nholzric

Thanks for posting. I noticed last night all my active and completed contracts disappeared. I thought it might have something to do with how I was reverting a lot of flights to the assembly building and launch (trying to design and test a base building system). Unfortunately, it sounds like crashing (in your case) and reverting (in my case) is unrelated to the bug since neither is common to both cases. I hope to recover at least some contracts via editing the save file.

Does anyone have an intuitive (or otherwise) explanation for the sawtooth nature of these charts? For example, in chart two TWR=0.1, the LV-909 region at 100 tonnes is disconnected from the 909 region at 300 tonnes, separated by the Poodle. It looks wrong but given that I'm not up on the details and there are lots of smart people on this thread I'll bet I just don't understand. Thanks!

I haven't had a Kerbal ejected from a hatch in 1.0.x yet - I was hoping that was already fixed, it's still a thing? What HAS continued to happen to me in 1.0.x is when a Kerbal first EVA's sometimes they'll be slowly moving up the ladder. I think it's always "up", I don't remember seeing one slowly slide down a ladder. Anyway, if you were not being observant they would presumably pop off the top of the ladder. I feel like this can also happen when a Kerbal grabs a ladder, especially while in flight - they have a chance of drifting up the ladder; I don't remember if I've seen this before, but it definitely happens sometimes when they start an EVA.

With hiring costs, rescue contracts are pretty powerful. I'm trying to save up enough to do the last upgrade of the R&D building and my main activity (that I tailor which contracts I accept around) is building science stations and collecting science in and around Kerbin/Mun/Minmus. The problem is a fully operations science station requires three scientists, two to operate the lab and one to biome hop and collect experiments. So I need lots of scientists (and luckily, I've rescued mostly scientists (and mostly female)). So given how valuable scientists are to me right now, even though I'd LOVE to see the orbit before I accept a contract, it feels balanced to me. Now, rescuing someone in retrograde around the sun, or really in any non-Kerbin like orbit around the sun would KILL me. I wouldn't want to waste that much money on a rocket if I could even build something sufficient. And I would hate to accept the contract and then abandon the poor dear. But that's just me. So, given my particular play style, they feel balanced. But it is surprising that you're not given more information about the orbit. The information *feels* missing. It wouldn't have to be specific, even if it said something like High/Low orbit, Inclined, Eccentric, whatever.

Yeah, the menu drops down in map view just like in the tracking station. Sometimes I can interact with the menu, sometimes I can't. If this is a feature I'd love someone to tell me how or why I can't hide/unhide things sometimes. But unless someone can explain why sometimes it can be changed and sometimes it can't - I'm pretty sure it's a bug not a feature.

Yeah, I had this happen to me too. I think we could use a (more comprehensive) science gui. One that lists (and scrolls) all the experiments on the ship (maybe with the blue/green return/transmit bars in small format next to the name) and maybe a checkbox or something so you can, at a glance, see all the experiments and select which ones to transmit. Side benefit is you could deploy this in other situations such as remove/store experiments on EVA.

What about being unable to either hide or unhide a certain "flight" type (debris, pods, stations, flags, etc) from the map screen until you go back to the tracking station.

I know the output of the lab decreases over time, does the amount of data stored decrease too? I have a lab in Minmus and, like you said, the lab was full to nearly 500 after collecting science around Minmus and one biome or so. I've continued to store experiments from 6-7 other biomes in the command module attached to the lab thinking I could process those experiments into the lab to keep the output up. Is this possible? It would be nice to have a way to split the experiments up. I hope I haven't screwed up by storing numerous biomes worth of experiments in one module because now they're stuck together - there's no way to take some of them out and leave the others behind.

I think I've rescued 1 engineer, 1 pilot, and 6 scientists... something like that, lots of scientists - which I'm happy about right now, there are lots of science labs to staff! I think Kerbals' profession is determined by their name, has someone built a utility that figures out a Kerbal's profession by their name so we can check before accepting the mission?

This makes a lot of sense to me here are some other thoughts/considerations. 1) Upgrading the astronaut building is already pretty important as it unlocks EVA's and increases the limit of astronauts (especially important when trying to staff science modules in mid-game). Tying the level of the complex to the amount and or cost of training an astronaut makes a lot of sense. 2) Although leveling up astronauts is currently a bit of a grind, I have found it makes mission planning a lot more difficult/important in my new career. How much space is available, who do I NEED, who should I try leveling up? 3) As an alternative to buying experience via training, I've thought about a system where you can use a crew can in conjunction with a transmitter to slowing level up in space. For example, you've planted a flag on Minmus, now go to a Crew Can and "Train" or "Report" or something and the experience that you would have received at KSC is slowly accrued to you assuming you have a transmitter (maybe the good transmitter) and enough electricity. This would reduce the grind while keeping the "achievements".

