[KSP 0.9 is NOT fun to play]

If responding in kind to people who dismiss others as trolls and merely trumpet "HURR DURR ITS OKEH FOR ME SO U MUST BE RONGG" to a legitimate complaint about the aspect of gameplay is rude so be it.

I didnt come asking for help. I was giving feedback about the gameplay, but nonetheless I have responded as expected of a civilised person to the people who are actually offering suggestions and trying to help.

- - - Updated - - -

Well actually my problem or rather grief (since it *is* possible though painful and tedious in most cases) is with any flight where SAS is not possible (pre-octo probes and flights without pilots).

You are doing exactly the thing you are mocking. "HURR DURR ITS NOT OKEH FOR ME SO U MUST BE RONGG" For some reason it is working for us, but not working for you. Post pictures or give craft file.

[What was your first craft?]

Oldest screenshot, not oldest rocket. Guess it was same but smaller

[Is KSP dying?]

says the man with 40 of them.

Maybe he is speaking from his own experience?

[Modding Community Observations]

One thing I did come up with though, was Comets.. I'd love to see some Comets. A mission to try and land a probe on a comet would be SO COOL.

Add particle effect on a asteroid. What is so cool about that?

[What was the first mod ever created?]

I wonder if that's were the loading screen comes from^^ I wouldn't be surprised

Loading screen with faces is fanart, if I'm not mistaken.

[Do you feel KSP is ready for 1.0?]

Well, that's just rude and childish. We're discussing KSP, not your eating habits.

You are missing the point. They are really selling some god awful games these days and we have become OK with that. KSP is really different in every regard.

[Do you feel KSP is ready for 1.0?]

When compared to other games that were 1.0 where I payed full price for.... KSP is nothing short but a miracle.

When you are used to eating [dirt] having a cookie still does not make it a roast beef.

[Do you feel KSP is ready for 1.0?]

The update following 1.0 will be 2.0.

When did KSP turn Firefox?

[Tutorial Feedback for Maxmaps]

What's with this thing of posting everywhere except your own forums?

[What was the first mod ever created?]

There was also the pre-EVA kerbals, such as Jeb, Bill and Bob strapped to a plywood square.

[Do you feel KSP is ready for 1.0?]

I know the Early Access environment has so far been... well, not great.

OK, this is one thing I do not understand (actually, more, like string theory and... never mind).

What is so wrong in "Early Access environment" and what will change by going into release? What is the "Early Access environment" anyway? Is it some technical/legal thing with Steam or something maybe? I know I might be silly, but I have to ask.

Cause if it is just the arbitrary name they want to call (alpha, beta, release, 2nd coming of Raptorjesus) it still makes no sense.

[Do you feel KSP is ready for 1.0?]

In the world I live in the 1.0 means "complete", not "working, but need to be worked on still". KSP is beautiful beta, but lousy release. That is all I have to say on the subject.

[I figured out how to autorun]

I jam the key with teaspoon.

[Is This True?]

Can't remember when it crashed crew checking in.

[Devnote Tuesdays: The Aerodynamic Edition]

Looking forward to the new aerodynamics, though I may suggest something :

We should be able to choose the difficulty of aerodynamics in a dedicated UI :

Old

Easy (SDF)

Medium

Hard

Insanity (FAR)

Alternate (NEAR)

You have no idea what you are asking for.

[OKTO2 Probe has no torque!]

I have OKTO2 probe cores on several dozen ships spread around the Kerbol system, so this change made me very sad.

Come on, Squad! Give the OKTO2 at least a small amount of torque so that all my smal probes can operate again. Pretty please.

You could save your carrier by editing the config files.

[There's a mod for that!]

Squad has recruited several modders over time and we have seen integration of several mods into the core game, starting long long time ago with plane parts. So modding has improved and speeded up the development of core game. Mods had also provided very good info which features are viable and desirable. There is only hald a dozen of Squad devs and over time probably over hundred modders. So it is actually half a platoon vs army

Devs can only add so much features in given time so your statement "features should be made stock a long time ago" is rather subjective cause HarveseR had other priorities than you which features should be added first. If your list was priority we would be missing something that we have currently.

So no, excessive modding in this case has accelerated the development.

[Stock space shuttle is overrated i tried to launch it in sandbox using mechjeb and.]

...And it's impossible to launch it the shulle start spining, it's not possible to launch it.

Just because you can't doesn't mean it is impossible

[Get rid of classes for sandbox]

Edit all Kerbals to pilots? Edit Kerbals to have all classes?

[KSP 0.9 releases on the 26th Dec?]

Did anyone else notice the hidden date in the Cinematic trailer for 0.9?

http://youtu.be/wYHQ2onwtK4

At around 1:37 the digits "0.9" changes to "26" for a very short moment.

So could the 26 of Dec be the release date perhaps? =D

Wow, you got both of the versions wrong. It is .90, not 0.9

[Squadcast Summary (Updated 2014-12-13 - the 0.90 features video edition!)]

No. Later is not the time. Squad is in a lockdown mindset, unwilling to backtrack on released features. Once a feature is done it is done. They might do some tweaking hear and there for balance, but they will not remove anything post-public release. Other than the old parts and KSC, which were just models, have they ever admitted a mistake and removed a feature? This is a common issue with startups. Any removal seems like a backstep, rather than a correction. So now is the one and only time for us non-beta testers to have any input.

Yes they did. Resource mining

[Squadcast Summary (Updated 2014-12-13 - the 0.90 features video edition!)]

Maybe you just leave the CSM passively orbiting, but there's a reason why they were called CSM pilots in the real thing. Moreover, what's the point of leaving an engineer, the sole purpose of which would be to do things like fix rover wheels or landing legs (i.e. stuff needed at landing site) in the CSM?

That is a good question Guess the workaround would be to go with engineer and scientist to the surface. On return LM should establish stable orbit and CSM would be the active party in docking. I'm guessing everybody should be able to fit any position, but specialist will do it better/have more options.

Personally, I'm not bothered that much how they did it in the real thing. My set of toys and constraints is different than historical ones, so I do things differently.

[How do YOU launch?]

I press space.

On serious side, clamps in same stage as engines. Full throttle, go.

[Squadcast Summary (Updated 2014-12-13 - the 0.90 features video edition!)]

i hope you can give kerbals multiple professions, particularly pilot - otherwise apollo-style missions could never have all three specialists on board as you'd need a pilot in the csm as well as the lm.

i also really liked the barns, dunno why people were so pissed about it...

Why do you need a pilot in CSM which is just orbiting? The LM is active party during docking.

[Squadcast Summary (Updated 2014-12-13 - the 0.90 features video edition!)]

Well, during the Gemini program they were still figuring out how to rendezvous in space. Relative velocities, going faster means slower orbit, etc. But, I agree with you that not having orbit lines is excessive. Humans knew laws of gravitation and velocity formulas hundreds of years before we went to space. So yes, I think you should be able to see orbit lines.

You first few missions will be suborbital. By the time you can go orbital you'll have the lines. What is the problem with that?