JimmyAgent007

Nice, seems kinda slanted but that could just be perspective. What about an image from the map view?

Can we get some pics? I had a ok spot i named the Munar Shelf. Edge of a big crater halfway between the floor of the crater and the top. It was ok, but a bit slanted. Id actually prefer something totally outside a crater.

Well I played the demo for a bit and then threw my monies at the screen. Once that was done I kept burning straight up when the mun was overhead because thats how orbits work, you burn directly at your target as fast as you can. Lots of crashing along the way because it wouldnt let me stay in space once I finally got up there.

Why not just have it the same as the kill throttle button? High time warp cant be under thrust anyways and if you want to stop physics warp then you prolly want to turn off your engines. The new 'warp to' option should be useable for nodes.

Yes, they do have links in the media tab at the top but it seems silly that we have to go looking for it and reddit isnt included there. I get something like squadcast needing to be posted as a summary but everything else should at least get copied on here.

Personally my play style is to not really care about dV and just trial and error things. Thats fun for me. I got my first manned Duna lander to land and return in one shot just from guessing and not paying attention to launch windows. It seems that people are making assumptions and looking for things to be angry about. That being said, if this was a feature that WAS important to me, I do understand the confusion surrounding its implementation. Also the annoyance at it being posted elsewhere. I'm always in the wait and see camp before I form an opinion. Personally I get why dV should be doable on the ground by whoever passes for a PHD on Kerbin and sent up to the ship. On the other hand, it changes if you limit your engines and such so maybe if you change that mid flight the engineer works that out himself. Not sure how accurate it is, but in the movie Apollo 13 they show the astronauts doing math and asking for mission control to check the work. So if that was true then there is a case where the people in space need the math skills themselves rather than rely on the ground for everything. Final guess for me is that it should be in the VAB, maybe an engineer keeps it visible for the flight or changes it on the fly depending on throttle and limits. We do after all have procedural fairings despite the devs saying they never want procedural parts so a dV readout in the VAB shouldnt be too unrealistic. Either way lets see what the dev notes say.

I got this. I wanted 3 more fuel sections at the bottom but the lag got rather strong.

The first few hundred hours of the game i played before i knew there was a quicksave. Landing on the mun would have been so much easier to learn but oh well.

Personally I think that they should do what they plan, just call it .99 then check in case they really messed anything up or missed something big. Some hotfixes later and then 1.0 That being said, ive never run into most of the bugs people seem to complain about the most. The rest just seemed kinda flaky but I moved on. So if the last thing they do before 1.0 is a big internal bughunt then everything should be fine. A customizable tech tree/web would be nice though. How hard is it to mod the tech tree yourself? Never tried but I have programming experience. There a good link to read?

HarvesteR Blog here http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/content/325-Overhauled-Aerodynamics

Personally I think at the very least they should have released it as .99 then waited a week or two just in case before going 1.0 just to catch a few things and give them some wiggle room in case something goes wrong. There are lots of good points on both sides of things. I think that 1.0 just means the ORIGINAL vision is finished and its time to move into all the other cool stuff they want to do. Lets just wait and see what the next devnotes say and if they answer any of our questions. It is also possible that many features people want like parachutes are kept for a surprise on release day.

Scissors and a water bottle cap on its side. I use this for lots of things that I want to do on its own.

Lets just state that everyone has different definitions of fun, what constitutes realism, and what should be done by SQUAD vs the modders.

Stock Rockets! Faster and I usually dont do a lot in atmo anyways. It's funny, I almost never use mods for alpha/beta games. Once they are finished though, I mod the crap out of them. Like Skyrim, Fallout, and such. Planes are looking a lot better though. I might play with them a whole lot more next update. Once the game is 1.0 if i feel the need to mod whatever the aero is then I will, plus whatever else I feel like modding.

Im in the 'only ever played in stock' camp so anything they do will be an improvement. Those who like FAR or NEAR or whatever mods are used to them so it wont be the same for them. Whatever they do wont be final I dont think, just the first step in fixing it. So why not wait and see what it does right, does wrong, and how they can fix it. Everyone's definition of fun will be different and subjective.

I agree. but assuming they wanted to have at least some way of keeping it around that would prolly be best. Personally I think they should scrap any attempt at keeping it and just push forward with the new system.

For the longest time all my ships had the name Death Trap in them somewhere.

Maybe an old aero toggle in the debug menu next to gravity hack and unlimited fuel? Some place where only experienced players can find it.

I didnt do probes in my early days. I didnt know any mods existed. I thought you got to the Mun by flying right towards it. Eventually I learned how to get there, then had to learn what a powered decent was. Good times. It was before steam so I cant say how long it took. But it sure is a good feeling when you get it done!

I'm in the break compatibility camp. We love redesigning stuff. Like with anything else, people can keep old versions to play with.

"completely different" might mean "a lot like, but not in any legally inconvenient way" since its hard to redo the aero without comparing it to FAR and NEAR.

You lazy bums! How dare you slack at work! I on the other hand just read the forums here, and two other sites, plus PCGamer, in between bouts of wondering why the hell my worksheet doesnt balance.

Didnt they say something about hitting a good middle ground between the two of those? Not everyone likes FAR, thats why NEAR exists. More complex than NEAR but not quite FAR sounds good to me, but ive only ever played stock so I shall wait and see.

what was actually said?

I hope for the tech web like in beyond earth. or the custom tree idea i had a long while ago that ive seen a few others suggest.