Thank you, I came to this thread for pictures, PICTURES people! But X-SR71, your base is impossible. You launched it in one piece. In career. For 350k. Unbelievable. (and amazing!) (Will you share pictures of the launch or at least the whole thing in the VAB?)

I just unlocked TurboJets for the first time in 1.0.x . Planes are much slower than suborbital launches but I'm really enjoying the new aero so it's worth it. My plane "Waldo B1" - sorry I don't have pics available - has two TurboJets a small cargo-bay for science and three small landing gear. It cruises at 20km-21km and between 600-800m/s. Last night I took it on a mission to probably 60-70 deg latitude (similar longitude as KSP complex) and it would have probably made it back to base with half fuel. And that's after a lazy (not fuel efficient) initial ascent, and a landing stop (plus roving between three local collection points). I *would* have made it back except the game crashed, probably because my science experiments had their overheating gauges on for too long.

Grinding every biome would be a problem if there was only as much science in the Kerbol system as was needed to complete the science tree. Since there's more science than is needed (unlimited science with the new science labs) then I don't see this as a problem. Of course, that means there's a new problem of what to do with all that science in the late game - I suppose there's strategies for converting that into cash, but also in previous careers/versions when I got to Duna I sent science labs and experiments because it was fun!

I'm loving the new aero! I was never a plane person in KSP before but this is just fun! I used to play A-10 Attack in high-school on my Mac, not only was blowing stuff up fun but I loved the aerobatics; I get the same feeling in KSP now (without the missiles and bombs (though I understand "there's a mod for that")). Val on an early career mission... apparently to the Middle of No-Where Grasslandsville. Also, there's no ladder on this aircraft - I don't think I'd even unlocked one yet (notice the FL-T200 fuel tanks) - but with 1.0.x that's not a problem! She can scramble up the rear landing gear onto the intake and then on to the top of the fuselage. Bravo SQUAD! Classic in-the-shadow picture (sorry about that!) of my Mun lander making a science drop off at my Mun Science Lab. Docking not required. FYI, I wouldn't recommend this exact lander design. As it turns out, the doors to the cargo space have a collision mesh while animated... and the landing legs have a collision mesh too. I decapitated my rocket by opening the doors at the wrong time, the pod popped right off. The rest of the mission is brought to you courtesy of quicksave. (It would be neat if the engineering report warned you of things like this, I could imagine that code being unwieldy though) Val finds remnants of a more civilized age. My first Mk2 aircraft - "Waldo A2" - in the background. I was hoping to make something to fly faster/further than my various Mk1 models can by exploiting bigger intakes, more fuel capacity, two jet engines, and stashing all the science in a cargo-bay but no-dice. I wouldn't be surprised if I have to unlock the turbo-jet first.

I thought it was great getting tons of science in 0.90 . That doesn't mean I didn't do science in the field, but I saw it as reducing the grind a little. Or maybe diversifying the grind - but hey, when I realized little rockets were a great way to do atmospheric testing instead of wrestling with airplanes things got a whole lot more fun! That being said, I understand why science got nerfed in contracts in 1.0.x and even though it kills my previous strategy I think it is a good change. Now you can't rely on contracts to get science, even in the early/middle parts of the game and that's okay. I still choose contracts that have science rewards since science feels like my primary limiting factor at the moment. Sure, 3 science, or even 3x4 science isn't much compared to 160 but this weekend I had 154 science so I needed 6 more - one contract was perfect! As I understand it science is unlimited even without contracts - if I understand RoverDude correctly as he posted on a different thread, science labs will take experiments - even experiments with no transmit or return value - and produce science over time with them. When those experiments are exhausted you can launch a *different lab* and start the science over time again *with the same experiments* (maybe collected again, I dunno). So contracts are not the only problem if you're concerned about unlimited science. (PS, does science to money strategy only work with contract rewards or all science? If it only works with contract rewards then that satisfies any imbalance concerns towards science lab spamming) Don't worry about the little science rewards from contracts. They've hit the sweet spot between being too small to significantly change game-play but large enough that it's fun to go after them.

Nice. So I can use an ISP of 1293 for a LF+O->fuel cell->electricity->Ion Engine ship and calculate it's dV based on the weight of the ship and the weight of all the Xenon+FL+O? Except I have to make sure the Xenon to FL+O ration is correct. Or at least usable if I have another power source and extra Xenon (in which case the overall ISP would be somewhere between 1293 and 4200). Thanks for running those numbers, at first glance the units look good.

