Lord Aurelius

I don't remember Squad making any specific promises, but I wouldn't mind if Squad added some endgame content, possibly some kind of story/campaign mode. I think I remember hearing secondhand that NovaSilisko made some comments a long time ago (at least two years) about some kind of big overarching mission involving the anomalies, but I haven't heard anything recently other than people commenting/discussing on the forums. Edit: From looking at the other comment I may have misread your post as well. Resource mining is basically the current endgame due to the difficulty of setting up a mining infrastructure. I wouldn't mind if they added some more endgame parts as well similar to what MKS/OKS, KSPI and Near Future Propulsion provide.

Excellent, thanks for taking the time to do this for those of us who aren't familiar with writing plugins.

I think something like this exists already: Custom Control Pad Looks like it hasn't been updated for 1.0 yet though. As far as a mobile version of KSP goes, I can see a market for a simplified 2D spin-off along the lines of Space Agency or Simple Rockets. Full KSP doesn't really make sense for interface and performance reasons. Technically, if you want to play mobile KSP you could get one of those cheap 7" or 8" windows tablets (HP has one for $100) and run it on there. I can't imagine that it would have all that great of performance, and a pure touch interface would be frustrating to play with (although I have seen some interface mods as well that put some basic controls on the screen).

Here's an interesting mod I just found: Take Command. It's a full remake of an old (now deceased) mod that lets you put kerbals in command seats from the VAB.

This needs to be stock. Well done! +rep

Glad to hear the devs are getting back to work (I appreciate that they're working on another hotfix, but still not happy with the decisions that resulted in 1.0 needing THREE hotfixes before 1.1). Unity 5 will be a great opportunity to really improve the core of the game, I hope Squad takes the time to do it right and refactor the code as necessary. We need a solid foundation before more features (a balance and polish pass wouldn't hurt either). Looking forwards to proper 64-bit support on Windows.

I agree that SRBs are currently underpowered in KSP. As others have said, not enough thrust compared to LF engines, abysmal ISP, high cost and empty weight. This combination basically makes them useless in most cases except in early career. They also aren't balanced against each other all that well. The Flea and Hammer have decent TWR, but really short burn times and terrible ISP. The big NASA SRB has a proper burn time, but a poor TWR. The BACC is just bad all around (still!). There's also some gaps in the SRB coverage. We really need a long, thin 0.625m SRB, the Flea and Hammer just look silly. They look like they should be vacuum kickers, not surface boosters. On the other end, we need a large 2.5m booster (long and thin, please!) along with possibly a 2.5m low profile vacuum kicker. 5m rocket parts wouldn't be a bad idea either (along with the requisite 3.75m SRB).

They work great for fireworks.

When your munar flyby results in the Mun being captured by your rocket.

Not to mention that watching a video of a game (or better yet playing a demo) gives you a much better feel for the game. All reviews are necessarily biased, there's no escaping that. An amazing game to one person will be terrible to another, and the best reviews will acknowledge this. My bias is towards technical excellence and execution so I don't agree with the reviews overlooking these things, but I do understand that KSP is an amazing concept and the game is still fun in spite of its flaws. Modding support also covers a multitude of sins (see every elder scrolls game ever made) and really is what makes this game playable for me.

Nice, much cleaner than what Scott Manley had to do for a rover in his 1.0 beginner's videos. That rover used landing gear and a jet engine...

Minmus, probably because it's easy to get to and those flats make for easy landings. Laythe and Vall are also interesting (Vallhenge is one of the better anomalies), but I don't get out there as much as I would like due to having to deal with transfer windows. Tylo is great for rovers. The other moons are kind of boring for me. Mun, Ike and Dres are all pretty much the same in terms of appearance, terrain and gravity, same goes for Gilly, Bop and Pol (which are also kind of annoying to land on due to the extremely low gravity).

There's no one "best" tree, it's what fits your playstyle best. Most tech trees support mods reasonably well, but the Community Tech Tree is designed specifically to provide a tech tree for modders to place parts in, rather than just rearranging stock parts. It's based on the stock tech tree and has a ton of mod support. If you would rather not start with manned pods, SETI provides an extension to the CTT that reworks a few nodes and moves a bunch of parts around to better fit starting with probes. Since it's based on the CTT, it still has excellent mod support. Disclaimer: If you didn't notice from my signature, I very much like SETI. It's my personal favorite. A few others as well (copied from the SETI page, I haven't tried these personally): Mod-Oriented Tech Tree - 2 versions available, one for a manned start and one for an unmanned start KSAEA - Kerbal Space and Atmospheric Exploration Agency Tech Tree and Game Rebalance Adios Tech Tree - Star shaped, category based tech tree, manned and unmanned start available Road to Kosmos - Tech progress based on historical space programs Anyways, hope that helps you find a tech tree that fits how you want to play the game. Edit: Ninja'd by the author of SETI himself...

