BagelRabbit

I guess I'm actually getting hyped about this update. I just found a Class B Asteroid in space and sent up a very special redirect mission. This mission will land the asteroid softly (it was previously going to crash) on Kerbin's northern polar ice cap. Grappling the asteroid wasn't difficult... ...and now we have our own special Hype-eroid. Isn't it cute? Its previous name was ZCU-648 but I should probably rename it now... any ideas?

Well, I just dug up this .craft which I had made a while back, and I have to say, it's pretty good... and surprisingly suited to this challenge! This was a craft using some parts that nobody loved or cared about (as far as I knew of): the Mark 55 Radial-Mount engine, the covered solar panels, and of course the Round-8. I tried to make them into a lander with awesome, 'retro' looks. The result wasn't half bad! I could probably improve upon this ship if I gave it another go, but I think that this lander does a good job showing the uses of the Round-8. I used it as 'portholes' and also put a short toroidal spring on the bottom to cushion the landing. It accounts for much of this craft's fuel and a lot of its looks as well! Oh, and it's a much, much better case for the Round-8 than my previous, universe-destroying entry... -Upsilon

Even though I don't have a Twitter (and probably will never have one), here's arguably the most Kerbal picture I've ever taken. Note how, in spite of the flames and obvious lack of protection, Patcan has a face that says, "Y'know what? At the end of the day, this is why I love being an astronaut." Also, I'm very proud of the little craft he's piloting. It was part of a tiny space shuttle I built this one time... Anyone else want to share their pictures? We could get an informal Forum competition going... maybe, if it was big enough, it could even attract SQUAD's attention! (Maybe.) -Upsilon

Hello again! It's time for a very brief goodbye to stock aero. I'm going to do plenty of stuff with the old aerodynamics while I still can... but that will come in future videos. KSP: A Fond Farewell... (0:17) This thread has felt a little empty lately. Anyone want to drop by and comment on what I'm doing well or what I could do better? That would be nice. Anyway, see y'all soon. -Upsilon

The chord being incomplete was a deliberate choice, as it did a better job of showing my tormented anguish at the loss of our current, stupid aerodynamics system. (Also, the audio was sampled from the Blue Danube, and right after these three clashing chords, it goes back into the happy melody. Which I didn't want to add in. )

Let's have a moment of silence for the stock aero before continuing with the Hype. Stock aero, you were a terrible placeholder... but you had a place in our hearts. Farewell, and Rest in Peace. 2011-2015. liek if you cri everytiem

I've made a short video to express my sentiments. You were a terrible placeholder, old aerodynamics, but you still have a place in my heart. (liek if you cri everytiem)

One time, I broke the universe with a toroidal spring jiggling around at fairly reasonable fractions of the speed of light: ...does this count for anything? It was in an old version of KSP, but it was still tons of fun.

Because of my extensive submarine tests, I've had this problem occur a couple of times (mostly when I was loading a quicksave). Better Buoyancy doesn't seem to have anything to do with it: I don't have it installed! It either places the vessel immediately above the bottom of the ocean (where it can then gently float to the top) or clips the vessel into the bottom of the ocean (Boom!). I have no idea what's doing it, but my best guess is that if the vessel's center of gravity is below the water's surface, the game thinks that the vessel should be on the bottom of the ocean for some reason. (Again, though, this is just wild speculation.) I would recommend placing air intakes and other very buoyant parts on the vessel to make it float a little higher in the water. Maybe that will fix it. Best of luck on a barge landing! -Upsilon

Here's my thoughts on the "death" of the Round-8. Okay, first of all. Why are you repurposing an existing part at all, SQUAD? This strikes me as a bit of a poor choice. It indicates that you seem to have no desire to make new parts, for one thing. I understand that you're pressed for time and that you want to release 1.0 "on schedule..." but using a part with the same appearance for a different purpose is sloppy, in my opinion. The Round-8 toroidal fuel tank currently looks nothing like any part used to store or burn xenon. It lacks both the texture, the color, and the general 'feel' of the Xenon tanks. In other words, to make it look compatible with all of the other parts, it needs to have its appearance adjusted... and if its appearance is adjusted, the reason for nixing the original Toroidal Fuel Tank is suddenly gone! Furthermore, toroidal fuel tanks are very useful for storing a little extra propellant in a nonintrusive way. Many people have used them, and continue to use them, as an 'adapter' between 1.25m and 0.625m parts or at the top or bottom of stages to add a little flair (I really love putting the basic jet intake on top of them; the appearance is marvelous). Their gold color has graced many an Apollo replica and their springiness has helped with everything from lander suspension to scary glitchy toroidal springs of death. As you can clearly see with this thread and others, they are a rather beloved part that has found its niche. Repurposing it has been almost unanimously rejected by the community, and for good reason. I would also like to throw in the following in general: SQUAD, as a marketing company, you really should be looking at feedback from others, both positive and negative, wherever you can get it. It will tell you when you're doing things right and when you're doing things wrong. We are your community. We are the reason for your success today. You are trying to market your game to us, and if we disapprove of your decisions, no matter how great you think the game is, we'll stop playing or lose interest more quickly. This may sound harsh, but it's the truth. Keep this in mind. That's really all there is to say. -Upsilon

