Corw

With RCS less is more. Small puffs. Use precision mode (caps locks on), it will try to balance use of RCS so you don't wobble too much.

Jool moons are pain to read. So much noise in top right part. Nice work, but could be simplified, maybe?

Your "mirror movement" already exists. It is called properly orientated docking target. If you turn your target vessel so that target docking port is perpendicular to orbit direction, you and your target will rotate in same way, so all you have to manage is your position left/right up/down. I have been using that for over 2 years. Here is a vid at relevant time https://youtu.be/nlG-N35u1KQ?t=8m36s

Yeah, I think that is the core of the problem. We have more than enough parts to make a good experience out of the game, but stock tech tree and goals keep falling short. I've had great expectations of Better than starting manned and SETI, but again both of them get their own weaknesses (BTSM ruins it for me with dubious design decisions like disabling actual useful tools (part offset) for fear of cheating and battery mass obsession), SETI gets a bloated tech tree...). I see all those parts we already have and in game context I realize I never ever really need them for anything. So I keep waiting for things I find important to show up in patch notes. No sign of them so far.

Well, this part didn't work out now, did it? 35 year old representing.

So when I click the page number is scrolls to top and then puts on the "loading" message? When I hit replay it scrolls all the way to the bottom of the page? Post editor has way too much meat between lines. I don't like this. :|

Not impressed.

A meaningful campaign progression.

They never did to start with.

So I guess you don't bother with patch notes and all other sources of information?

And add some completely new ones

From my experience the Steam updates only what is in the original game folder under steam and only the files that are original game files, all other files are left untouched. It is not clear what exactly you did, care to elaborate? Did you had both your versions inside Steam folder or different place?

That is correct. It would probably be more efficient to launch vertical. It wasn't deliberate design. Which was the point of the whole thread, actually... I know it doesn't, but in practice mostly it is. Especially for me Seen worse threads over the years. And their duplicates. Well, I was just taken by surprise how can something just work like that out of the box without any thought or design in mind. It felt completely wrong so I was wondering if it was some kind of problem on my side or even a bug...

Cor blimy, Slash. Use the F1 for screenshots.

It wasn't easy for me, I struggled a long time till I got it right the first time. And their flight profile can be tricky. Besides, they were never really my thing, I make one or two at each patch, nothing with payload. I prefer multi stage rockets, hence my shock with this rocket only/horizontal takeoff design. - - - Updated - - - OK, consider me schooled. Marked thread as answered.

It is trivial in a way I wasn't actually trying to build anything. It is just the bare minimum parts throw in together, without intention to build an SSTO and it worked from the first try. I wasn't even trying and I'm not that good. I have no experience with rocket only SSTO, can you show me?

But this is not easy, this is trivial - - - Updated - - - Oh, just to make it clear, it lifts off from runway, horizontal takeoff...

This really doesn't look right. I was fooling around with new engine and accidentally got to orbit? Can someone confirm the build, my config files might be borked (upgraded install that used to be modded) and I can't be redownloading right now to confirm (I'm off to bed). - - - Updated - - - Note: it is just a cockpit, large rocket fuselage, that new rear plate part, new engine, tail, wings and single control surface pair for both pitch and roll... It is literally minimum parts I've thrown in to test engine gimbal...

I think you can still switch to Steam, if you want to.

They should be compatible as is. No major changes under the hood.

Things got more complex over time, that is for sure. They never actually finished adding major features (heat for example *is* a major feature, it is not an eyecandy only, that is for sure), so they never managed to get to the point where they have nothing left to do but bugfix and optimize. For all intents and purposes the game is still in beta. But from my experience with the game it was always rather stable. I do get a crash from time to time, but last time I checked it was like once in a month of gaming. I would have it running like 5-6 hours a day (playing 2-3 hours out of it, but leaving it on at all times while I'm away, something you do when you have kids, many, many, many unscheduled breaks). During that time it crashed *once* and it got me really surprised. Yes, there are part count limits and other problems, but it is a rather stable game (I have it with 20-25 mods, but none of them are part packs). From devnotes it looks like we are finally getting into a phase where fixing and optimising is getting the focus, but bare in mind that shifting to new Unity engine *is* again a major change to the game. In short, I do agree the performance has deteriorated over time, but I do believe the major reason behind that is that there just wasn't that much stuff running under the hood back in 0.17 compared to now, not lack of love from Harvester and the crew.

Squad has been fixing the leaks and optimizing their code for the whole time of the development of their game. For example 1.0.4 fixed memory leak introduced in 1.0.3 There is plenty of information about bugfixing and optimisations in all devnotes regarding next releases. So your statement is rather invalid.

Just another note, any unattended object in Kerbin orbit with periapis below 30 (35)? kilometres will be deleted (simulating deorbit because of atmosphere braking).

Thank you, Kasper!

I was talking about seps in current version.