FlowerChild

Ok, that picture of Jeb staring at the walled-over door had me crack up laughing. Kerbal engineering at its finest

I think a big part of the frustration on these forums is because this isn't "a" release as you put it, it's "the" release, and I think Squad trivializing that like it's no big deal (while flying to Mexico for a big party in contradiction to the concept of it being a regular release) adds to that frustration. 1.0 is an excellent release if it was just "a" release. I'd say it's the best yet. For "the" release it's quite buggy and *very* unpolished. It still very much feels like an early access title with a ton of buggy and underdeveloped features. Maybe it feels even more unfinished than 0.9 given the amount of new content that was packed in up until the very last moment, and given how it's that new content that has the most problems. I'm in no way blaming the testers for that, and I don't think many people actually are, despite the assertions of the first couple of posts in this thread. However, something is definitely off here about how things went down, and I think the frustration people are expressing about it is largely warranted.

I'd like to add one item for a hotfix proposal: The VAB symmetry bug. I realize this was in 0.9 as well, but it's super annoying, and really not suitable for a released game. The one I'm talking about is when you're trying to place parts in symmetry mode, and instead of placing the part on the opposite side of the rocket, it winds up mirroring it internally within the rocket. Usually wiggling your mouse some to get the code to place it again will sort it out (sometimes it takes a few tries), but man...what a pain in the neck, especially if you don't notice it happened until after you've made additional changes to your design. Yeah...it definitely is. I ran into it several times while playing last night. And yes, agreed, not being able to place maneuver nodes for unknown reasons in a released game really isn't reasonable. We're all used to interface bugs like this and the one above, and know how to work around them, but for a new player, that is likely struggling to understand concepts like maneuver nodes and part symmetry to begin with, that stuff is just plain broken.

I think that would be seriously terrible. IMO, one of the big problems with the tree right now is that there are far too many nodes that contain "useless" parts: essentially parts that do nothing to help you progress further, and thus are a non-option if you are aiming to move forward in the tree (which I would assume most career players are since that's really central to what you're trying to do in career). That's what I was talking about above with me thinking this new tree is actually worse than the one in 0.9. More nodes = more non-decisions when there were already far too many. Making it a part per node would make this even worse, as there are sooooo many parts that do nothing to contribute to your ability to advance in career. IMO, the number of nodes should be cut down and the parts redistributed until each and every node has at least one part that contributes to your ability to advance, thus making it a viable purchase decision. Every other part that may not serve an immediate purpose, thus gets properly assigned as "fluff" that only serves as an additional bonus to your purchase decisions and slowly broadens your vehicle design options as you progress. If you are seriously committed to having only single parts come out of R&D like that, I'd suggest you try the career mode option to purchase individual parts out of nodes once the node is researched. I think you will find it seriously sucks as it essentially means that you ignore most of the parts even in the nodes you do purchase, only bothering with the ones you need, and your rockets end up looking very "samey" throughout the tree as a result, because it's unlikely you're going to spend the funds you are accumulating on what are essentially aesthetic options. What "makes sense" in the consensus reality is often times what is worst for the actual gameplay experience.

If my own experience in that regard is any indication, it might just be because there's too much to digest in the new release to dive right into modifying the gameplay-heavy aspects of it like career. I know that's the case for me. I'm still puttering around in stock career assimilating all the new material, and don't feel comfortable diving right back into updating my mod until I have a better understanding of how everything works.

Errr.why is there no option in the poll for "the tech tree is worse than before"? Cause seriously, I found the one in 0.9 to be more fun. The addition of further nodes made for more meaningless decisions, as there were already too many nodes previously, and way too many meaningless decisions.

Here comes the gigantic bulbous and entirely efficient rockets completely covered in fairings that I was just considering building myself

Reading thread happily...nods...nods...smiles...yup, I can relate... "What?! For the love of the gods, nooooooo!" Man, I really hope the above is just some kind of misinterpretation of how the .cfg files are working, as that's a whole world of "ugh" otherwise. Errrr...a thrust corrector is like a couple of lines of code, and I can not fathom how doing that with thrust would make it any easier. I'm going to leave looking into this until tomorrow as I think I'm too tired to handle the abuse to my face if this turns out to be correct

They already seem to be computing the mass, so that doesn't seem to be the problem. More that it isn't being applied and/or shed on eject. No idea what problem they ran into with that (if any), I just can't see why someone would want it this way unless they ran into trouble doing it another.

Seems like the only reasonable workaround for this at present is to put the fairing base at the top of your top stage, rather than the bottom, with a nosecone on it, and build it downwards instead of up. That way you can eject the "base" when you leave atmosphere and get an actual weight reduction. Doesn't help at all with interstage mind you. Really odd behavior here. I suspect this has more to do with a scheduling decision rather than a design one as I really can't see anyone wanting it to work this way. EDIT: In case the above wasn't clear, something like this: Which I am the first to admit sucks pretty bad in terms of the hoops you have to jump through, but at least should work.

