Franklin

Yeah I disagree with the grinding issue (keep in mind we're all veteran players re-playing world 1-1 over, and over, and over), but yeah the part-testing contracts are exhaustively dull. I refuse to take them, and sometimes I have no issue because I need to raise funds and that's all there is in my ability at the time.

I totally disagree. I have 48k left after upgrading the launchpad and the astronaut complex after doing everything through orbit Kerbin and a couple of visual surveys. Exploring Mun will barely cover the cost of upgrading the VAB. What I usually use for my 1st Mun trip is 34 parts, so I have to figure out an entirely new ship design that may or may not make it as I'll be flying an untried ship without patched conics.Are you suggesting there's too little cashflow because what you usually do has left you broke after the upgrades needed to accommodate your usual build, and building something you haven't built before is something you'd rather avoid? In KSP? edit: I mean, upgrade balancing aside, which I'm sure we'll see plenty of, the idea that the game's too difficult because you can't just use the same recipe you're used to is kinda silly. edit2: Also, it still kind of sounds like you're trying to brute your way into a contract league you're not ready for. Do some more 2-star contracts and build up your funds.

And as it was in .25, there's a slow crawl at the very beginning, but once you reach orbit the funds/science starts rolling in and I'd say it becomes too easy.

Given you can quickload/revert in Normal mode, and unlocking science tiers doesn't require you to purchase the respective parts, the idea that there is too little funds is comical. I mean the only funds wall you should be hitting in Normal mode is trying to brute through contracts that are still out of your league.

I don't think anyone was particularly against the barn, just that it was really sloppily done. Of course the models they went with for .90 are also sloppy (check the VAB interiors, you see more of the cartoon-giant sheets of metal with Kerbal-sized rivets, ladders connected to nothing, air-vents used completely unlike how air-vents work, doors blocked by walls, flickering textures laid on top of other textures, etc.) so I don't know, maybe our idea of good and their idea of good is just different.

I know this'll be the third re-post but, Yeah, I kinda saw this coming after the admin centre. The current centre was modeled by bac9, who did a great job and understands atlas standardization and is a great modeller. When the admin centre dropped a number of modellers noticed it didn't seem to be made with the same standardization, and bac9 actually responded before the patch with change recommendations, but they were ignored. So some of us didn't have hope that the new models would be up to the same standard. I wish Squad would contract bac9 more, he raised the bar high enough that the new models being produced (SP+ notwithstanding, that's not Squad) are amateur in comparison. edit: We can look forward to similar recommendations being ignored this time around, I mean, it's not like they've baked the models, they have the working files. The tweaks the community has already pointed out take an nth of time than re-building them all from scratch, which nobody's asking.

Yeah, it's the only class [right now] that you can avoid entirely by just being careful. Like how the repair costs on buildings is completely avoidable by not launching directly over them. Hopefully the class will get skills that you can't just be careful to avoid, but at the same time this would be a good opportunity for Squad to implement [rare/wear-related] part failures only the Engineers can fix. A locked flap, a solar panel that won't deploy, a shorted battery. There's opportunity to make the routine of it all more [rarely] exciting.

Yeah, I kinda saw this coming after the admin centre. The current centre was modeled by bac9, who did a great job and understands atlas standardization and is a great modeller. When the admin centre dropped a number of modellers noticed it didn't seem to be made with the same standardization, and bac9 actually responded before the patch with change recommendations, but they were ignored. So some of us didn't have hope that the new models would be up to the same standard. I wish Squad would contract bac9 more, he raised the bar high enough that the new models being produced (SP+ notwithstanding, that's not Squad) are amateur in comparison. edit: We can look forward to similar recommendations being ignored this time around, ..........

beta's meant for game balancing, bug fixing, content filling and polishing. now that the game's core-complete you'll see it all tweaked soon enough i'm sure.

* Added cheat menu option to visualize biomes in map view. Hey Kasper, jot down for future: "Level # Scientist Skill: Can see biomes on map view" I'm gonna abuse that cheat more than I'd like to admit.

* Rotation and Offset gizmos can also snap to angles and to a 3D grid. Does "3D grid" snap mean we can cobble together a sort of vertical snap?

Thanks for digging for that, Robau.