Nothing at all. There are probably better places in the forum for this thread (i.e. General KSP Discussion).

And following klgraham1013's example, I'll do the same in saying that I was one of those critical of 1.0 based on those arguments as well. I'm happy to see that the game is being so well received by reviewers, but I'm still disappointed to see how many rough edges remain (and how reviewers in general tend to selectively ignore such things, companies don't need to be praised for releasing rushed, half-done games). Hopefully Squad won't ignore the valid criticisms presented on the forums because the reviewers were willing to turn a blind eye to (or didn't actually play the game enough to encounter) them. Still, KSP is an amazing game and I want to see it succeed, and rave reviews will definitely help it on that front. Edit: (This was posted while I was writing) Definitely this. As a concept, KSP is brilliant, but from a technical (and graphics, audio, gameplay, balance and polish) standpoint the game still has a lot of issues. Squad honestly isn't a very good software developer, but I will give them credit for acting on the initial idea (there are tons of great ideas for games that never get developed at all) and having the perseverance to see it through to where it is now. Hopefully Squad can learn from their mistakes going forwards and really improve KSP. Moving to Unity 5 will be a great opportunity to address some of the legacy systems they didn't get around to for 1.0, hopefully they'll take advantage of the opportunity. Whatever happens I still want KSP to succeed, its success will mean that other companies will be more likely to start developing games along these lines and competition is always good for the consumer. We've shown that there's a market for this kind of game, and if KSP ultimately doesn't live up to our expectations, then at least there's now a good chance that another company could identify this and release a better game.

@TothAval Great idea, and that is exactly how real space programs work. The more you build rockets, the better you get at building them and that experience can be put towards developing better parts. Kerbal Construction Time provides this to some degree (right now just science points based on the complexity of your rocket) and it makes a lot more sense to me than the current science/tech tree system. And on the original topic of this thread: Getting "science" (i.e. the currency used to research new parts) from contracts (especially those testing a part) makes far more sense to me than getting data points from other planets. It makes no sense to travel halfway across the solar system to get "science" to unlock parts. Realistically, you would either decide that you want to launch a mission and engage in the R&D beforehand, or have some technological breakthrough that provides what is needed to undertake a mission. Contracts still need a lot of work, but having them provide science is the least of their problems.

These are some great ideas and would definitely help out with the "managing a space program" aspect that's more or less missing from the current career. Combining those ideas with something like Kerbal Construction Time would definitely add a time management aspect that is almost entirely missing from the game at this point. Edit: Here's a mod that provides some of the funding aspects (unfortunately not updated for 1.0 yet): Kerbanomics

The purpose of this test is to verify that nosecones do what Squad said they would do: reduce the drag of a rocket stack. This was a much-hyped feature of the new aero (since nosecones were worse than deadweight before) and someone just wanted to verify that the new aero was working as advertised. It didn't, which is why we have this thread which has some excellent experimental results that the devs can hopefully use to narrow down the root cause (too high of a drag value on the nosecone?) and fix the problem. I agree that the atmosphere has other issues as well, but this is actually a pretty significant issue if the new drag system isn't working correctly.

This. While KSP is a great game, it most definitely is not very well polished and you don't have to look far at all to find issues, especially in career mode. I've seen reviewers give games terrible scores for much smaller issues than what KSP still has, I'm not saying that I'm disappointed that KSP got great reviews, but the glowing reviews don't match up to my impression of the game at this point and I'm a little worried that it will send the wrong message to Squad (i.e. it's okay to rush a release and give us a half finished product). There's too much of that in the industry already. @Travisfv I know you were asking klgraham1013, but I can list some of the flaws I've seen as well. Career mode is basically grind mode. There's a few moments of brilliance when you're able to pull off your first Mun/Minmus mission with limited parts, but then you suddenly have enough science to basically do whatever you want. Before that point, it's just a grind to get the science for the parts you need to really go anywhere (not to mention the funds required to get past the silly tier 1 building limitations). When running around the space center with a makeshift rover grabbing science from all the buildings gets you more science than getting into orbit, there's something wrong. Same goes for free funds for simply having a satellite with a solar panel and a thermometer. The tech tree layout doesn't really help either, simple convenience items like ladders are way too far up, and the parts you need to build a 2.5m rocket are spread across 3 different nodes so you have to unlock all of them. Not to mention you don't start with simple experiments like a thermometer or a barometer. For the most part, parts seem to be placed more or less randomly around the tree. Funds are not particularly balanced. 3 stabilization fins cost more than the 1.25m engines, for example. A large mothership style mission to Jool with multiple launches costs less than upgrading the VAB to the max level. Contracts are just ridiculous for the most part. There's a whole thread devoted to insane contracts people have had come up. Part tests under just plain ridiculous conditions, crazy orbits for satellite contracts, etc. Overall, career needs a major overhaul that it didn't get in 1.0 It's not particularly well balanced or fun outside of a narrow point around the early-mid game.