Oh wow...I didn't even know about the mouse wheel functionality. Thanks

I think I also tried turning it on for landing gear back in the day, and once again got the "amusing but not at all practical" thing happening. I tend to turn on physics for parts wherever I can with my mod, as I find it's much more interesting and consistent in a game that largely revolves around physics Hence why I knew how to work around this problem so quickly. At some point or another I've probably tried adding physics to every part that has it turned off in KSP. My advice is to use caution and to test heavily, as it can have unexpected consequences if you aren't careful. I'd say just blanket turning it on for all parts is rather unwise.

The thing is, the conditions in which parachutes operate have changed dramatically. Heating and aero weren't what they are now, and parachutes don't seem to have been adapted to that change, causing them to become an exploit to avoiding other systems.

That didn't sound "overwhelmingly positive"

Yeah...I would not set fuel lines and strut connectors in particular to have physics on them. I know I've tried that in the past and the best way to describe the results would probably be "amusing, but not at all practical" Some parts shouldn't have physics assigned. Heat shields apparently need it, but that really doesn't mean you should turn it on for all parts, especially not without individually and extensively testing each one. Yeah, I was largely just responding to the person above that asked where the .cfg file went. As for the switch over to the MM method, I largely did that because it's much cleaner than manually editing the files, especially if someone is going to install other mods and such. There's no harm in editing the files directly really for such a small fix, but for a modder like me, that can quickly get messy as I risk having different versions of files installed locally than people playing my mods and such. Anyways, suffice it to say directly editing the files give me the willies (maybe even some mild heeby-jeebies), which is why I suggested the MM method

The above represents one camp in a rather heated debate I'd personally recommend not installing any engineering aids initially as you'll ultimately become dependent on them. I have about 2K hours into KSP, have definitely been to every body in the game (and at higher difficulty than stock provides), and I've never used one, so they are definitely not required. What I would recommend installing however is a waypoint utility, like regex's (now maintained by blizzy78) excellent PreciseNode. Once you leave Kerbin's SOI (or even plotting an asteroid intercept within it), stock maneuver nodes are an exercise in frustration to deal with.

You will need ModuleManager installed for this to work, which can be found here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/55219 Install MM, drop the above into a .cfg file in your GameData directory, and you should be good to go.

I think they're far more noticeably overpowered with stock aero now though. First plane I built in 1.0 was a simple single-engine (basic jet), which looked somewhat like a Sabre, and the thing hit mach1 before it had hardly left the runway At least with the old soup in place it kept that somewhat under control. Now they're just insanely powerful.

It happens without the service bay too. It's just that if you have enough power for your reaction wheels and SAS enabled, it can overcome how it causes you to veer off course. If you don't have SAS, you're going to be fighting it like crazy all the way down, and it's very easy to flip around in the process. If you don't have power for your wheels, well, you're just screwed

It seems to have been confirmed by Squad as a bug. Until we get an official fix, the above MM config has been working extremely well for me. Actually, no, sorry, the above isn't the ModuleManger fix, the below is There you go: @PART[HeatShield*] { @PhysicsSignificance = 0 } You will of course need ModuleManager installed for this to work, which can be found here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/55219 Install MM, drop the above into a .cfg file in your GameData directory, and you should be good to go. Does the same thing as manually editing the files individually, but is much less of a pain.

This came up in another thread, but it appears that the problem is that the mass is being applied to the parent part, but the COM isn't being moved by it. This seems to create instability in this particular case with the heatshields.

The biggest other problem at present with this seems to be fairings. Apparently they don't shed any mass when you eject them, because they're also defined as physicsless, and all their mass ends up residing in the base as a result. Obviously, this is less than optimal, as it kinda defeats the purpose of ejecting fairings. And yes, I agree: I have no idea why this physicsless thing is still a thing.

Look man, I *correctly* (by Squad's own admission now) identified and investigated the problem, provided a workaround to help people out, and I don't think I excessively complained about it at any point. That's all useful and constructive, and I actually spent a good portion of the day I had set aside to play 1.0 doing so. Your message seemed to single me out in particular by mentioning the "experience with DR and FAR thing", which I believe I was also the only one that mentioned that. What's the alternative? Pretend it doesn't exist and wait for Squad to figure it out on their own after they've already gone through their official testing process? As I said previously: that doesn't help anyone.

Appears to be working well Athlonic. Also just wanted to mention that Chatterer was the first mod I tried to install on top of stock. It's incredibly difficult to play without it once you're used to it

Just a heads up that this appears to be working well in 1.0. Couldn't play very long without it