Corw

If you want to call it 1.0 it has to be complete, rounded up game. No placeholders, no crashes, no beta feel. So that would mean you have to finish and polish all things already in like aero and re-entry, those are obvious placeholders and need to be complete. There are missing IVA-s and decoupler bugs, memory hogging... Polish the science and tech tree, career progression... Other stuff that has been talked about like warp to Ap and resources are usability and bling and can be left out for now. Again, what is in must feel finished on its own, without obvious missing or broken parts and systems. [rant]I've said it before, you've bitten too much for single update and if you have to ask this question it is clear you know that too by now. It really feel you need at least one more beta update, you are changing too much at once to make it work from the first time.[/rant]

When I land on Kerbin I'm used to landing in empty field. It has always been like that and when I land, I expect empty field. When I land in Paris, I expect Eiffel tower to be there. That would be summary of things why I dislike RSS. It is my personal view. RSS just doesn't feel right. On my first launch I switched to Baikonur, if I'm not mistaken. it looked like ..... It was total immersion breaker. If it wasn't Earth but some other Earth-sized plant, it could have worked, but as bad copy of what Earth is supposed to be, it irritated me to no end. I just couldn't do it.

Adds nothing of value for me. Just more generic empty space. Kerbal works great as cartoon word, sucks hard as not-realistic-enough real world. Immersion breaker.

Both career ans sandbox are viable and I don't see why sandbox would be less worthy. Mentioning sandbox as 'cheaty' is hilarious Personally I prefer career, I like solving problems with limited resources.

I must have missed something. Since when the next update is .91 and not 1.0?

Sepatrons also look good Determine the centre of mass for empty booster and place 2 sepatrons there. Works every time.

Opened small cargo bay with chair inside?

When we are talking about SSTO we usually mean plane-based ones. If you are talking about ingame cost to operate one, yes, SSTO are very efficient, off the scale. If you are talking about real time required to construct and operate one, it is simply not worth it. Let me compare it to ion engines. Yes, you get ....load of delta v out of ion engine, but you are going to grow a beard to actually go anywhere with them. You are not going to use them much. Some people like the challenge. Hell, we have Whackjob. I could never get into things he is doing, I just don't have the inclination or patience for it, but that doesn't mean there aren't whack-jobs around to do it. Yes, plane SSTOs have become easy to make. Maybe it is experience, it took me quite some time to break into them, but they seam to be very very easy to make after we got Rapiers. However, I believe things are going to change drastically in near future. Nerfs to engines have been announced, the drag model is changing and re-entry heat is changing. It is unlikely SSTOs are not going to be affected. And huge monstrosities posted above will probably be affected the most. p.s. most of them are too ugly to look at anyway

Get a proper fairings mod, you hobo

I think your "three times longer than rocket" is way, way, waaaay underestimated.

Not having to press key all the time would help. And a throttle.

Indeed.

Only problem is I can't see landing site from clouds

I know. And I agree. But if you are using RCS as main propulsion system, you are doing it wrong (in most cases, it is completely viable for very small craft).

Yes, but RCS is not usually viewed as propulsion system. It is a control system (reaction control system) which can be abused, as shown. Ions, on the other hand are first of all propulsion system. I know it is semantics and it is quite silly to start with (my plane got to orbit with bit more than half a tank of jet fuel and spent less than 20 units of monoprop to circularize). Easy to fly too

Wow, that is amazing. Not. N body physics is not a feature, you can't get "tugged by moon" unless you are not in moon's sphere of influence. As for the OP, you can circularize with RCS easy. Been there, done that. Very low part count too

Cool. I'll have to check it out then

I remember not having idea if my rocket is able to actually get off the ground. That part sucked.

if I remember correctly (it has been quite some time I've played Orbiter), that may look nice on screenshot, but when you are actually fly above it, you clearly see that you are flying over a photo plastered on a ball. So no, KSP still feels better.

Is there a mod that links throttle level to wheels?

Seconding!

I strongly disagree with those that say the graphic does not matter. It is not the most important part of the game, but it matters. Personally, some of the best parts of the game are when I get to orbit and then take a minute to enjoy the view. THAT is really important moment in the game for me. As for graphic in game, my biggest gripe is that a lot of things look mismatched. It is clear it has been made by many people over significant period of time. Streamlining the design and aesthetics is one of the things I would consider to be necessary for KSP to feel finished (or call it 1.0 if you like). Clouds go into nice-to-have category, not mandatory.

Aerobreak?

Max, check the url, please. It is forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com. A community dedicated to freaking Kerbal Space Program, not cat gifs or racist jokes or whatever with maybe some KSP sprinkled here and there. It is not unreasonable to want to be informed at one place. If I want to know what is new with my favourite alpha game, I come here. If I want bathtub girl gifs, this is sure not the place I'll come to.

Dude, but his stake is overdone...