I would love to do a Soviet-style Mun mission, but that's something I'm going to tackle down the road (I'm digging the Soviet-green textures on some of the parts and the fairings). I'm forcing myself to update all existing craft first. That sounds like an excellent suggestion. I honestly hadn't realized I had grouped them as such. I was trying to steer away from "Human" mythology, and adopt an analogous naming scheme to the Jupiter and Saturn-series rockets that were being tested early in the American space program; but there are already so many rockets that are labeled Jool or Sarnus, so I wouldn't be breaking any new ground there. But I like Olympus. It seems to convey large size as well as reminding me of Olympus Mons on Mars, the largest mountain and largest volcano in the Solar System. I'll add 'Olympus' to my list of possible names.

I had to do some investigation into what exactly you were referring to. A lot of interesting concepts in there I'll have to look through when I get more time. I had planned to do the real Saturns as well as the derivatives that were planned. Not sure if the stage-and-a-half will be among those since I haven't dove into assembling any of these yet, but I know what you're referring to. I'm hoping to do a lot more post-Apollo-type stuff than before; but again, I may have an idea on how something will work in my head or on paper, but when I start throwing parts together in the VAB, it doesn't always work out.

Keep up the awesome site maintenance and updates @katateochi.

This weekend has been quite productive. With the 1.4.1 update and DLC, I haven't enjoyed engineering craft in the VAB like this in a while, so thank you again @SQUAD. ______________________________________ I've made the decision to implement the DLC parts into my catalog, in lieu of remaining purely within the core game set of parts. That's not to say all craft being updated will include DLC parts; but there will be a mixed bag of sorts. Some areas will have more heavy DLC integration, while others may have none. One such example of this is my Rocket Market category. Some tiers will be void of DLC, some will have a mix, and some will consist almost entirely of DLC parts. The lifter tiers will be broken down as follows: Tier 1 - 'Arrow' 1.25m rocket family. Previously known as the 'Javelin' series, these will be remain "core game" stock. The only original 'Arrow' launcher that existed prior was the suborbital booster for my EV-1A, but now the naming convention will encompass the entire family. The original 'Arrow' booster will be added as well, for lofting small satellites of 0.5 tons and below to LKO (up to 200x200 km orbit). (The small Jeb's Junkyard fins make these craft look more like arrows than javelins anyway ) Tier 2 (NEW) - 'Javelin' 1.875m rocket family. These will loft the Gemini-analogue to orbit, and are planned to expand into a proper family after I finish updating existing craft. These will obviously all consist of DLC parts. Tier 3 - 'Thunder'/'Lightning' 2.5m rocket family. EDIT: These will all be DLC rockets, I mistook a DLC part for one that was included free in 1.4. Tier 4 - 'Titan' 3.75m rocket family. Most of these will remain "core game" stock, however the 'Titan 3P' and 'Titan 4N' will include a couple DLC parts for better performance. Tier 5 (NEW) - Un-named 5m rocket family, obviously inspired by the real-life Saturn rockets. I have an idea of what I want to do with these, but aside from casual play with the Saturn V parts, I haven't planned out how the rocket family will materialize, although I have some ideas jotted down. I'm rebuilding every craft file from scratch, to ensure every part is optimized to my current design techniques and standards; and I'm actually enjoying myself. There's been a few occasions where I've looked at the guts of an older craft and thought to myself "Why on Kerbin did I do that?" or "Why did I use that part for that purpose?" On the SPH side of the house, most of these don't require updates, but I'll be taking a look at each aircraft/spaceplane for improvement as well. I do plan on re-making the interior of the C7 325R; it's overdue for a revision. I also want to squeeze a little more performance out of the SR-19 'Valkyrie'. So much to do, so little time...

Yeah, I agree. It's hard to justify tailoring a part to meet a precise requirement when the entire parts system is built around the Lego-style assemble-your-own-spacecraft and "Use this part for whatever you want" potential. The comparison just throws me a little.

My only complaint with the MEM is that it's dwarfed compared to the Mk3-1 capsule. Further exacerbating the comparison is the SM-25 service module is excessively long; assembling an Apollo-style craft consisting of a Mk3-1 pod, SM-25 service module, and RE-J10 Wolfhound engine makes the MEM look quite petite compared to the real-life LEM. But as was stated multiple times, the DLC parts weren't supposed to be replicas, but rather Kerbalized analogues inspired by their real-life counterparts. As much as I wish the MEM was larger, I think we're probably past a model revision. And I would hate to imagine Leti or Pablo being forced to redo another IVA that already looks good.

As long as the craft files are properly accredited, that's fine.

Since "voting with my wallet" seems to be the best way for customers to voice their approval or disapproval of products, I'll further reinforce my stance that the DLC is worth the money in the fact that I bought the DLC for myself as well as for a friend of mine. (Full disclosure: I bought KSP in March 2012)

Seeing how this is the biggest content/feature addition to KSP since v1.0, I'm not surprised there are bugs. I haven't encountered any significant ones yet after 7 hrs of gameplay, but I have posted a couple minor ones to the bugtracker. I think the next few weeks as people really sink their teeth into it there will be a better read on the community's view on it.

