Kerbart

Not the fairing thing? Or crossfed tanks? The latter is usually the surprise I get. "Now I know where that magic DV came from"

[quote name='Gooru']Why the hack such a stupid gameplay mechanics is introduced long after beta.... thats just ridiculous.[/QUOTE] The question why the game went from alpha to beta to gold in a short time before these kind of mechanics were settled on has indeed been discussed multiple times on this forum. So... yeah. Still, I'd rather seem them improve the game mechanics even (or sometimes [I]because[/I]) if it makes the game harder. In the pre 1.0 days you could return from Mun or Minmus, hit the atmosphere at a 70° angle at 4000m/s, deploy the parachutes at 60km altitude and be ensured you'd land just fine. In fact it was a lot harder in said scenario to get yourself killed. Re-entry, in my book, should be a white-knuckle ride and never be easy. And maybe we need heatshields that can attach to wings. With a severe weight penalty. Why not?

This one? [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etOABxGbCMY[/url] [COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR] I'm usually very sceptical when it comes to "rip off" claims but the similarity is uncanny. Of course maybe it went the other way around but given that Esau's publication date of the video predates the Boeing one with a year and half that seems highly unlikely.

Few things I've noticed, and if any of this is already known to the OP feel free to flame. I can handle it. :) I think there are two "can't undock" problems. The first is what seems the primary problem in this post. Somehow the ports are still connected but have a status "undocked." And since you can't undock what isn't docked... You get stuck. I might be wrong but I got the impression that this is a problem that primarily happens with the large docking port. I haven't encountered any undocking problems of this kind anymore since I've stepped away from using the large docking port for "docking" (as in: with the intention of undocking later) purposes. I still use them to piece large stations together (they're a lot stiffer than the medium and small ports after all) but I hardly ever disconnect them once they are together. I've never encountered the bug anymore since I stopped undocking large ports. The second seems to happen frequently with medium ports when the docking collars slide behind each other. The ports are truly undocked but somehow still interconnected and can't get lose. Spinning might work to decouple but more often than not it rips one of the ports off completely which is often not desirable. A much simpler solution, since as far as KSP is concerned, the two parts are not connect, is time warp -- without physics active the two parts will simply float apart and the problem fixes itself.

Some are unlikely to be broken, for instance the absolute velocity records and the altitude records set by the X15's. There are many "limited" records like distance without refueling, speed records at sea level, etc, but even there... when you look at the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_airspeed_record"]Wikipedia page for various speed records[/URL] you'll see that there are very few records set since 1990 (and mainly for obvious categories like electric flight).

My experience is that coming from Mun you can easily lower your re-entry Pe to about 20km. The heatshield is quite good (it should wear down quicker*) and will easily hold it. From what I understand, the atmosphere got marginally thicker and higher (the Mk 1 Pod now starts to stabilize itself at 65km instead of 60) but the heat model has apparently been improved, so maybe that is what is causing the quicker heat-up of the engines (instead of the heat being distributed to the rest of the ship it now sticks to the exposed parts? Just theorizing here) I'm happy with the improvements. Re-entry should be a white-knuckle ride ridden out with clenched cheeks, and require careful aiming in a re-entry window. I'm glad the "any speed, any angle" days of pre-1.0 are over, but I don't mind when re-entry will get a few more notches unforgiving. *Right now the goal of reentry is to get below 250m/s before you run out of time to open the chutes. I hope to see the day where the goal of reentry is that, [I]and[/I] getting below 1km/s before your heatshield runs out.

I will run decently. I have an i7 2.4 GHz laptop with Intel "Integrated Graphics" and KSP runs fairly well on it. Having said that, you will have to manage your expectations a bit. KSP is quite processor intensive and while not [I]that[/I] GPU intensive, the fact that the CPU has to take care of that as well doesn't help. Expect your cooler fans to rev up like turbopumps once you start playing KSP and see lots of red markers when in the atmosphere or in low orbit over water. I installed the Kerbo Katz utility to reduce the frame rate to something insane slow (5 FPS if memory serves me right) when the KSP window loses focus. That way, if you pause the game (and Alt-Tab out of it) your hardware gets a bit of a break. My [I]previous[/I] laptop (slightly lower specs but with a real graphics card) ran extremely hot with KSP and I had to use ice packs to cool it. That one stopped working at one point and I suspect overheating. Having moved things around the house a bit I know have a desk to call my own and bought a modest desktop (i7, 3.4MHz) with a simple (NVidia GTX 745) graphics card. KSP runs [I]much[/I] smoother without the computer breaking a sweat (completely silent). If you don't [I]need[/I] a laptop and you want something to play KSP on, I'd get a desktop. That's what I did.