They're probably just placeholders. Looks to me like they ran out of easy things to give the classes to unlock and just cascaded the unlock order on the fly. We'll probably see more class-related skills at further unlock levels down the road. I mean, we're still in Beta. edit: For example, I'd like to see engineers be able to repair solar panels, and scientists effect transmission rates (zip your attachments!), etc. It's the first instance of this game mechanic, though. I for one am just glad they fully avoided the D&D part boost schtick. I was worried. So far it all sounds fun.

FAR because I'm a grown man.

I got the impression the "Pilot" skills were a role skillset, and that role got the sequential skills (we saw icons for) as that astronaut with that role gained experience. Along with there being a rumoured "Engineer" role, with its own skillset, etc. Is that not the case? edit: I mean I hope that's the case, and Squad didn't still end up going with the D&D part-buff plan that started the original riots.

larger wings would help a fair bit, and you'll want to fix that forward-leaning CoL, it'll cause the plane to tuck. tilting the wings up a smidge (like this) might help both with that forward-leaning CoL and your problems taking off.

Nothing they've built would scale properly to consider the time it takes to travel from one star to another (even max warp would take forever), let alone the floodgate it would open with how many more planets and systems and just plain stuff they'd need to model to make interstellar travel more than a late-game gimmick. They've said adding biomes to a single planet takes ages, imagine having to now create multiple systems. Plus, and I'm thankful for this so far, they seem to try to keep the gameplay within the realm of reality, or near-reality. Interstellar travel is still very much theory and sci-fi right now. Essentially the game's so far been very clearly built around the understanding that we'd never leave our system.

Well, experience is coming, but (as far as I know) we're not yet privy to how it's being implemented. Which is weird given we're the testers but that's none of my business. I doubt we'll see actual "training" beyond spamming contracts with new astronauts. - - - Updated - - - And like sal said, it's alpha. The balancing is (and should be) deliberately tweaked easy so testers (that's you and I) can test things easier. Balancing is a thing you do late in development always.

Also with all the gripe Squad has with time-based elements I don't get why they never broach the idea of making certain time-based elements un-warpable. That would stop the "can't, people would warp to skip it" argument dead. If a space station or satellite running continuous experiments paid out a trickle science gain outside of the main physics stream, un-warpable and just provided a background science gain, that would give a use to those types of designs. And frankly, currently and for the foreseeable future long-term satellites and stations serve no purpose beyond gas stations and one-off contract padding. Also the biggest argument against the knee-jerk complaint with life support management being tedious is providing recycler parts. Solar panels are the "recycler" parts for batteries, just provide CO2 scrubbers and food-producing parts and so on to act as functional equivalents to solar panels for Kerbal life support. They could even boil down these parts into multi-purpose units to keep part-counts low. This makes it so early-games haven't researched the recycler parts yet, giving them short-range operations, but by the end game they've been unlocked and life support concerns become less and less a problem. I think most people (and it's not just a few, clearly) who want life support have been compromisingly all right with an all encompassing "Snacks" that can be as functional as electricity is now. Give us some late-tree "Snacks" recyclers that act like solar panels do now and it's pretty close to what we want to see.

Random failures should exist, but should be very rare and based on wear, not simply random and across the board. Failures should be rare to non-existent for parts that are never used or used properly. We already have landing leg and wheel failures due to misuse, and nobody complains about those because they make perfect sense. Solar panels are ripped clean off when used atmospheric flight, and nobody complains about those misuse part failures because they make perfect sense. Why would extending misuse wear to other parts be different? The kids who think operating their rocket like an a-hole shouldn't have consequences have poor coping mechanisms.

I'm sure his own entry is coming right up!

I'd recommend .There is an entire thread dedicated to KSP CPU benchmarking, and not a single chip will give you zero lag. KSP/Unity 4 just isn't that optimized.

A landing attempt with LV-Ns is always the sign of an over-engineered rocket.

Lots of design inspirations from the forum here, but otherwise I've kinda capped out on career when it was first introduced. I don't really get inspired by gatekeeper modes when I've already experienced the end-game (sandbox). I'd like to "wander" more, like just fly off in a random direction to see what a planet has to offer, but there's nothing out there right now. Game needs wildlife, geography, research content, something.

Is CoL impacted more with a thinner wing (example vs. a shorter wing (example A), rather than just more wing parts in general? Similar to something like this: http://www.pilotfriend.com/training/flight_training/aero/drag_red.htm