Kerbart

[quote name='SquaredSpekz']Thread is not Dead. Porkjet and this thread is 100% active. If you didn't notice, Porkjet has been busy making .... New things for the Stock game. You can see some in 1.0.5 ( New MK1, New and Refurbished Engines, MK3 Ramp and more )[/QUOTE] Agree 100% -- and I'd rather see Porkjet take his time and deliver something truly awesome than rush a part-pack that needs fixing, and then updating when 1.1 comes out. Speaking of 1.1... one can only hope that if there is a Habitat Pack v2, it's going to be stock! :)

[quote name='egoego']I didn't know we had wind in KSP. If we still don't have wind, surface speed should be equal to wind speed.[/QUOTE] No, the OP is unclear in his request. What he means is a traditional, INDICATED airspeed meter (IAS), where KSP gives you TRUE airspeed (TAS). TAS is great for many things (navigation, for one) but IAS, due to the nature that it's measured, is very useful in real airplanes. Certain reference speeds (stall, do not exceed, etc) are a function of air pressure as well, and change at (roughly) the same rate as the indicated airspeed. So your stall speed is always, say 75 kts IAS, even when your true airspeed is 500m/s. Same for the maximum speed the airframe can sustain. That's why the barber pole is painted on the face of a IAS indicator, but it's a hand on a TAS indicator.

A picture of your ship would help. Perhaps you have a stayputnik on top? If you started to build your vessel with that, the VAB will not put a pilot in it. And the Stayputnik doesn't have SAS.

[quote name='Xyphos']that's great. you, like everyone else, failed to mention [B]HOW [/B]you did it[/QUOTE] Knowing [I]that[/I] it is possible is half the journey, if not more. For a long time it was considered impossible to run the mile under one minute. But once Roger Bannister broke that time in 1954 everybody seemed to be able to make the mile under 4 minutes (well, that's an exageration but you get the point). Besides with a snarky subject line that suggests that it's impossible to do so, you can expect snarky posts that show you just that -- that it [I]is[/I] possible. Wouldn't that be all you need? "[I]Do not give up grasshopper, it can be done" [/I]

If the axis of the docking port and the axis of rotation are the same, it would be fairly easy, just a little bit more work. If the axis of the docking port and the axis of rotation are offset but parallel (aligned), it would be a lot harder and I doubt a lot of players could pull it off (I know I wouldn't). If the axis of the docking port and the axis of rotation are not aligned... well, good luck with that!

I like the concept. I think it needs some more work (I can see how spamming a ship with parts will maximize the engineering points—“Eppies?”—which might not be the intended consequence) but overall it sounds good and it provides a better "story" than science currently does The science part—I like the concept of “forcing” the player to do actual science. Perhaps take it a step further; you won't have maneuver nodes around a body until you've done measurements with gravioli-meters, parachutes won't work until you've done measurements with barometers, and so on. I doubt it's possible but a randomizer that—within certain limits—sets the parameters for each planet will force you to do actual research before setting out (and designing your ships accordingly. Perhaps Mun has an atmosphere. Perhaps it doesn't)

Good point. It would be nice if there were some variety in the way they can gain experience, instead of the standard cycle of "[I]orbit kerbin, eva, orbit mun, eva, plant flag, etc[/I]"

The question tells me you're fairly new to KSP The design tells me you're playing career mode My advice would be to start in Sandbox mode instead, and practice the [ ] out of KSP with building ships, orbiting them, docking, making transfers to Mun, Minmus, dock there, land there, maybe go even to Duna. Career, in my eyes, is a challenge, not a way getting eased into the game. It's hard enough to master many of the required game basics in the first place; being hampered by a very limited choice of parts is not going to make it easier.

[quote name='Wallygator']Since Tylo has no atmosphere chutes will not work as intended. (...)[/QUOTE] You're making some pretty big assumptions on what the intended use of parachutes on Tylo is. Perhaps he wants to use them as sleeping bags for his crew?

