Kerbart

Problems are caused by an angle of attack that is too high, causing the rocket to flip. Mechjeb can follow the ascent profile very accurate, keeping the AOA very small. Mechjeb throttles speed if you go too fast, based on data it's getting from KSP, so that might or might not be correct What's left is the profile itself and the existing profile will still get you in orbit. Maybe not an optimal ascent (yet) though.

Because they've already been reported about a thousand times and there was no need to discuss them in this thread. It's more a pre-emptive strike against a "what bugs?" reply.

Maybe if your mining vessel has an exceptionally large mass it can absorb a lot of the heat? Not sure if you like large vessels though. You might be one of those people who likes really, really tiny ships.

I doubt anyone (at least those with a background in software development) expects a bug free version 1.0 However, in the first day after the release “the community†found a whole slew of bugs that weren’t caught during experimentals. It’s open for discussion how deep experimental testing went (as there are a couple of bugs that were pretty basic) but the fact is, as an Early Access game you have an active community. It still boggles my mind why this wasn't rolled out as 0.95, playtested, bugfixed and then release the patched version as 1.0 to “the public.†Surely it will have bugs, but not the bugs you encounter within one hour of gameplay! 1.0 is a fantastic update and the new features make it a rounded game worthy of its 1.0 designation. The bugs, on the other hand, make it feel as this should have been 0.95 or .99 What? You are challenging me on the bugs? Here's a couple: The heatshield center-of-mass issue that makes it nearly impossible to return anything else than a capsule (yet the materials bay needs to be returned to maximize science yield) Parachutes that are ridiculously overpowered. Going 1500 m/s at 2000m ASL? No problem, just deploy the chute! You'll land safely! And never mind the fact that you can deploy them in the upper atmosphere as they have no problem withstanding re-entry heat A configuration error does not limit how many times certain contract classes can appear. So I now have EIGHT tourist contracts whose only benefit is reputation (as they pay so little that they're hardly profitable) Val's Kerbin EVA's: BOOM! Apparently she's made of anti-matter as she'll spontaneously combust when EVA'ing on Kerbin And there's many more!

Obviously a bug. I would build a two-seat abomination in the VAB, switch Val (before she tragically died) and her passenger around and presto! Engineer would tell me that I'd need crew. Switching them back wouldn't solve the problem, leaving the VAB and reloading the vessel did. Hard to reproduce because it doesn't happen every time, haven't figured out what the trigger is. - - - Updated - - - You can do one at a time. At least, I was able to do that.

She spontaneously combusted when eva'ing out of an inline cockpit that rested on the Kerbin surface.

Aside from that, they could be made [amazingly] awesome and glow as they heat up.

I doubt the budgets are higher. However, spending will be better controlled, and project changes are there to achieve goals faster or cheaper, not because some congressman or senator wants a part of the budget to go to his state. Apollo was a great example of what can be achieved if an organization like NASA makes a serious effort towards a clearly defined goal. Space X is showing again what progress can be made if you're dedicated and focused on one goal (or a few goals, aligned with each other). NASA has to deal with the beacons being moved 180° every four years, and budget interventions based on motives completely unrelated to what they are trying to achieve. The size of the budget is irrelevant. It's everything around it that is.

This is what happens when you don't press F5 before launching. Otherwise they could have F9'd and try again!

Microsoft's flightsim used a parameterized model that felt fairly accurate. X-plane on the other hand used an aerodynamic model that felt pretty wonky at times. (*dons flame-resistant suit for X-plane fans*). Still, X-plane was a dedicated flightsim where planes are constructed with customized geometry, fine tuned for each specific model. KSP is a rocket simulator where planes are put together like lego-models. The question is not "how realistic is it," but "what do you expect from something that is 'realistic'" I expect that the goal is to have a model that aligns with what the average player intuitively understands as reality (which not necessarily is reality). Anything slightly more advanced than that is wishful thinking.

Tourism contracts are a good way to boost reputation (moneywise not so much). So after yet another sub-orbital tourism trip my Mk-I + Inline cockpit contracption landed (vertically, with the tiny landing gears for stability). "Well, this is a new biome. Let me get Val out of the inline cockpit to do an EVA and grab some science. FOR SCIENCE!" Val gets out, does the "cling to the canopy thing" for about half a second and then gravity takes over, followed by impact about a tenth of a second later. BOOOOOM. Val gone. I sat there staring at my screen for at least ten seconds in complete disbelief.

That is correct. I don't run a lot of mods, so for me it's easier just to have one bar with a few buttons in it. I'm not saying Blizzy's toolbar is evil or anything like that; I can totally understand that people use it do deal with a lot of buttons. For me personally it's a solution that I don't need and generates extra clutter. For me. That's why I don't use it.