I was afraid when someone was going to bring that up, but it is a factor to consider nonetheless. I've given this substantial thought this past year, especially the past few months when the majority of the features of the DLC were becoming more well known. I haven't done any catalog craft re-builds yet, I spent most of last night just having fun building an Apollo-Saturn V, a Soyuz, and a Gemini-Titan. The concerns I have regarding immediately diving into heavy craft redesigns and revisions mainly revolves around the size and scope of the v1.4.1/DLC itself. If you consider all the features added into KSP by combining the core game updates and the DLC, this was by far the biggest content and feature addition since v1.0. And we saw four patches come out in a relatively short period (less than two months) after v1.0 was released to address bugs or balance issues (I don't consider 1.0.5 a patch since it was half a year later and delivered more content). I wouldn't be surprised to see a 1.4.2 patch in the near future to address some of the more minor bugs still present (I've seen several), or to address balance issues. Adding this many parts to the game there is bound to be more balancing to be done. But that's just me speculating. But to summarize where to expect DLC-specific part implementation, the priority will be to reduce part count (with the more obvious example being the EV-2C; @Jestersage you pretty much hit the nail on the head), or to cover any significant performance gaps. Until I have more time to play with the new stuff to see how it "stacks up" (bad pun ), I don't want to make any promises on what will or will not stay "core game" only or not.

(That made me laugh more than it should)

I'm sure they'll extend it to make sure you're included. I started on Jan 4, 2014. Can they extend it another month so I'm included too? I'm fairly certain @klgraham1013 was being sarcastic. And @Clockwork13, if you were also being sarcastic as well, nevermind. The underlying point being it would be extremely unlikely and unreasonable they would move the deadline to accommodate a single player. Even aside from it being a poor business model, the outrage over that slippery slope would be monumental. They move it forward so everyone in 2013 could get the DLC for free, and then everyone that purchased it in 2014 would demand the equal treatment of moving the deadline forward so they could qualify, and so on and so forth. The reason that early backers are receiving the DLC for free isn't because Squad is playing favorites, using arbitrary deadlines, or using double-standards. In early 2013, it became apparent there was an ambiguous definition over what Squad considered "free updates" versus "paid expansions" or "DLC's" when the game was still early in it's Alpha phase of development. This is the response that was posted in April of 2013. This was meant to clarify any confusion that may have existed up to that point over what was promised to the early backers at the time of their purchases, while setting the official policy of how Squad intended to handle any potential post-v1.0 development. Keep in mind, at this time there were no official or publicly announced plans for any "expansions" or "DLC's", because the game was still a ways out from being released as v1.0. Early backers were receiving "free updates" as new alpha builds were released; said updates were meant to field additional features, bug-fixes, and sometimes outright feature revisions ultimately meant for the final v1.0 release. But it became necessary to establish those definitions within the KSP community to delineate the differences, if expansions/DLC's ever became a thing in the future.

It's possible they may explain the process for purchasing and downloading the DLC (Steam, non-Steam, early-adopters, purchasing, etc) directly during the Launch Party.

Makes you wonder what other little nuggets are unknown. I only found out recently that you can rename craft directly from the Tracking Station, including debris. (You select a vessel, or debris, from the list on the left, open the vessel info app button in the bottom right corner, and double-click the vessel title in the orange bar and a "Rename Vessel" dialog box will pop up. No clue how long this was available, but a Twitch streamer pointed it out to me in 1.3.1 a month ago)

Planned? Yes. Up until the early half of January I was experimenting with various designs for a long-range configuration of the EV-6 Windjammer architecture that was specifically configured for Jool, namely robust communications and less reliance on solar power. Even though the EV-6 spacecraft system was inspired by Lockheed's Mars Base Camp concept, the EV-6 was intended from the outset to be an extensible spacecraft system for not just Duna, but also Eve, Dres, and Jool. I stopped work on it however after it was announced that KSP 1.4 was coming soon and there were several part revisions and stats rebalancing that would be happening with the core game of stock parts. After the 1.4.1 patch comes out on Tuesday, I'll be mainly focusing on taking a look at all my existing published craft to ensure they are brought up to currency and tweaked as necessary. The monopropellant- and xenon-based ships will be the most effected, like the LV-2 family of landers and the EV-5 'Drifter' variants.

Unfortunately, the announced cut-off deadline was April 2013. So that being the case you wouldn't qualify for a free copy of the DLC. I think the KSP Early Adopters on that screenshot may refer to anyone that bought it in Early Access prior to v1.0, but I could be wrong.

@Wallygator, a previous Daily Kerbal on December 15th mentioned this HERE. Hope this helps clarify where Private Division fits within the Squad/Take Two hierarchy. It mentions them under the [Development news start here] line.

This was asked and answered higher up on this page above your post.