You gave a cat that would have had to fend for itself a good two months. It's hard to lose a pet, but you can find comfort in that, for the short period of time you had him, it had a good life.

Even though the current 1.0.x versions are running on one core, would there still be an advantage for more cores? It's not like windows is not running anything else in the background, and when three or seven cores can take care of that, the "KSP core" would be interupted less for tasks like running anti virus scans, rendering animated cartoons and running photoshop, indesign and illustrator simultaniously on the second monitor, no?

[quote name='ToukieToucan']Now since I know there will be a lot of problems and challenges to face I thought it would be good to start off small (...) (...) 50x50 pixels with 8 colours: black, blue, green, cyan, red, pink, yellow and white (...) 24 bit, 250x250 pixels [/QUOTE] You're joking, right? 1 pixels, 24 bits [I]alone[/I] is already 2[sup]24[/sup] combinations, or equal to 16,777,216 combinations. Then you want to do [I]each[/I] of those 16 million combinations over a grid of 256 * 256 (let's round up to the nearest power of two) pixels or 2[sup]16[/sup] pixels in total (65,536). Now, [I]each[/I] of those pixels can have those 16 million combinations, so you get a total of (2[sup]24[/sup])[sup]2[sup]16[/sup][/sup] combinations. That's... a lot.

No SAS on a stayputnik. That might have a big impact.

What's bad about it? :) I see a flag, I see a kerbonaut... That's a good landing by Kerbal standards!

Hello Giacomo, as Warzouz pointed out: you need to [I]touch[/I] the mun's orbit. You're overshooting. That makes it very hard to get an intercept. Reduce the apoapsis so that the top of your orbit coincides with the mun's orbit. Then drag your maneuver node slowly back and forth until you have an intercept. At that point you can fine tune both the maneuver node's position as well as the velocity change, to get a better intercept. Good luck!

Sad face. So here's an opportunity to actually go out and do some REAL SCIENCE. Equip a ship with a barometer, make it travel through the atmosphere (either rocket powered or by parachute) and make readings. FOR SCIENCE!

If it happens with maneuver nodes doing an EVA will fix it. If you have no crew available to EVA, making a trip to the space center helps.

That's a sad story. My gut feeling is that most people don't realize it's a button and that their CS got inundated with calls "what's the jewel button". That or somewhere, somehow, it caused some bugs. "You know what, lets turn it off" The history of (microsoft) updates is full of appreciated features that got turned off or downgraded for what surely was a good reason for Microsoft, just not for the customer. My favorite remains the SP2 update in Office 97 that removed the ability for MS Access to write to tables that were linked to Excel files. Although in all honesty I cannot really blame Microsoft for that one. Thinking of it... I do expect to see that functionality return in Office 2017! :)

As mentioned before. Hinges. Maybe rotors. Not the entire Infernal Robotics mod, but most satellites "unfurl" in space (not just solar/radiation panels, but antenna booms, sensor arms, folded up rovers, etc) and that's just not possible with KSP.

[quote name='jwenting']If the game were still in beta it would probably have been pulled.[/QUOTE] Citation needed. Most of the people I think would be perfectly fine with a 0.9x status of the current release. The fact is that the game is far from feature complete, which is really what one would expect from a 1.0 version. At this point Squad should be adding content, not changing game mechanics. Don't get me wrong, I [I]like[/I] the fact that game mechanics are evolving but a 1.0 product code is raising expectations with some. [quote name='jwenting']It's more stable and playable than most released big ticket titles, far less problems.[/QUOTE] More playable? Yes, but that's the nature of the game. More stable? I don't play that many games, but KSP, even in its unmodded form, has crashed more than the other games (mostly valve games, warhammer 40k oldies, various versions of MS/LM Flight Simulator, and then a few) combined. Personally I don't mind the crashes that much; they're still relatively rare when playing vanilla, and far more common when modded, but you can't blame Squad for mods crashing the game. But the claim that it's more stable than other releases... I have my doubt on that. I guess it depends on the titles you compare it to. [quote name='jwenting']The only difference is that there's this "community" where quite a few very loud mouthed people have a massively inflated sense of entitlement and constantly whine and complain as if every smallest glitch is the end of the world that's put in as a personal insult to them.[/QUOTE] Spot on, yes. I could retire if I got a dollar for every "[I]KSP broke the game, I can't play it anymore[/I]" post that appears with new releases. [quote name='jwenting']Those same bit ticket games don't have forums like this one for exactly that reason, and a lot of the big ticket gaming sites lined up with heavily paid for "reviews" months in advance.[/QUOTE] I got the impression that that is what killed most game magazines way before the internet killed magazines... readers being fed up with always glowing reviews. Who uses review sites these days when you can get reviews on youtube that might not be as smooth but are at least not paid for?