The problem is not not spending time on Q&A. The problem (at least with the 1.0 version) is that they simply ignored the feedback. So that's what I would do if I were Supreme Benevolent Dictator of All Thinks KSP: Incorporate Q&A feedback into the development cycle, instead of rushing things out.

The Astro A40 is pretty nice. I'm sure there are others, so you'll probably get a million suggestions

You realize you're posting in a thread about space elevators, right?

If you assume we have the materials it's also safe to assume we have the technology to transmit power wireless. Laser beams, microwaves, etc. The elevator doesn't move very fast, along a known trajectory, so it's easy to aim the power beam.

I take it you're one of those high-maintenance types for who a Mk I Command Pod is not good enough for an 18 month Duna mission?

Or perhaps we need something like "vacuum rated" and make certain parts just unfit for use in space

I just slap an okto on top of a Mk1 Cockpit (gives it a more Mercurial shape so to say) so I can send an unmanned rocket up. But I agree with you that there are many cases where you don't want a contract yet for a variety of reasons.

The introduction of contracts has been a wonderful addition to KSP, giving the average player a good amount of focus in career mode. However, , we are a bunch of ungrateful dogs who quickly take the new functionality for granted and start complaining how awful it is. And I'm no exception.There's no hiding that, as amazing as the current contract system is, it hasn't reached the level of perfection that we're used to from Squad. So we spam the contract slot machine and keep hitting “decline†until we finally get a good contract. The developer's reaction to address this issue has been... ...unsatisfactory. As has been pointed out in the thread about this subject, contracts can be declined for many reasons. Maybe you're not into flying halfway around Kerbin for three temperature measurements. Maybe you have no inclination to go to Duna. Then it dawned on me. Why not make contract choices part of the administration building? We already set strategies there, wouldn't the choice of contracts be a strategy? You could simply set sliders with percentages of what kind of contracts you're after: Science on Kerbin Tourism Rescue missions Launch Satellites Space Exploration Asteroids I'm sure the list can be refined, and maybe have some sub-settings. But you choose to be this “fly around Kerbing and science the roof out of it†space agency, or a “tourist agency†or whatever. Perhaps the choices would also reflect the rewards. A specialized tourist company would get higher rewards for tourist contracts than an asteroid-busting specialist. Or perhaps the other way around to promote diversity?

So far, all my rescued Kerbales have been female, but since that's only been a handful that might have been a coincidence. I didn't think it would have to wait until 1.1 to get fixed, but it appears it does.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. If you don't like 1.0.5 why not stick to 1.0.4?

I don't know. When I'm reading the devnotes I see all this stuff about "real" wheels and not that much about rockets and such. We've had "air & sea" in 1.04, I think we get "land" in 1.1 I wouldn't mind seeing Porkjet's Habitat pack getting an update and making it into stock.

Fuel tends to be lighter than water, especially sea water. The bathyscaphe Trieste used a large tank filled with gasoline as a floating device (because the gasoline wouldn't be compressed under pressure like air would). The design worked, as it was the first vessel to make it to the bottom of the Mariana Trench. EDIT: Never mind, I didn't see you used ore tanks. Yeah, that's silly.

Why limit yourself to one base? Why not fifteen, or twenty? But we'll penalize you for declining those!

Given the random nature of the contracts that sounds like a bad idea. There are many contracts I decline because they are insane, loss-giving*, or both. Yes, you can and should combine multiple contracts in one mission. But testing component Y between 18000-25000 ASL and a velocity of 200-500m/s is hard to combine with "at an escape trajectory".

So... does one need to download the latest version or does it automatically get updated when you upgrade (say, through steam) to 1.0.5?

My suggestion is to do a PSA on that.

I have no clue how celestial body disintegration works, but I'm betting dollars to doughnuts that it's not this scenario: Monday: Phobos is still there Tuesday: where once was Phobos is now a ring of debris around Mars I interpret the Roche limit as “under this limit the planet will no longer exist†but I suspect that as Phobos is approaching the limit it's already starting to shear and perhaps breaking up in large pieces?

Well let's be honest... the F-1 was indeed hopelessly OP.