The missing IVA on the Mk3-1 pod has already been identified and is supposed to be fixed by the 1.4.1 update on Tuesday (March 13).

Probably the reason Squad/Take Two doesn't address some of the rants, raves and conspiracy theories online (forums or otherwise), is because they don't believe it's worth their time. I seriously doubt scientists go out of their way to repeatedly try to convince flat-earthers that the Earth is a sphere, because conspiracy theories and paranoia are rarely ever de-bunked with facts in the eyes of those that believe in such theories, no matter what. There will always be one more person in the crowd that stands up with a finger pointed at them and says "Yeah BUT....!" Squad/Take Two could come online and state in a deadpan manner: "We are not doing anything nefarious. We are not an evil corporation. We are normal people trying to make a living by selling a product." And you know what would happen? There would still be a litany of forum posts here, or on Reddit, or elsewhere, lighting virtual torches to shout down the "liars". Best to just let the forum threads run their course, let the moderators keep users from directing their anger at their fellow players, and keep driving forward with their product development and business.

I'm curious as to whether the other two stack RCS tanks (the FL-R25 and the FL-R10) are getting the re-textures previewed HERE. (I don't think it was ever explicitly stated the FL-R10 0.625m tank would get a new texture, however) After seeing only the FL-R1 2.5m stack RCS tank in it's new textures in 1.4, and watching some preview videos of the DLC from guys like Matt Lowne, the part selection in the VAB still has the legacy textures for the FL-R25 and FL-R10. I understand there is a 1.4.1 patch coming and the DLC previews were pre-release builds that may not represent the final product, but I hope the other two stack RCS tanks get the better-looking revamps so they fit into rocket stack aesthetics better. (I will admit some forum users expressed their displeasure at the new textures/models, but I personally like them) __________________________________ EDIT: I'm betting someone will soon make a KSP challenge that involves in-flight vessel boarding where someone has to board a pod in flight by guiding a parachuting Kerbal to a crew pod parachuting down as well.

I'm aware of the new particle effects, but the behavior of the plume is weird. Try clustering several O-10's around each other, throttle up, and pan around them from different views and you'll see what I'm talking about. I know the particle effects changed, but the behavior is odd at best, even for KSP.

I was testing out various engines to see their new sounds in atmo and vacuum. To test the O-10 "Puff" monopropellant engine, I took one of my imported 1.3.1 craft files, Alt-F12ed it to LKO, and started burning the engines. I noticed that individual O-10 engines operating alone, or visually separated from the plumes of other O-10's, seemed to behave as before. However, if a cluster of O-10's were within (or close to) the same line-of-sight, the plume effects seemed to converge to each other as if drawn together. I reverted back to the VAB, and put "new" O-10 engines in case there were any 1.4 code changes (not a programmer here obviously), and the result was the same. In the second frame it even appears as if one of the plumes is hugging the horizon, but that may just be me. The bottom two you can clearly see the plumes being drawn to each other. To reiterate, this behavior only seems to manifest when multiple O-10's are running within the same visual sight line. As I panned around the outside of the lander, the plumes would contract and expand depending on the visual angle. Obviously not a game-breaking issue, just quite an odd sight considering the O-10 is a vacuum engine and if anything the plumes should be expanding, not contracting inwards on one another. KSP version was 1.4.0 (64-bit), being run on Windows 7 with dual Nividia GeForce GTX 680M graphics cards in non-SLI mode. Clean install, no mods.

I'm afraid I have to agree on the sounds regard. I do like the new engine sound with the Juno, however the new sounds really don't convey a sense of "power" as the thrust would of a Whiplash or an afterburning fighter engine running at full throttle. Further, the transition of the Panther between Dry and Wet modes sounds like one engine is spooling down while an entirely different engine is spooling up. If anything, bring back the sudden onset of the "Roar!" that kicked in when the afterburner engaged. To a lessor extent, the Rapier transitions between modes are a little rough too, but at least that engine has a hint of the roar. I'm not talking about volume, because that could be fixed with a slider in the Settings. The more powerful turbine engines lack that unmistakable, deep-throated bass to the sound. Obviously you can't implement audio that shakes someone's chest with a computer game because that would have health implications (not to mention hardware limitations), but the previous sounds conveyed the effect of "raw power" fighting gravity and drag during takeoff. Really liking the texture switching, the new gold mylar foil tanks, and the smooth transitions between VAB and SPH. I keep backing out of the VAB and going to the SPH manually though (or vice versa)...haven't re-wired my brain yet. EDIT: The sounds of some of the rocket engines seem to also be lacking in the "Powah" department. The Mammoth seems to have the raw roar effect, but other similarly powerful rocket engines like the Vector or Rhino are quite quiet for their size and thrust. Even the LV-T30 and LV-T45 seem somewhat muffled.

Thanks @SQUAD. Either I missed the announcement of 1.4 release date prior to today (I thought it was coming out along with the DLC next Tuesday), or it was a very pleasant surprise to find this release announcement after work. In any case, THANK YOU!