Kerbart

This is true as well! I tend to rely little on mods — partially for the QA reasons you point out, and the understandable lack of appetite from the mod community to go out and rush the updates out. So I do welcome a lot of the new functionality (either oooooh shiny or now I can get rid of mod x) but if you have a lot of mods then (a) there's not that much new in an update and (b) things are likely to break. In that case the old rule still applies: "wait for the .1 update"

Which for a game so deeply grounded in science is a bit ironic. I've yelled at accountants for not experimenting enough (“What happens if I feed a negative number of periods into an NPV funcion?” — “Why don't you try it out?”) but Rocket Science seems to be founded on “there's only one way to find out.”

There are many engineers developing cars. But let's, for the sake of simplicity, peg that number ridiculously low, so we cannot claim it's overestimated. Let's call it 10,000. Wit a world population of 7.6 billion (2018, Worldbank); that puts the number closer to 99.99987%, putting the accuracy of your claim into question - out of the 16 digits quoted, 10 are wrong or about 62.500000% (since you like those digits so much). In addition, the claim that, and I quote, "99.999999999999% of them won't ever go near a rocket" (pegging the number of people that would go near a rocket to 0 with a very small rounding error also seems based on numbers I'd love to see - there are a few hundred astronauts by now and the number of people involved in launches ("near a rocket") is easily a couple of magnitudes larger than that. Second, where does the claim that all are trained astronauts come from? We know Wernher von Kernam is not a trained astronaut. There's no reason to assume that Mortimer, Linus, Gus , Gene or Walt are one (if anything the hazmat suit suggests Walt wants to be one but amazingly didn't pass training). And that covers just the ones we see in the game; it's obvious in the VAB that there are many Kerbals involved in building the actual rocket. The ones we interact with are surely astronauts. But that makes sense for the game. Why would you interact with the ones in engineering, operations, finance and/or marketing? In all, I think it's safe to say that the claim There are no astronauts on Earth but all Kerbals are is wildly inaccurate.

Every time an update comes out I see many asking the question will mod x work in version y? Well, do I have good news for you! 1) Make a fresh copy of your clean install (usually Steam) of KSP. You do have a clean install you won't touch otherwise, right? Right? 2) Install the mod that you're curious about 3) Test whatever functionality of the mod you're interested in 4) Profit! This will save you of all the agony of having to wait for an answer. You're welcome!

Weird doesn’t mean unrealistic. Could be union regulations.

Or the other way around. When it comes to a willingness to fly in a Kerbal rocket the two are pretty interchangeable.

I was at the start of career - Jeb. Couldn’t use the parachute yet. Besides, therefore precious little time. To do that, and I can’t do that for *every* mission. But it would save Jeb, normally. I’ll have to test it.

How about Krash Test Kerman? He's yellow with those weird circle quadrants painted in spots and can operate a ship as long as it's in radio range. Perfect for those launches even Jeb doesn't want to try.

Don't forget the Mk I lander can; This capsule was designed for lightweight non-atmospheric landers, and seats a single occupant. Features a novel full-body crumple-zone technology. And yet it will do just fine as the cockpit of a supersonic aircraft (aerodynamics aside). To this day I refuse to use it in an atmosphere (aside from as the cockpit for rovers) but nothing will stop you. I hope there will be a Day Of Reckoning someday, just like the 1.0 arrival was an unpleasant surprise for those who had gotten into the habit of returning from Jool with a 90° reentry angle and parachutes reliably slowing you down from 4,000 m/s to 10 m/s in the last 1000m above surface. But I digress...

The only reference I saw to WH40K orks was when developers were thrown the curve ball of having to give the answer on what kind of tissue Kerbals were made off. Nothing, nothing that has been shown in the preview so far points to a return of “barn culture” (duct tape, fuel tanks made out of rusted oil barrels, etc) — quite the contrary; I've only seen parts and ships that are far more polished and slick looking than anything we have in KSP 1. Looking at the Kerbals we interact with in the game — small, green, not exactly fearless but lacking a certain amount of foresight resulting in the willingness to strap themselves into your contraptions — I can see where the comparison is coming from and I'm fine with that. It reflects badly on the Kerbals. Obviously they're capable of building highly refined technology. Just look at the LV-N engine, the 3-Kerbal capsule, the ion engine... Yes. Of course. The average car is a marvel of engineering. Now look at the American highway and the average operator of those vehicles. If you're trying to convince me they are geniuses, then I know you haven't spent any time commuting on American highways. Just because Kerbal society is advanced and refined doesn't mean their most advanced and refined are willing to fly those rockets. In fact, because they're highly intelligent they probably pass on for that job. Bring on the arm-flailing and screaming. I think it's just what the game needs.

