Nemrav

Didn't they say on twitter that they were looking at parachutes for a redo ?

a shelf ? roof ? a cubard ?

a waterfall ?

thing I did in the demo.... built rediculously huge rockets that were perfect pancakes, all using the same engine/fuel/nose cone combo, with a pod on the top.... no staging, just hoping for it to work... I also thought space was at 100,000m exactly... I managed to get past it several times but couldnt understand that for some reason I wasn't staying up there real physicist there you know.... I still have a demo version, aswell as all my original crafts for it....

Its a finaly, people think its an ending act to add to the show....

Its already confirmed, before this thread was even made... at least for this week, and we will be asked for feed back then...

lol But really, you guys are saying that they didn't post critical info on the forum such as delta V on the forum, even though it only got officially confirmed on the forum, how-so ? the twitter post was "rhymes with this" and then on dev note tuesdays Kasper stated that delta v was confirmed... As for the forum article thing, wouldn't a logical thing to do be to simply ask on the instant reply media the opinion, and then if it passes that stage, progress with the plan... How many people look at the twitch and video updates in the daily ? yet imagine if they took those down, people would be in a uproar.... would people skip "Rocket report Saturday" ? edit: note to Kasper.... why are you bothering with this thread anymore ? edit2: ted is online... so much for not paying attention to forums... again..

so.... IVA's are useless, and I hate that... so let's get rid of the one advantage ivas have !!! Excellent idea everyone !!11!! Other than that... sure, people might not be able to handle the higher resolutions to actually see the instruments, so it would be useful

looking back in the dark threads in the bottom of the pile, I found this http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/10310-14 would you believe, people were concerned about Kerbals going random. And it keeps up the topic of why are we bothering making a huge deal over nothing, keep it or add 3, makes no difference to how you play other than a first name....

ions, protons, electrons, matter, composites, gazes, isotopes... anti-matter dark-matter ? I'm desparetely thinking of other things on the atomic scale

Well, we are on other sides of the continent/country , but hey welcome. You will find that seemingly 1/10 people on this forum are Canadian (passive observation)

Well, new aerodynamics are in the works, but hydrodynamics and aerodynamics function the same-ish way (fluid dynamics). We all know that water is made of blue concrete hard to land on, and as we've seen before people want that changed. So, using the new fangled occlusion based drag system, why not base how far you can plunge upon hitting the water based on the drag occlusion and allow greater speeds for hitting the water and not being destroyed based on the pointiness of the craft.. other than that, water could be left alone and mostly never touched again with something that floated well and maybe a propellor (off-shore resource mining).

nope Cantab

Oh boys, the intensity.... Can I maintain my high rating ? Will some people come out of nowhere... Somehow I'm guessing far_from_flyable and ham_sandwich will finish NEAR the bottom, as mine already flew in FAR and Vager's looked sound.. Then From the looks of it Far_from_Likely and stupid will compete at the top....

short answer : really hard with any height map/procedural terrain long-ish answer: While caves are interesting for games with large amounts of terrain, they are rarely added because they can't work with height map based terrain (unity terrain or other), height map basing being what allows for the large swaths of the terrain, it can all be done procedurally. But height maps only include the visible height from a top down view, which means your caves become hills or mountains or ground craters. There are the tylo caves in KSP, but having premade cave structures (how caves are usually done) require a lot of time to do nicely, and you would need a lot of them to have variation (its all done by hand)... But as far as practical implementation goes, im pretty sure there was an asset store thing to cut holes in unity terrains... You could also use a pipe type cave system (with you go so far, the generator adds another caves section)...

When did the engine switch happen ? how much did it take to convert everything....

false the above statement is true. . . . . . . . . . . . .The person below me had to think for a sec to realise that I did not create a paradox...

The reason I wish I could target Kerbin is to get a flat inclination relative to it (to make station building easier)...

test pilot : Hudney Kerman Jeb usually gets onto a station going vessel and stays, its his own fault anyways...

Check out chad Jenkins channel (he was former KSP dev), they've had those parts in archives since 0.18 .... Guess it might be time to dig them out, while they're digging the old resource parts....

I suspect march/april, they are already doing/about to do experimentals on the major features and after that, it usually doesn't take too long...

120: all investigations into glitches are to be carried out by Kirrim Kerman, special agent...

1/10 seen you once...

nope Xannari

But what are *your* guidelines, what are the limitations of how you will edit the craft ? I know it wouldn't be deleting the craft and starting over, but will it be say Add up to 50 parts and delete up to 10 ? Will you use the translate tool ? Also, would I be allowed to make a rotary aircraft (craft that go vertical using slightly inclined engines with rotation > 2 revolutions per second as a side effect) ? if so, I may have your first submission already... edit : the craft... https://www.dropbox.com/s/i7dbymshvu312h1/far_from_flyable.craft?dl=0 wish I remembered how to get imgr working, for now just use the link edit2: ty and forgot to name the craft... oh well, far_from_flyable, Nemrav.....