I love the spirit of this post! In 0.9 my Eve mission had... 6 Kerbals I think (to be a Remote Tech command module), but the ship was a small lander can (for Gilly), a large lander can, a lab, and two of the 4-Kerbal aircraft parts. My Role Playing was one aircraft part was the sleeping quarters, the other the living quarters and the lab and large lander can were work/engineering/command spaces. Of course it was uncomfortable to IVA in either the living or sleeping quarters because they're configured like an airline. Exactly the same fundamental problem as the hitchhiker if you want to put it sideways on a ground-station, the IVA does not look very comfortable at all. So in theory I would love some mechanic to encourage proper living arrangements, if for no other reason to pat myself on the back that I'm doing it "right". But I can't imagine it becoming stock (not that I have a good prediction history) for the reasons people have pointed out - basically easy things (Mun trips) would stay easy and it would make hard things (Jool trips) harder without much rewarding game mechanics. Then again, the building upgrade system basically took all the features we were used to and limited them - plus, as has been mentioned other places, it's a little counter-intuitive that at the beginning of the game when you presumably need the most help plotting courses you get the least assistance. Anyway, I'm totally on board with the spirit of your suggestion. I doubt it will be included in stock and am on the fence as to whether I think it should or not. Would love to find a mod that did some of this. PS You'll want each Kerbal to have some sort of rolling average of living space. If you send a mission to Jool each Kerbal needs two command seats in your example. But just because I'm in the Jool system doesn't mean I can't use a 1 Kerbal lander for a - I don't know - 8 day mission to a moon, which would be equivalent to sending a 1 Kerbal lander to Minmus and back.

Interesting idea. Would companies be based solely on their level of greed? I think this idea would be more interesting if sponsor companies were differentiated by areas of expertise rather than their level of greed. There might be some in-game effects like a mining company might boost a drills output or make parts handle heat better or something. But the biggest difference companies would have would be the organization of the tech tree (great idea by you!) and the type/availability of contracts. Maybe one company would rearrange the tech tree to start you off with probes (a frequently requested feature). Maybe one company would make aircraft parts easier to research. One company might be the BIG ROCKET company - in contrast to the probe company I guess. The tech tree would have a huge effect on the beginning of the game but diminishes as all the parts are unlocked. The types or availability of different types of contracts would persist for the entire game - at least until the point where career morphs into something closer to sandbox. So if you want to do tons of flying contracts, go with the aircraft guys - get planes sooner and have flying contracts more available. If launching satellites or sending probes is your thing go with the probe guys. I just thought of three types - probes, aircraft, big rockets; I'm sure people can think of more. This doesn't seem like a likely addition to stock, but I know you could mod it in. Maybe not with an opening selection GUI when you start a new game, but you can tailor the tech tree, contracts, and parts to do all this stuff before launching a new game.

I agree, the dissatisfaction with 1.0.x is likely a perception problem. I don't have any inside knowledge of how game releases are *supposed* to work, but it seems to me if I bought KSP 1.0.x at Best Buy without any knowledge of the development process I would be unimpressed. Not that it wouldn't be fun, but there's a bunch of little things that don't add up, and I would expect it not to crash, all the stuff we mean by "polish". Now, I'm of the mindset that if I buy a game I want it to work well WITHOUT the developers sticking their grubby little hands all over my computer for updates; but I suspect I'm behind the times in this regard - "Get off my lawn!" Buying the game - without buying into the early access bargain of progressive releases, fixes, and new content - and having it work well is what I thought 1.0 meant and I don't think it's that. BUT, I do have the early access mindset and playing 1.0.x is FUN! I love the new features! (I would have done some differently but that'll happen when more than 1 person plays a game) Are rockets harder, sure but not much harder, just add MOAR FINS. Does it crash, yeah it's crashed once for me so far. Is it missing some QoL features, yup. But it's fun, and releases are still free - AND it didn't cost $50 so even if they stop now I have to say I got my money's worth.

Damaged parts are not a thing - except for landing gear and wheels - right? Destroyed parts are a thing, solar panels can be ripped off and stuff can explode. I'm not a big fan of giving everything a damage value, even if it gives Engineers something more to do.

FIVE TIMES THE SCIENCE! LOL And I thought I was rock'n it this weekend with a scientist piloting a one-seater around Minmus transmitting, resetting, and then storing science for maximum profit. (Of course my plan was ruined when, while trying to deploy an antenna, I accidentally clicked "transmit data" and all my stored experiments got sucked into the antenna) But despite that misstep, I think scientists being able to reset experiments is really cool. It's very powerful, and now with the lab doing science-over-time, science, although still a bit of a grind, is more exciting than ever! Win!

