FleetAdmiralJ

I mean, this is true, but if I play this as much as I played the first game, it is still going to be pennies or fractions of a penny on the hour, so I'm not going to complain too much as long as it is good and engaging

So i guess from the description on the first page and trying to fidget with the mod on a save (and reading some of the comments) that this won't work unless the ship starts from the launch pad? I know you've talked about precision landings before briefly in comments, which would be nice, but with resource mining in the game, it might be nice to allow the mod to also do missions such as surface->station->surface, station->surface->station, as well as station A->station B->station A such as sending a ship from a Minmus station to a Kerbin station and back (or at least set up each one way trip)

I guess not unexpected after going out into the wild . I did have a weird bug where after a plane carrying it exploded I had a half-sized 2.5m fuel tank suspended floating in air with lots of red errors in the debug menu xD

Wow, the amount of cynicism here is breathtaking. Also: How dare they pay themselves for working!

I would add that the above case and the thing with Kerbal experiences were things that the community as a whole largely spoke up about, not just a few nay-sayers that Squad suddenly decided to listen to.

I don't know about Das, but someone above mentioned that Scott might have run into mod-related bugs, which isn't really Squad's problem per se if he was using mods not actually designed for 1.0 yet. Also, experimentals is meant to be a play test. And let's be honest - KSP has gotten a heck of a lot more playtesting generally than I imagine a lot of AAA games get before release. Also, there will always be bugs. Fixing bugs is, of course, always nice. But expecting a game devoid of bugs is just plain ridiculous. I mean, I find bugs in GTA V all the time and I'm not in a rage yelling at them that it wasn't ready. I think most people who play games expect some minimal level of bugs. The larger concern is if they are bugs that seriously affect game play or not. And from a marketing perspective, let's be honest - would we really get this much hype out of a 1.0 release that was little more than a bugfix release? I doubt it.

I guess not. and I'm amazed at some of the reaching being done in this thread considering a lot of the things they demanded-or-else-this-game-is-horrible were actually implemented. I guess it just goes to show that if people want to complain, they will find something to complain about. My favorite is the "there are things they want to still add, therefore it is not 1.0!" argument. Please, show me a recent game release where a game was released gold with 1) no post-release bug-fix and/or 2) no post-release DLC or content update. I'm sure they might be able to dig up some example. But I mean, c'mon, really?

There is a difference between the game including all the goals they had originally set out to achieve (it apparently does) or a game that includes every conceivable thing that the developers might want to include. Based on that metric, games like Minecraft or World of Warcraft (or pretty much any game with a DLC) is not actually 1.0 worthy b/c it was released with content that the developers want in but isn't in yet. Also, what random player X might think is a "complete" game is not necessarily what the developers think is a complete game - or other players for that matter. There may be people who think KSP shouldn't go 1.0 until we get life support, 15 more planets, and other solar systems. And that list is probably for just about any different player. The point is, there is no real "correct" feature list for a "complete" game. The list on the wiki was, and always has been, an unofficial list curated from comments made by people at squad in the past - many of which who no longer work there - as things that they might consider doing at some point in development. Squad never really released an "official" list for the very reason that they didn't want to promise something that they couldn't deliver on in the end.

I think the server being down is just a sign of them rebooting/upgrading something or just due to a lot of traffic. The webserver (or any server, for that matter) shouldn't have to come down to upload the game. Personally I'll be refreshing SteamDB all day (at least until they tell us to use their IRC channel cause we're crashing their steamDB server )

I have a feeling we will have an extended hype period this time around, but that's OK So when do people think? Mid to end of May probably for release maybe?

What sal_vager said! Edit: Arggghh I was hoping this would just be appended to my last message (since it was the lastest one in the threat) but oh well ---- Given how long this update has taken, I would hardly call it a rush. But I wonder if it is taking them longer than they anticipated and they're risking either getting off their timeline or are already off their internal timeline for getting the release out. (I don't think there is any drop dead date or anything, but I think they would like to not have TOO much time between releases if possible). My guess is that this is to gauge what the community would prefer - more feature or more polish or even waiting even longer for everything. I mean, we like it when they ask us what we would prefer, right?

So my impression is that things that you originally planned on being in the game (fixed aero, resources, etc.) are going to be in 1.0 (or else you wouldn't be calling it 1.0) so I'm guessing we're talking about additional features that you have thought about adding but haven't really officially announced vs. polish and bugfixing. If this were another Beta release, I might say more features now and bugfixing later might be about equal. But I think considering this is "1.0" that bugfixing and polish are a must, and are a priority over adding other not-necessary features that can be pushed to a 1.1 release. - - - Updated - - - In the age of DLC and after release updates, will anyone actually believe and do this. Yes, they will evaluate 1.0 as if it is a release quality game (which is essentially what you are announcing if you're making it 1.0), but that doesn't mean reviewers or players are going to assume that nothing more is being added to the game in the future. I mean, look at all the content that a game like GTA V has continually added to their game post-release in a non-paid DLC fashion. I don't think anyone believes anymore that "1.0" means "the end" anymore. That doesn't mean 1.0 shouldn't be a quality product. It should. You're saying that this game is good enough TO BE a final product. But it doesn't mean there will be no more updates.

As many complaints about bugs, KSP really isn't all that buggy, especially compared to other early access games and, heck, even compared to gold release games. Sure, it has it's fair share of bugs, and I'm sure they'd (and we'd!) like to get them cleaned up, but I think people would be a little less hair-on-fire about bugs. Bugs happen. They're in every game. What matters is how many there are and how bad they are. Sure, we have the hell craken. It's not like other gold games don't also have errors that freeze the game too. Would it be great if it were fixed? Sure. Will it doom the game? no. - - - Updated - - - Yeah, I'm in the 300 hours in steam, but I probably have 1000+ hours played OUTSIDE steam.

I don't know about weird, but the best contract I ever saw was on one of my twitch streams: It was to test the ion engine in Jool's atmosphere at an altitude between 22.6km and 24.9km and going between 100 m/s and 300 m/s. I mean...that is wrong is just about every way possible lol. Edit: here is the screenshot

I so should build my super duper Jool 5 ship which would probably cost me 5 bazillion dollars to print lol