I'm unsure what your background is. If you're an engineer who regularly works with real-life aircraft, then I can see how you would know how this stuff works. If you've read books on aircraft design, then you probably know what you're talking about. If you just claim you know your stuff without explaining why, then I'm sure you can see why some people would wonder how much you really know. I would also like to see pictures and other data for some of the problems you're experiencing. Some of your problems may be caused by bugs or incompatibilities between mods, but it's difficult to tell without some more detailed information, screenshots, crash logs, and other valuable information. The KSP community is actually more willing to help and friendlier than this thread suggests. We just need to know exactly what's going on inside of your computer. If we don't have that information, there's no way to diagnose and solve the problems with your KSP experience. I'm assuming that you want help with your problems, rather than just complaining about KSP, by the way, though I can understand why others would view this thread as a "KSP Sucks!" kind of thing. If you do just intend to complain without asking for help, then this thread should probably be locked, as you've made your point here and there's no reason to keep the thread going. Hope you understand where I'm coming from. Best, Upsilon

I'm currently working on a project to get stuff into space too! I know it's far-fetched, but I've done plenty of simulations and have ~10yrs of experience building large-ish rockets. This plan would, as mrfox said, use a weather balloon as a first stage. Once the rocket has been lifted to altitude (100k feet-ish), it will fire two stages. The first stage will be enough to push the rocket about 60,000 feet further into the air, and the second stage will take it to space (peak altitude achieved looks to be about 325,000 feet on paper). I'm assuming you mean right after the balloon pops (otherwise, the ascent is quite smooth if proper measures are taken). You don't really have to wait until after the balloon pops to fire your rocket: you can either fire the rocket through the balloon on the way up (the Army did this for some rocket tests before NASA was formed) or you can fire the rocket at an angle, so that it misses the balloon on the way up. I'm doing the latter, in spite of some slight performance costs, because of worries that the rocket will be knocked off-course while passing through the balloon. As for stability, the rocket will be stable if it is spinning. It doesn't even have to spin all that fast: one revolution per second would be sufficient. No need for gyros or anything else. Finally, it is far more costly to make your own rocket motors than it is to buy them. If you're making and testing large motors, the government of your country will notice. If you're in America, they may view you as a terrorist. You will thus have to get the government's express consent to make rocket motors, which involves certifying the place where you make motors as a facility and paying lots of fees. To contrast, the upper stage of my space shot will be an H135-W motor, which costs $32 from Apogee Components (and even cheaper elsewhere), is very efficient compared to sugar motors, and requires nothing more than a High-Power Level 1 certification, which you're probably going to get anyway if you're working on a project like this one. Don't use sugar motors. They're very tempting, but they aren't the magic solution you may think they are. -Upsilon

Even more upsettingly, people new to the game may look at the animation and assume that the game has clouds. It's a perfectly reasonable assumption, right? Unfortunately, it's not valid. Having the trailer for the game depict a thing that is not in the game is a bit strange. It makes me think that either SQUAD is going to add clouds (optimistic view) or that it's no good at marketing (realistic view). If they're going to add clouds, I'll be incredibly happy. If they're squandering their time being misleading to new players, then I'll be irritated. Just my $0.02USD here. -Upsilon

Many people think that weather balloons send things "to space," and indeed, they can reach altitudes of about 100,000 feet. But that's actually only about a third of the way to space... and not even close to orbit (which is being in space and travelling at about 17,000 mph horizontally). I think I've got a pretty good claim on the highest altitude a model Kerbal has ever gotten above ground level, at 2,872 feet AGL. This model rocket carried this model of Jeb in the nosecone as a counterweight for the GoPro. This could easily be beaten by a good-quality weather balloon or by hitching a ride on a professional rocket, though. It's probably already been beaten, but I haven't seen any evidence of it yet... The easiest way to get a Kerbal into space is to persuade an existing astronaut to take the guy up there. There are a certain number of lightweight 'personal belongings' that astronauts are allowed, and if we petitioned an astronaut to take up Jeb with the rest of his stuff, he or she might just do it. It would be quite inexpensive but it might require a little persuasion... are y'all up for writing some letters? -Upsilon

Alas. One of the best things I ever did in Kerbal Space Program was build a bunch of flying cars: Propelled upwards by many hidden control surfaces and wing bits, these automobiles were as cheaty as they were fun. I'll miss watching them take off and circle the KSC like glorious brick-birds. *sniffle* You will not be forgotten, tiny flying cars. -Upsilon

