Wallygator

Yes please! I support this request 100%.

It's not what you complain about, it's how you complain about it. The OP although being well intentioned, missed this point. Constructive criticism can be effective regardless of timeframe, person or topic.

Ummm, excuse me for being pedantic for a moment as the OP does not specifically indicate the modality (manned or unmanned) of the mission - but NASA already made it to Mars - Several times. They have this tele-robotic rover thingy, remember? (snark?) Seriously though, making it to Mars is something which requires national technical means. Undoubtedly, many private companies will be involved supplying major components, systems and capabilities. In the end, it will most likely be achieved by an National Consortium (multiple nations and multiple suppliers) OR it will be one nation which exhibits the necessary will and authoritarian control to make it happen (If the latter, then must also admit that China is a very strong contender as their current level of authoritarian control has now exceeded the U.S and Russia and their technical capability is increasing rapidly).

This is a very constructive idea and can be leveraged with many already existing play constructs. I fully support this recommendation - make it so!

The reason I play on a mac is the 27" retina display. Amazing when the game works! Just beautiful. I will remain a loyal KSP player, but I still can broadcast my frustration with the poor OS X stability.

It seems to me, that having a more properly aligned aero and physics model has now shown a few gaps in the various air breathing engines available. I would rather have a wider selection of engines to fill any gaps (within reason) instead of "fixing" the physics so that the current engines regain lost capability. DISCLAIMER: I am not a jet pilot, I forgot most of my physics and calculus before most KSP players were born, I admit I do not remember enough to judge a specific engine and its performance environment.

Don't look now, its already happened. Soon it will be very difficult to name any activity in life that is not governed or controlled by an automated AI agent - credit scores, investments, insurance, licensing, taxes, etc. AI is another tool of The MAN to keep humanity under social control. The only freedom you will end up with is the freedom to spend what money you have on useless consumer products. Now, excuse me while I get back on my meds... ;-)

Full Support here. Nice one.

I find it interesting that this thread continues since the boat has already left port. I would think there is a more constructive topic at hand which is = "How might squad optimize future releases to take advantage of community input without compromising established internal testing and QA processes?"

Yes,, I've seen the same behaviour - for example, its really important to not have something attached to the bottom and sticking above the top of the service bay. You cannot reliably use the offset tool vertically with the service bay.

I suggest they choose black and white to address accessibility for colour blind users(or at last provide the option)

All fair points, However... I'm not advocating a plethora of "realistic instrumentation". I am advocating that the aero and space flight physics FRAMEWORK should be consistent. If there needs to be a relative feedback loop with buffering implemented in the existing stock control GUI then fine. If a player wants to load a mod to gain extended control features, fine. Its the physics framework which needs to be consistent and believable.

When I read the OP and checked the link I did not come away with the impression that the devs have publicly stated that KSP is a game in favour of a sim. What I perceived was that they wanted to prioritize FUN. In the context of a sandbox game, IMHO "Fun" arises from a predictable play system that allows an individual to create and explore in an open environment. That said, the foundation (the sand in the box) of KSP is physics and the assumed predictable nature of the model and its analogue to a player's perception of reality. However, if a player has no grounded perception of reality, then any simulation will likely fail to impress - in other words, if a person purchases KSP and they have no idea at all about the world around them, then it is likely they will be disappointed and set the game aside because it is "too hard to play". KSP is not for the faint at heart- it demands a certain level of commitment and willingness to learn specific skills (some of which actually require a player to do a bit of study rather than just press a FIRE! button repeatedly). KSP must continue to press forward with increasing affinity toward a predictable and reliable physics based implementation of both atmospheric and space flight. If suddenly there is a change that drives a simplistic and easy-ified element, then KSP will fade away from its core root. This game has a very unique target market - And that target market also exemplifies the brand -------> BUILD ON THAT! When someone says "I play KSP", it should imply a higher level of play and a sincere commitment to learning new skills. Please, don't dumb it down. Stay true to a common physics framework for all players.

They are OK for stuffing static things inside,but frankly until we get some kind of stock robotics/motion control these cargo bays function nearly the same as fairings. Imagine opening a cargo bay and extending various equipment to allow function. I like them, don't get me wrong, it's just that they are more cute than functional at the moment - would be nice to have taller versions available for each diameter. Also, let me open one side only if I want.

I do not visit because I have not yet received an invitation. The recent addition of Dresteriods in my opinion suffices as such an invitation. Must... Create... Dres... Mission... Soon...

I think that's pretty cool. Nice Job! Need to work on your exposure settings but other than that you deserve a resounding golf clap!

Until we get procedural SRBs I think they will be a constant point of discussion - there cannot be a one for all SRB design. Its fair enough to be locked into a suite of liquid engines, but it would be nice to be able to specify a procedural SRB to complement a craft design - since a realistic purpose of a boost phase SRB is to get the stack up to an operating altitude for optimal main engine operation (ok its not perhaps the only purpose, but still...) Let us specify the base parameters required (thrust, duration, dimensions, etc.) and let the system fill in the remaining parameters. Could be interesting.

These stock fairing so not "suck" totally, but they do great a general lowering of air pressure... I like the attempt, I do not like the current implementation. 1) Allow the specification of how may pieces it breaks into 2) Allow having the fairing not break apart at all, just disconnect 3) Fewer restrictions as to exact placement of the segments 4) Allow closure of the fairing at any point in the build 5) Allow designation of the fairing specifically as an interstage if needed to simplify construction 6) make them look just a bit thicker 7) Allow external and internal attachment to the fairings and also the base Just my thoughts...

You could be right - might be a case of "old-timers" disease setting in. :-) (Checks old version install...) (Face Palms self) You were right! Case closed Mr. Poirot!

Just a quick question... I know how to construct and edit fairings (Aero and interstage) now in 1.x, the problem is that I no longer see (or remember) how I can adjust the numbers of panel side sections (1,2,3, etc.) I thought I recalled a setting in the tweak menu for the fairing part that allowed this seat be modified - can't see it anywhere now. Ideas? TIA...

Imagine a parallel universe where there is no early access and KSP is released for the first time as it is in 1.0.2. Who would be complaining? Who would love it? Some of the responses we all exhibit are behavioral resistance to change. It's natural. But every aspect of change can be either a learning experience or a platform for dissent. The individual makes their choice. I choose the learn new skills and master this new aero model, which is more fun imho than protesting. tL;DR I like it! More to learn and do.

I wonder if this not the atmosphere but rather the heat settings on individual parts that need balancing.

http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/rktcp.html

To be clear this opinion is based on my own play style and launcher design preferences.

I agree with red iron crown... 1.0.2 seems more gentle and forgiving with delicate maneuver yielding like for like payoffs in dV savings. It no longer has a digital feel - more analogue in my opinion. I like it. Feels organic.