Excellent post. For the maneuver nodes, what about having prograde/retrograde only first, and then unlocking normal and radial later on? And once again it becomes clear that we need a (Gemini-style?) two-Kerbal capsule right from the start of the game. Indeed it is annoying that right from the start you'll need a two-seater cabin for various contracts, without having a satisfying solution for it. If it were possible to couple two Mk-I's together in tandem without it looking ridiculous I wouldn't complain. But you can't, so I will. I agree that the upgraded tech tree is better, but doesn't guide the player towards understanding how to build better rockets. What about unlocking certain parts through contracts instead? Or making them available? Of course it opens the room for abuse (keeping the "save Elon Kerman from orbit" contract just to keep having access to the two-seater capsule) but it would take away some frustration.

Same problem here. Stunningly, I removed it too when there were 6 copies! I figured that by the time my career has advanced enough to need docking there will be an update

Users with bad eyesight might have opted for a LARGE CURSOR but are now stuck with something they can't see.

Clicking on "Training" in the "new game" menu does absolutely nothing. EDIT: r4pt0r was right. I was simply missing the training saved files

If the Tourist contracts are anything like the one from the Contract Configurator mod, you will need a pilot on board of the ship as well, and there's usually a requirement about minimal flight duration too. I'd just read the fine print really carefully.

And hats of for admitting that, sir! True. At the same time, I can see how the devs are more motivated to keep the save files clean and uncluttered than mod developers. Not that I'm saying mod developers are unprofessional or anything, but in the end if mod functionality doesn't get carried over from one version to another the reaction will be "meh". With stock-functionality, much less. So that would be an argument for them to keep things simple--at least for now. Not to mention the pleasant surprise that after three weeks of scanning you've finally located the motherlode! Preaching to the choir... but let's not get into that discussion here

Don't forget the icecream truck sounds on Minmus. I mean Minmus had to come from something, right?

Which is why they should have released it as a 0.95 version. Fix the stuff that needs to be fixed (Manley and Valdez ran into a few after only a couple of hours of play, imagine would thousands of players will do) and THEN release 1.0 as a much more stable version. That's been the whole point of the complaints of going to 1.0 and introducing so many new things without playtesting in the first place.

Among the things after binge-watching the KSP 1.0 pre-release streams on Twitch: The visual effects look awesome Aero has been revamped completely Resource mining. Ya. But what also became very clear based on the streams: the game contains a solid amount of bugs and exploits that haven't been killed/discovered in experimentals. Which is not something to blame the experimental testers for; a community of thousands (chatting with the live streamers) can come up with scenarios the testers would never think off. The decision to go straight from .90 to 1.0 (instead of launching it as .95 first and squashing bugs) seemed bizar and byzantine and the bugs showing up during the live streams are not doing a lot to counter that impression. Congratulations Squad, you're going to release a 1.0 that has a good amount of bugs and that will be followed by a bugfix release. That'll look really good for a game that has been in development for over three years. I still thing the game was rushed to 1.0 and it doesn't deserve that.

In all fairness... They're not bothered by it right now. They have other things to worry about, pushing out a million new features in 1.0. Which brings me to a different subject that needs to stay out of this thread.

The limitation of needing an inclination beyond 80° isn't that artifical; how else would you scan the entire planet. The instant scan... well, in a game where you can timewarp, Harv probably figured that it wouldn't make that much of a difference. Perhaps there were technical considerations we can't quite grasp.

No, not at all. I don't mind that the streamers appear to be playing 1.0 for the very first time in their lives. That's great. Because they're going through the same things we're going through, and we can relate to that. Seeing rockets unexpectedly blow up at launch and re-entry because of the new aero model is fun and instructive. What I do mind is that Squad appeared to pick streamers who play KSP itself for the first time, and who do streaming for the first time. What's worse is that apparently they are experienced. I just heard a bloke proclaim "Oh, we have an LV-T30 now? That's new, never seen it before. How is it different from the T45? Oh, more thrust? Why would I pick the T45 then?" Not sarcastically but seriously. Then he proceeds to get the staging wrong on a simple rocket that doesn't do more than put a one-Kerbal capsule into orbit. We're not talking about a Whackjob monstrosity here, just two liquid stages and some boosters. On top of it, you want streamers who make GREAT streams. Streaming is NOT a live youtube video. There's also an element of interacting with your audience, using your voice in such a way that it engages the audience instead of putting it to sleep, etc. It appears to me that Squad did a bad job (no job) in selecting the right people for introducing their final product to the world. And that's a shame.

Given the fact that they're non-persistent debris, having a fairing explode in ten million pieces is less of a concern at this point. As Red Iron Crown pointed out, the benefits of the stock fairings will outweigh the less-than-desired separation for me; and as 5th horseman said, it means one mod less I need to worry about. It'll be nice to have clamshell separation but given what, based on the 1.0 videos, is offered right now, I'll be more than happy with it.