Just posted on Better Control of Science Experiments thread (link below) about an idea for a Science Experiment menu which I think would address the OP's problem of removing some but not all experiments from a lab and my recent issue with accidentally transmitting a bunch of experiments I wanted to return to Kerbin. I think the new menu gives players the level of control they would expect and therefore is a good inclusion into stock; realistically though, I don't expect to make this on SQUAD's to-do list in the foreseeable future and therefore this qualifies as mod material. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/119042-Ability-to-select-which-science-to-store-remove-from-a-pod?p=1898996 - - - Updated - - - I agree that the contracts should receive scrutiny as they make a huge impression on the play experience. I am sure contracts can be improved without adding a military aspect. Not that I'm against such things in and of themselves, that's just not what KSP is about and I'm 100% confident SQUAD is not going to go down that road. (The other day I was flying a cool plane I built over the mountains and as my finger kept brushing the trigger on the joystick I though "Man, I wish there was some badies to take out" - so I understand, and I believe there are mods for that, but stock isn't going there) As for part testing, in my 0.90 career I was loving them - they were a great source of science! Especially after I realized you could complete the crazy "test x at y altitude and z speed" contracts pretty easily with rockets even though it's tempting to try with airplanes. That got nerfed in 1.0.x and although that messes up my lucrative strategy it was a good decision. In my new 1.0.x career I mostly ignore the part testing contracts; they're not a lot of fun and they don't pay much. However, when I got the chance to temporarily unlock a new mini-rocket engine for a Minmus lander to test on the surface of Minmus - win-win! Suddenly my Minmus probe was completing 4 contracts instead of 3! Testing contracts are awesome when they make sense as in my Minmus lander example. Most of the time they're ridiculous. But I wouldn't know how to code them to make sense more often. Who knows, maybe somebody is going to have a Mainsail landed on the Mun anyway; I look at that contract and say "that's stupid, while I *might* pull it off, there's now way it would be worth it", and I expect 99% of players would agree, but for that one guy that contract is gold!

I think the experiment managing UI could use some attention in general. This idea is selfishly motivated by an experience this weekend when I was trying to deploy an antenna which had transmitted (a different bug that needs fixing) and I clicked "transmit data" and all my experiments which I was intending to take home were sucked up into the antenna and destroyed. Right now each experiment is accessed by the one-experiment-at-a-time window with the Reset, Save, Process, or Transmit buttons and the flavor text. When transmitting, or removing science, I want a window with a scroll bar and one experiment per row. Each row would give the experiment name, and maybe the green and blue bars for how much science is left to return and how much is left to transmit. To keep it simple I'm imagining leaving off the actual science values and data sizes - if you want that information you can click on an experiment and the old one-experiment-at-a-time window would be displayed. If this new science list pops up because you clicked "Remove Experiments" you can select which experiments to remove (via checkbox or whatever) and then click an "Ok" or "Remove" button. This same window could be used for transmit data replacing the word "Remove" with "Transmit". Although this idea complicates things a little bit - now there's a window instead of an implied all - I think that even new players will likely expect this level of control over science, especially given how the Science Lab works now. Therefore, I imagine this as a candidate for the stock game. In other words, I imagine enough people will *expect* this level of control and may be disappointed when they don't have it therefore include it in stock. On the other hand, my gut feeling is this is too fine of control to expect SQUAD to address at least in the foreseeable future therefore maybe it's mod material.

Love this idea! I think poaching Kerbals should cost money AND reputation. Nobody like the egomaniac that sucks up all the talent in a field to build their own empire! Not that I'm a big fan of making everything so expensive as to be useless - so the costs in money and rep obviously will be balanced somehow - but it makes sense to use both currencies. I'm not far along in my career, but I increased my roster to 5 by rescuing a pilot and a scientist over the weekend. Like you, I was thinking if I just went out and rescued a bunch of Kerbals I could build crews for "free" but what if don't get the right types? Can't you just fire the crew you rescue if they aren't the type you want? Presumably this reduces the next hiring cost. This strategy still feels rather grindy - rendezvous for a 1/3 chance that you get the recruit you want doesn't sound very efficient and (playing on Moderate) the cash/rep rewards for rescue aren't very enticing on their own.

WHaaaat, cheating?? When my Remote Tech constellations drift I know it's time for MOAR RELAAYS! But seriously, this is a really great example of why a more realistic gravity field would be a pain. In real life we have days, weeks, months, years before a typical orbit is perturbed enough to need maintenance. We also have months and years to wait for interplanetary transfers. In KSP, thanks to timewarp, we potentially have seconds and minutes to wait between interplanetary transfers if we choose and we therefore have seconds before a typical orbit is perturbed into oblivion. Whether it's a Remote Tech constellation getting all bunched up or an LKO station reentering.