metl

On hard, it takes going to both Mun and Minmus for me to have enough money to get everything up to tier 2, which still leaves interplanetary fairly difficult (mostly the mass limit.)

You are correct. I misread it.

Man I wish I was able to have time to listen to the squadcasts. Always so much information and I thank the OP for posting these. This explains so much more after reading the latest article posted. if they can pull all of this off and roll it all into a 1.0 release, hell ya! I'm now going to go tinker with Karbonite to get a feel for the resource system. Hell, I might even play with NEAR (seems closer to what they are aiming for than FAR.) - - - Updated - - - Oh, and as far as "trailer park rocket" : 80's http://cryptome.org/eyeball/nuclear-silos/nuclear-silos.htm

Here is what worries about about this sudden shift: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/content/313-Beta-Than-Ever-The-Future-of-KSP Specifically: "Q: You’re not pulling the plug on KSP, are you? A: Of course not! We still have a long way to go. We just want to let everyone know we’re going to reach a new stage of development soon." And did anyone else notice Multiplayer was not included on the next update?

I tried this tonight. They don't rearrange in the VAB or in the astronaut complex. What am I doing wrong?

Remote Tech is nice for realism, but Antenna range accomplishes basically the same thing without getting overly complex and system taxing. With AR, as you go past optimal range, electricity needs increase (boosting the signal) until it hits an absolute max. I don't believe RT does that.

Where did this tourism comment come from? I didn't read that anywhere. It does make me wonder if maybe Elon Musk offered Squad a stupid sum of money for rights to the finished product...

I have mixed feelings. I've been burned by many early access titles that jumped the shark then never got touched again. Squad making this announcement so soon on the heels of Beta makes me nervous, especially when they said that it was not going to be that way. That being said, if they implement everything listed, then there truly isn't any reason not to call it finished. I wonder, do you suppose they got an offer they can't refuse from a company interested in buying the rights to the game upon completion? Talk about a hell of a promotional tool for a space agency (public or private.)

I'm not so sure that would be appropriate...

You can rearrange the list!? Are you freaking kidding me!? Why did I not know this?! Man I really need to try new things sometimes just to see if it might work.

I clicked on teh link expecting to read a post about you navigating using the position of the Mun. Not what i expected, but yet it was... ROFL! Well done!

That probably will. I have a feeling that was just an unintended oversight.

I have to agree with the OP's original sentiment. I too have invested in several "alpha" games, and Squad is the ONLY one that has actually kept promises and continued to honestly develop and not just add bits and pieces of things that were functional long before but disabled just so it could be added later as a "feature." In fact, Squad's treatment of Alpha is why I bought many other Alpha games. It is Squad's fault that I have tossed away countless dollars, all because I actually expected other developers to treat their alpha game the same way Squad has. One such "alpha" game I am a not-so-proud owner of just released a statement a few days ago saying they will be "cutting features" and moving to Beta soon with a planned Release Date set. Yep, that one's over with. At least they gave a warning instead of a sudden "Look we're released! Ta-da!"

Reasons I do not care for FAR/NEAR: It makes building easier while severely punishing an over-correction in flight. Once you start to lose control of the rocket, there is no saving it. I would compare it to frustrations with perma-death in other games (Revert flight is not the same as having a chance to salvage the flight.) Extreme punishments are rarely considered fun in games by all but a small percentage. You see reentry as an issue, I see it as not punishing new players by destroying their craft the first time they finally make orbit. I've played with DE. After almost 500 hours of it, I stopped using it because it became tedious and easily overcome. Once the initial "thrill" wore off, it lost all fun. That being said, I do think some form should be in stock that at least forces me to point my craft the right way. Aerobraking works now (if you know how to do it.) I don't see these as major issues from an overall gameplay perspective. Yes the current aerodynamics model is a placeholder and will be getting some needed love to fix the drag model. But at the end of the day, changing these things will not make an astronomical difference in what this game is about, unless they go overboard with the realism and turn it into a realism simulator. Then they will alienate a huge portion of gamers that just love the lighthearted game for what it is.

My personal experience with FAR and NEAR is that it is too much realism. Some people enjoy that, some do not. From a gameplay stance, I see no glaring issues with stock aerodynamics that just make the game "unfun." Is it realistic? Absolutely not. But it works. It accomplishes what it was designed to do. I might have a different attitude if I had studied physics or ever been a pilot, but as it sits I am a gamer playing a game designed to provide a lighthearted take on a space program, which it does very well. I don't want a "realism simulator." I want a game. There is a point that has been overlooked in all of the talks about "who knows best." NASA has been watching KSP. Elon Musk has been watching KSP. KSP has an educational version being developed. KSP has crossed gaming boundaries not accomplished by hardly any "Realism simulators." I think Squad knows what is best for KSP, or we wouldn't be where we are now. Could they screw it up? Of course. But I think it is pure arrogance for some modders to think they know best.

I rather like the starter runway. Now if they would just fix the tech tree...

I've not found a use for them, but I don't use any parts packs. The "advanced" mode actually annoys me because that is where they buried the subassembly button, which is extremely useful. I'm not sure why it wasn't left in the main categories.

Get the texture Replacer Mod, then download various suit packs. My favorite is J's Suit Pack as it has three colors in it. Then you can use Texture Replacer in-game to assign different suits to the different jobs. It has helped tremendously.

The fueled nosecones are what sold me on this mod. Finally a reason to make the craft look more aerodynamic.

On the last page, there is a link to the release of a .90 version.

I think the idea of the barn was part of the whole Jeb's Junkyard thought, with the trailer park and all. I would like to see the barn, the trailer park, and then the first tier research center could even BE Jeb's junkyard.

It's a time-consuming process. Every texture image has to be converted one by one and saved. Be prepared to spend all night doing it. Active Texture Management does it automatically and might be a good option, but I haven't tried it with Astronomer's yet to say if it works.

TAC is probably what you are looking for, but with 0.90, we can now do stock transfers between multiple tanks at one time.

Sounds cool, especially for movie makers. I love the idea, and would probably mess around with it, but once the novelty wore off, I doubt I would use it any more. I tried using the handrail pack, but I wasn't able to get my kerbals to use them properly and once they lost all functionality (for me) I removed them, despite liking the aesthetics. Not to mention the "realists" that will start screaming for having all of these "non-aerodynamic" and "useless, unrealistic" parts hanging off of ships.

I just want the subassembly button back on the main categories. I don't use the filters (don't use parts packs so using the filters is just slower when I know where everything is) so having to move the "advanced" tab over just annoys me.