I agree with the premise of the original post, the past has already happened, and plenty has already been said on the topic (i.e. I'm pretty sure the devs got the message). Additional hostility is not likely to accomplish much at this point (disclaimer: I was NOT happy with how 1.0 turned out and some of my earlier posts were rather negative). One additional suggestion I would like to make is that if you're still riled up about some of the issues with 1.0, direct that energy in a constructive way by participating in a suggestion/discussion thread to generate constructive ideas on how to improve the game going forwards (it's okay to be frustrated with some of the things in 1.0, I know I still am) so take a moment to clearly state what you're frustrated with in a civil, constructive manner and give some suggestions on what could be done to improve it. Alternatively, if you're into modding, find a mod that's trying to address one of the shortcomings of the game and offer to help out, or even start your own mod if you have the propensity for it. Lastly, if you really need to, take a break from the game. Things will improve as Squad irons out the rough edges and modders do their thing, so if you come back in a bit you may very well find that the issues that caused so much frustration have been fixed.

Ok, fixed the issue with the bottom attachment node on the HRB. Download is updated. If you're curious, the only thing I had to change was node_stack_bottomhybridBooster1 = 0,-2.16683,0,0,-1,0,1 <- note the -1 instead of 1 on the 3rd to last parameter. Lots of small changes from 0.90 to 1.0. I also figured out why I had HRBs showing up in two places in my tech tree, I had the HRB mod installed alongside SETI and both were adding it. I was tired last night... Anyways, it's all fixed now and as always I'm really liking the changes so far. One other quick note: the starting probe core has 200EC, but the first cockpit only has 50EC. Is that intentional or just an oversight?

SETI is another good one as well, it also includes some minor rebalances to reflect how parts have been moved and to fix the worst inconsistencies in stock. Edit: Came back in on my PC to add a link since it's a pain from the mobile forum site, and noticed that the mobile site doesn't post signatures...

Looks good, only other suggestion I can think of for now is to indicate on the OP what part mods are supported by SETIctt at this point. Edit: Found one small issue, the HRBs are listed in both basic rocketry and general rocketry. And I noticed that the bottom node of the HRB doesn't work. Sorry about that, I'll take a look at that this weekend. For now it makes a great first stage booster. Another thought on progression: could we get the sepratron in general rocketry (instead of advanced) to have something small that can be used for deorbiting? The cost of the stabilization fins is also very high compared to early engines (this is a problem in stock), either the engines need to be brought up or the fins need to be cheaper. 3x symmetry fins should NOT cost more than a LVT-45. @Everyone What do you think of the balance for the HRB? Is there any interest in a smaller HRB based on the Flea, or a larger one?

I was majorly disappointed by the 1.0 launch as well, but I have to agree with the last several posts in saying that we've had enough threads like this. The message has been sent, KasperVld started a thread that had to be closed that's filled with post after post expressing dissatisfaction with 1.0. I'm not trying to be rude to those who are disappointed with the update, I'm with you and understand (go look up my posts in that closed thread), but it's time to move on. Squad is planning on continuing development, and modders are already hard at work updating their mods. The current state of the game is not going to be the final state. Instead of venting here, go participate in a discussion thread seeking to generate some constructive ideas Squad can use to improve the game going forwards. If you have the propensity for it, create or assist with a mod that addresses the aspects of the game that you feel need improvement. If necessary, take a break from KSP and play/do something else for a bit while the rough edges get ironed out.

Right now SETI for 1.0 is still in the very early stages (that big list of mods in the OP is what was supported in 0.90, but eventually pretty much everything in that list should be supported in 1.0) but the concept is very much for player choice. It has configs for all those mods, but outside of a few core required mods, everything is optional, and tries to stay close enough to the spirit of stock that even mods that aren't on the supported list should still work reasonably well. Yemo is the author of SETI and does all the balance work, I just help out with a few tweaks and basic parts to fill in the gaps. He checks the thread frequently and takes suggestions, don't be afraid to post over there, he might be able to use some of those balance fixes.