Hello again! So, since the last video (and perhaps due to its provocative title and a comment I posted on Scott Manley's channel), the great Manley himself has asked to see the craft return to the surface! This meant me dropping all of the stuff I was doing before and focusing on making the sub return to the top of the water. I managed to not only do this, but also create a very cheaty submarine with Whack-a-Kerbal that can descend and ascend at speeds of over 30 m/s without any fuel! So, here's my latest video. KSP: A Not-So-Nasty Submarine! (4:46) Enjoy! -Upsilon

Didn't Avera9eJoe do something a little like this, only with some storyline and plot? The problem I see with this is that as great as this project will be, I don't think it'll top Avera9eJoe's. Furthermore, it doesn't really sound like it's trying to do anything new. I would love to contribute a couple of moments/craft, but is there any way you could spice this thing up a bit? Do something unconventional that I haven't seen before? Show me something that will really be unique, rather than just a slideshow with awesome music. Give this some serious thought. 1.0 only comes out once, and you don't want to squander this opportunity on anything other than your very best video. I really like your channel, and you've got great creativity and a serious sense of style... now use it! Sorry if I'm being rather tough... I hope you understand where I'm coming from. -Upsilon

...Holding now. Weather violations are loads of fun.

SpaceX! SpaceX! SpaceX! SpaceX! (about five minutes to launch now. Everything going well.)

Hello! Yesterday, Scott Manley posted a video in which he made a sophisticated submarine and sunk it to about 750m under the water. Yesternight, I made a rock in KSP: a thing that naturally sunk to 931m without need for engines or any of that fancy stuff. It relied on the negative buoyancy of the Mk3 to 3.75m adapter and it was loads of fun to watch sink to the bottom of the ocean! Yes, loads of fun. Really. Why don't you believe me? Fortunately, I made the video short and sweet. You're welcome. KSP: Nasty Submarine! (3:33) Once again, thanks for watching. -Upsilon

Alright. I'm just updating my entry. Maximum depth is now about 931m, because I sank it in a deeper portion of the ocean; I also put on a probe core so that the craft could be considered 'controllable.' Other than that, nothing is different. Video link! This wasn't really fun, but someone's gotta do it... I guess. -Upsilon

I made a thread for this on the Suggestions and Development subforum awhile back. Here it is. Even though this thread got a fair amount of attention and replies, it didn't really result in anything happening. But then again, very few suggestions on that subforum are actually implemented for some reason. I still stand by all of the things I said there. Water is currently far too laggy; it looks quite unattractive; it's more unforgiving to splash down on it than to crash into hard Kerbin ground; rocket engines and jet engines work whilst submerged; and many parts are so ridiculously buoyant that they bounce hundreds of meters into the air (I'm looking at you, air intakes). It's a placeholder that has basically remained unchanged since water was actually not rendered as a solid surface. Would overhauling water be a difficult thing to do? Probably. Should the devs overhaul water for 1.0? Absolutely. 1.0 is supposed to be a 'feature-complete' version where all aspects of the game are more-or-less established. The water system right now is undeniably a placeholder, and placeholders have no place in a complete game. Water is not a 'small' aspect of the game, either - after 1.0 is released, boosters and other bits will likely have to be recovered in it more frequently than ever. It's really absurd to leave water as-is, and hopefully SQUAD won't do it. I have a sneaking suspicion that they will, though. Please, SQUAD, fix water for 1.0. For our sake and for yours. -Upsilon

Hi! I feel like I should weigh in on this debate. I have over 2,100 subscribers, which is pretty nice (though not into "Big Channel" territory perhaps). I have done YouTube just for fun since the very beginning, and I've never tried to monetize my channel or make revenue from it in any way... and I most certainly won't start now. Count me out! I'm not going to start throwing things and screaming, but this is really wrong. And if, as the article says: then I'm not sure what to do with my channel. Maybe it'll just have to be taken down... -Upsilon

I understand that SQUAD can do basically whatever they want without telling us. I also understand, however, that if they don't mention changes (especially major ones) before performing them, they can interfere with peoples' gameplay in the worst possible way, as you said later in your post. I have never played 64-bit KSP, and I've actually been consciously trying to avoid it. But I'm still irritated. I'm not irritated because my game is broken; I'm irritated because this sort of unwarranted and unexpected update means SQUAD lacks a certain degree of civility and foresight. It would have taken maybe thirty seconds to make an official announcement about this (in the devnotes or elsewhere), and it would have been met with mostly positive feedback. Instead, it seems as if SQUAD deliberately tried to remove this option, and thus ruin many peoples' games, in complete secrecy. Which strikes me as a certain breach of trust. Anyway, I'll leave now. I don't intend to be negative towards SQUAD; in spite of their flaws, I'm still doing my best to sympathize with them... -Upsilon

Time for another video! This thread's actually going to stay near the top of the page for a little while! Wow. This video documents a glitch found by mythbusters844: using the offset tool to do some pretty strange things. Near the end... well... it's a bit difficult to describe. I have no idea what it is, or how it happened. But it did. KSP: Offset Tool Madness! (3:54) ...and yes, the videos are now properly embedded. Also, this thread has reached two pages, which is nice. Thanks for watching! -Upsilon