korda

Here I am. I'm pasting here render of tiny (0.625m) RTG I'm currently working on.

After my first Munar landing I decided to place flag with description (no ladders ): "That's one small fall for Jeb, a giant leap for Kerbalkind" Did you ever came up with your own version of Armstrong's words?

What makes you think that making tutorial is so easy and fast? Sure it would be actually easier and faster. And would delay development. And after a while you would have to update them. And then you would whine that they spend time on stupid tutorials instead of making actual game. I think that there is no reason to make them right now. On the other hand if they could get one in (tech tree) for free (since they were doing it anyway) why not? There is a wiki. There are tutorials made by other players. For in-development game it is just fine IMHO.

Maybe they made it this way to provide some form of tutorial for now? Before they will actually start making in-game tutorials. Also it is just a first draft of one aspect of career mode. I bet that difficulty will come from limits all aspects of carried mode will put on players, not just tech tree.

I think there is no reason to change description of parts, it would be better to add some information on part type (since a lot of parts work same way anyway). But hey! Wasn't this discussion on concerns about KSP getting less hardcore? Or maybe you just want whine about everything...

I recall an interview (?) with Harvester, in which he stated that they don't want to make second Orbiter but more 'casual' simulation. I think that they will eventually add stuff like reentry heat or more realistic atmosphere (isn't current model of atmosphere more a placeholder?). Also to make that game they need money - unless they are willing to work for free - and aiming at bigger group of people means more money. I believe that they are capable of balancing between making it too hardcore or too casual - or between their passion and business. As for me I never felt that they change feel of game to be more casual / hardcore and I'm here for some time already (before they added map for sure).

looks really kerbal

Made me some flag as cool as sailor mun oh please oh please oh please oh please srsly, sailor mun is awesome.

I wish my GPU could help physics engine... Or other CPU cores at least *sigh*

And they are doing this only because they are so cool? We've got that access because they probably need those sales to keep up development. Why they even fix some bugs that could easily wait to release or made placeholders like current atmospheric model? I think that you should remember that they are actually selling this game and if someone will read opinions that game is buggy there is great deal of chance that he won't buy it on full release anyway.

I don't think so... For example there are reports that SAS releases all axises when only trying to change one (no joysticks involved), thats not how it is supposed to work, according to what devs said.

I think communication with community is important. For instance my opinion on WarZ went down a lot, because of some stuff devs said.

If they know they should tell us they know, if they went sleeping and living knowing and didn't write anything they made mistake. And since HarvesteR already saw people saying about issues then I can assume he knows (but maybe ignored it, thinking that mods or people expectations are cause), and I assume he was awake while writing here (I hope he doesn't do sleepwriting or somthing ). There are always people as patient as you, and as inpatient as me so it's better for everyone if they communicate, at least a bit.

So it's pretty obvious that a lot of people are experiencing issues with ASAS, but I don't see any sticky topic here on or Support saying 'relax, we know' or 'it's not a bug it's a feature'. Harvester responded on one topic regarding this issue, you can find him at some distant twentish page, so helpful. It all just doesn't make sense, you want people to be angry and confused? The same was with cupolla pod exploding when switching vehicles, I found info about cause in some topic, not in some sticky (and at least HarvesteR was aware of issue, since he was posting in that topic too).

REALLY I don't care that much how much actual effort they put in it, I care mostly about effects. They can spend 6h laying in jacuzzi and 2h coding but if final product satisfies me I don't really care.

I think we should do the test HarvesteR was talking about and post not only results, but also source (steam/shop) and system we use.

Maybe something is wrong with Steam version of KSP?

Does caps lock alters joystick controls anyway?

All my planes seem to be super-hyper-oversensitive when it comes to rolls. Single press of Q or E spins them really hard, with exception of the biggest ones. I even bought joystick hoping that this will help but still they are spinning like crazy. Using less control surfaces makes control of other axises really hard. I tried putting control surfaces close to main axis but it makes only a slight difference...

No it's not acceptable and it should be considered serious issue, if they will put some minimal system requirements and then it turns out that there is a mission that doubles them then what?. Also I already stated that I hope that it will be fixed in some way before release, but you can't say 'hey, it will be probably fixed in 1.0 so no worries' for every issue. Do you think they will just sit for 2 days and fix all issues just before release? I think they only leave some issues because those issues won't matter in future (because, for example, buggy mechanic will be replaced anyway, so no need to fix it).

I do the same in MC Problem I see here is not that it's not possible but it is very hard, even in sandbox mode. And my point is, if it will be necessary to land there and physics engine will be still so much ineffective (I know, I know - "it's not Squad fault") then we have an issue. Because you will be able to play game in normal way and then BAAM! No way to land and get back from Eve without heavy controls lag and very low FPS. Also I don't want to start thread about how career should look. I assume here that there will be set targets, no need to argue about it here because even if this would be optional it's still not acceptable that you need real power horse for one important thing in game's content while rest of the game runs smoothly. Hopefully, they will optimize more before release or make Eve gravity bit smaller.

I was wondering what will be Eve status after career mode release, since while getting there is very easy (just put a parachute or two), getting back from there... Well it is issue. Mostly because of part count... I remember reading somewhere around that the lightest lander weighted something around 70 tones, and it was made to land on one of the highest points to lower delta V required. My lander was like 150 tons and had a tons of parts. Next I had to built something capable of pushing it to Eve and I had to refuel it in orbit, and refuel lander too and then when I was like few hundreds meters from docking them while fighting with aligning them while my computer was screaming for mercy I decided that it is not worth all the effort (and if something would turn out to be working wrong I would probably kill someone)... I really hope devs aren't planning missions including getting back from Eve. Well, maybe one mission - and it would be like final boss of the game...

Flying something at LKO is really really really different thing than flying it elsewhere. The way game renders terrain and specifically the way game renders water makes all stuff I build lag as long as I'm looking at Kerbin/Eve/Laythe while being close to it. I've heard that there are ways to fix it a bit though, at least when it comes to water. And TBH while I would probably had some issues with that behemoth it wouldn't be so bad in practice, even though I play game on my laptop (its Dell XPS though), my constructions are often similar size and I don't have big issues. Also as a programmer I think I'm aware in how bad situation Squad probably is when it comes to physics in this game. You make assumptions and decision on what you can afford, what you can actually make in finite amount of time and what will be in future. If you assume game won't be so popular then you won't be able to afford some stuff (since you assume that you won't be able to get the cash back). Making game engine is really hard task and KSP has small team. Also it would mean that they would have to maintain engine too. While starting this game they probably didn't have idea that limitations of Unity engine will be big issue ever (or they had to ignore it, since it was best option they could afford), also it wasn't 2013, they couldn't know it will be problem for Unity developers to upgrade engine to today's standards in future. This isn't normal game, most modern games are GPU hungry, not CPU hungry, also not many games have to simulate physics for so many objects in so many aspects (remember that there is also heat and aerodynamics). It all also means that Unity developers would have to focus on stuff that isn't so important for modern game just to help KSP. Requests to change engine? Thats equal to starting over. It's not going to happen (unless they actually will start from a scratch).

As far as I know game treats struts in very special way, for example they don't actually add to weight of crafts. It was similar with ladders too, but I think it was changed recently.

Well I designed tug that has 4000 delta V with 200t cargo and TWR (relative to Kerbin) around 0.2, I guess that will work.