[quote name='r4pt0r']Thats because they rushed the 1.0 release, remember? we are really on version .95 tbh.[/QUOTE] Yes, that's a bit of a conondrum. On one hand we want the game to evolve. On the other we want some stability. The tone of these discussions would be different if the game was still in beta, where it should be, as features are added with each release. But alas...

[quote name='fisfis']You are so lucky and possibly better rocket designer than me. [/QUOTE] As you pointed out, you probably build more complex things than me. My conviction though, is that when you develop craft based on "real world" criteria, you will need tweaks, not major overhauls to designs. Pancake design is an excellent example. I know that many voiced the opinion back in the the 0.2x days that yes, pancakes worked better, but mainly because the aero model was non-existant and it was known that it *would* be updated. 1.0 comes along and with it the complaints that "Squad broke the game, non of my launchers work anymore" i agree that if you reach Jool with a ship that was built when heat shields and radiators didn't exist you were borked. But most complaints seem to be about launch and Kerbin re-entry, and I have no sympathy for those complaints. Are heat effects a setting in a game save? Perhaps the solution for Squad is to set the settings for those in new games to 0% ? I'm sure there's problems with that as well. The alternative is to not evolve the game though.

[quote name='magnemoe']A watermark is something else, its an overlay to the actual image who will survive taking an screen-shot of image and save as new image.[/QUOTE] While technically true, it's generally accepted in photography that a "hidden watermark" means metadata hidden (e.g. not the regular exif data) that can be retrieved using special software. It's useful in cases against magazines and publishers who lifted an image and removed a visible watermark. But as damages are limited in a US court when the image isn't registered, the simpler and more s cure approach is to register images with the copyright office in the first place. Some photographers do indeed hide their watermarks by cleverly incorparating the copyright notice into their pictures. Those are truly hidden watermarks and while technically true that's not what generally is understood as a "hidden watermark"

I stepped in around 0.22. I've always built my rockets as if they were real life rockets, and I always ran my missions as if they were real life missions. Sure, pancake designs were more efficient, but I just preferred my rockets to be tall and slender, just like the real thing. Sure, you could enter the atmosphere at an 85° angle at 4000m/s, deploy chutes at 65km and land just fine... But silly me preferred "real" reentries with shallow angles and with relative low velocities. Sure, you could gain a lot by abusing the simple-minded model the game used, but what's the fun of that when you want something that looks fairly real (despite flying with little green bug-eyed men)? Funny thing is, I haven't had the need to change a single thing while playing. My designs haven't changed significantly, and re-entry has as of yet not posed a problem to me. The way I see it is that the game now rewards me more for "trying to keep it real." I'm not complaining.

[quote name='Temeter']That would be utterly annoying. Not only crashes the game quite easily (if not always by squads fault), but now you have to klick away some silly message? I'm already bothered by the 'this is for 1.0.x' mod messages.[/QUOTE] In your settings you'd be able to choose from three options:[list] [*]Do not send crash reports [*]When a crash report is generated, ask me if it should be sent [*]Automatically send crash report[/list] When the game is started for the first time (the flag resets with each update) the user is invited to review his choices and clicking the "review" button opens the settings dialog and shows the above options. That's how this can be done with a minimal of interaction from the player.