Hahaha, that was a funny way to get your point across. In Squad's defense: As a community we don't want them to know where anyone lives. As a result, we can't expect them to optimize time for the largest number of customers would be served best; how would they know what time that is? Between USEC, USWC, EU and SEA you'll always find one or two time zones for who a time is incredibly inconvenient Following the above, "might as well pick a time that's convenient for those who are organizing it." I assume there will be a recording though.

I had the same issue. Turned it was caused by starting the game through a batchfile (to get the -popupwindow argument in). Check that your startup folder is set properly because that’s what’s causing it.

For starters you could build missiles with passive radar, that target multi-band targets. Or use IR gyided missiles that, instead of IR frequencies look for the jamming frequencies? Because clearly there are some big honking sources of that out there.

How do you start the game? I have similar issues in 1.11 and they are related to how I start up KSP.

Well, usually I use a Python script to copy everything from Steam (except saved games, everything in gamedata that is not Squad), settings and a few other files) over to the game folder. That was of course my first candidate, so then I just used drag & drop. Eventually after I found out what the issue was I tested and learned that the way it was copied did not influence the problem. The MK-16 has the hair-raising habit of waiting really long after passing 1,000m on the way down, so I agree that maybe it takes longer could be a factor. But visually the chute is completely expanded with zero influence on the velocity, where it works as usual with the "alternate" method of starting the game. My bad! https://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/26888 Again it's a very low priority issue and I'm not upset if it doesn't get fixed (although I'm sure knowing about this might help a kerbonaut or two who are struggling with the same). I just have a... let's call it academic interest in it. Game doesn't run unless you explicitly specify the startup directory? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ So be it. I'm just fascinated by the fact that if affects one very specific aspect of the game, and the rest works just fine. That's the part that really bugs me.

A new version always brings anxiety: will everything work? So, I make a new folder for 1.11, copy over the game, copy over the mods I use in 1.10 (yes, I enjoy living dangerously). Of course there's the usual warning about mods. Yeah yeah yeah... New career, build simple first craft: mk I pod, mk 16 parachute, flea SRB. Off we go. Chute opens at 1,000m. Craft continues to plummet down at more than 100m/s. RIP Jeb. Wait, whut? It must be mods, right? Remove all mods, and then add them back one by one to see what breaks the game. No mods: RIP Jeb WAIT, WHUT? Run game from Steam folder. Jeb lives. Copy game over from Steam folder to my "1.11 folder". Jeb dies. Validate Steam download. Copy folder over again. For the sake of faster testing, just double-click ksp_x64.exe. Jeb lives Run the game through the start menu (with a batchfile for the -popupwindow command line argument). Jeb dies. The plot thickens. Run the game with a command file from the 1.11 folder with -popupwindow and Jeb lives. So, what did I learn? In 1.10 you can start the game from any directory and things will work fine. In 1.11 you can do the same, and almost all things will work fine - except your parachutes. They'll open, but not slow down your craft I got the same results with or without mods. I filed a bug report in the tracker but doubt it'll be fixed -- it's easy to fix on my end by inserting cd 1.11 game folder in the command file that starts the game -- but it is by far the weirdest thing I've encountered in KSP (and I've been playing since 0.18)

No amount of testing will reveal what you get within a day of releasing a game. While proper testing takes every scenario imaginable into account, it's limited to only imaginable scenarios. Drop it into the market and within an hour you'll have someone complaining that when they do x, y, z the game freezes. Followed by developer team wondering why anyone would do that. It's an illusion to think that a delayed game will be glitch-less. Bring it to the market to get those glitches out. But make clear to your customers what they're getting, reward them for their boldness and push out updates in rapid succession in those first weeks.

Was the kerbal you sent out an engineer?

When landing close to another vehicle for reasons (rescue, base, science, etc) I always have to make sure I don't inadvertently land right on top of it. So yeah, totally doable.

There is so much off with the physics of Superman (or superheroes movies in general) that the laws of physics don't apply; hence talking about what the power consumption would be if the laws of physics would apply are simply pointless.

I love how you implemented all those safety features

Neither has NASA but I bet they don't call them useless.

Not that you can hold on, but you can buy a game as a gift for someone else on Steam.

Does the mothership have relay-capable antennas?

windows don't have clouds, so that makes sense.