Wallygator

No offense taken at all. I've always appreciated your point of view on many other threads. ;-) I was not intending this to be a request for support otherwise I would have posted it in the support forum. My mistake for not being more clear.

Thanks for that. That was helpful. Apologies to all if the intended little bit of humor seems to not make it thru... My mistake. Can I request that a moderator kindly delete this thread?

late 2013 macbook pro here. I consider your recommendation of "Upgrade your old piece of junk computer" to be out of scope.

Still, I think its great idea. Even if they somehow link-in to curse or Kerbalx on the backend for craft file uploads.

I've only been through this process once. But have seen others out there experience the same... It is what it is... I continue to enjoy the game very much, play almost every day and continue to refer people to check KSP out and pass on word. It's the finest game I've seen in decades. But... I do await the day when the current situation with memory management is solved once and for all. I do sincerely hope our Devs have this on their top target list. As always, keep up the good work! Cheers, W.

Agree. But until segregation and spacial overlay is completely adopted then cheating will still be available.

If I can't change the size of the parts, I shall take advantage of the positioning!!!!

I've been here since .21 - frankly the best benefit I received was during the first 3 or 4 months. After that it was rather boring unless an update was expected. After getting familiar with the game, I find it enjoyable to contribute to helping others where it make sense ((which is really nice) and to also propose positive suggestions for game improvements (not like any of them will be implemented). Sadly, I don't see this forum having much further input to the games ultimate design but rather a mechanism for on boarding new players and to share play styles and designs between veterans. Regardless, I enjoy participating. ;-)

I suggest Kerbal engineer and Kerbal Alarm Clock and a base. After that, keep it all as small as possible. If you can get to Mun you can get to Duna. If you can return from Mun, you can return from Duna. There is an incremental dV adjustment obviously, but nothing that can be dealt with if you know how to do Mun and Minmus operations. Frankly, Duna has a minimal atmosphere so chutes are your friend. Its scary the first time you plunge at high speed at less than 750m waiting for your chutes to open, but wow when your lander plops onto the surface in one piece. Good luck!!!

the point is that every one who has invested in the early access program has a bit of feeling of investment in the overall outcome of any 1.0 perceptions. We all want 1.0 to be the best that it can be. That said, there seems to be a disconnect between the Devs and the community on this. I think this is a symptom of internal discontinuity between the community management process and design requirements management. Early access assumes a balance between original design requirements and external community feedback. Our beloved Devs have now moved to "Beta" which might well assume no further input from the community. I hope not. It would be nice to get come dev feedback on this.

So... Totally ready for 1.0. NOT. Edit: credit for asking for help. But regardless it speaks volumes.

From detroit. But now in the UK.

Strange that there are no further comments on this. Maybe its too much text. Sorry for that. I did try to organise the thought clearly.

Thanks Creeping. To be fair, I play career over and over. It just seems to end up the same dull progression - it is quite deterministic and lacks player defined path support. I keep trying to find ways to make it more engaging. The suggestions in the sticky regarding tech tree optimisation are fab and if combined with a more reputation based career mode would go along way to improving immersion. But I stand by my prediction that the reviewers will rip KSP apart if the "funds and senseless test contract based" career is retained. Frankly, as it stands KSP should be renamed KSSP "Kerbal Space Subcontractor Program".

I consider this to fall under optimisation: I think a complete end-over-end redesign of the career dynamic is in order. 1. Your subcontractors should not be telling you what to do ---> YOU should be telling THEM what to do. (Hey Rockomax, make me a new engine! Here is some money and some science points... might cost more if you make them test it, might cost less if you test it) 2. Your funding should come from the government - More if your rep increases, less if your rep decreases. When your funding gets cut to zero - game over. 3. You receive major objectives from the government (or maybe choose from a list) and you break them down in to a series of missions which you can afford - achieve them, then get rep. Kill Kerbals then lose rep. Until something like this happens, career will continue to be a senseless grind which the reviewers will gladly feast on.

I think it might be beneficial if the Devs provided a definition of what 1.0 is in relation to a full release. It could be that 1.0 is NOT the final release for initial market distribution. I'm more confused than ever as to what the sequence is. Still, Fix the bugs regardless...

I've changed my mind. Go ahead with 1.0. Make it happen now. Our beloved Devs need a bit of kick in the backside regarding bug fixes. Let it happen. I hope the first reviewer runs OSX. All that said - I love this game. Best thing I've played in decades. So a little tough love might be what the doctor ordered.

I am completely open to being schooled by an expert in what the stage definitions may or may not be since my software development experience dates to way back in the 1980s and was not gaming or mass market sector based. But my opinion still is that KSP is not ready for a full "ready for critical review" UNLESS the devs have something up their sleeves which has not been revealed that deals with all the bugs at once. From a user perspective, I see no evidence of a robust testing process or any results so far. That is not to say that bug fixes have occurred in the background. Its that from a user perspective the response and effectiveness of defect repairs is poor. SO... It's a NO on the one point OH.

No. Not ready for 1.0 Squad should seriously consider delinking "1.0" and "end of early access" concepts as they are two separate things. So... Declare end of early access now. Then after another beta release or two to demonstrate full balance and bug deaths, then a 1.0 release.

I hope "V" stands for "Very important stability improvements".

Excellect! And very well done. I'm working on my own duna mission report and your story has inspired me to redouble my effort to complete it sooner. Very well done sir, And welcome to the forum!

Yes you are correct. From my perspective using time warp would be fine and wouldn't break the game or the career dynamic at all. NOTE: I added another topic which covers the upgradable buildings bit, updated the post to cover changes to fine print, and changed a bit of grammar for clarification.

Having played career mode through to completion for the past couple of versions I find that after completing the tech tree, I am now forced into taking on a multitude of senseless contracts in order to fund a deeper space exploration program. This has caused me to reconsider my perspective on Career. So... a suggestion - primarily from the perspective that subcontractors should not drive the space program but vice versa... It seems (to me) to be more sensible if the player's space program was the driver for the various agencies to build and test components, establish a kerbalnaut cadre, and creating missions. The player would be provided with an annual budget (increased or decreased based on reputation). The annual funds available would be spent in a several ways: 1) Research - Spending science to unlock "the possibility" of specific components (putting items onto the tech tree) - unlocking a component puts it onto the development tree in the order that a player researched it. The specific subcontractor which the player chooses to do the research will affect the place and the cost as to where the component will appear in the tech tree. This would enable a creative and non-deterministic tech tree based on how the player spends science points and which subcontractor they invest in. Subcontractors (the existing agencies) would need to configured with specialities, efficiency ratings, etc. The intention would be that a player spends points to achieve a research result. Spending a small amount might result in a component which shows up much later in the tree or is perhaps a failed research effort causing the player to invest again. Obviously at the beginning of a career a player would be required to run a few missions to get enough science to conduct initial research. Note: I think there could be incredible synergy here if combined with the new tech tree suggestions seen upstairs in the sticky...) http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/99521-A-more-intuitive-tech-tree 2) Development - Spending funds to develop a specific component on the tech tree - once a component has been researched it is now necessary to develop it into a usable item. The player would be required to spend funds with agencies to create the item and make it available in the VAB. How much is spent and which agency is selected would determine how long it would take to appear in the VAB menu and how much it would cost. It might be that additional science and funds could be spent to influence this. Now... It would be necessary for "Fine Print" to slightly modified. It would not generate testing contracts until the player had conducted the necessary research and commissioned a company (vie development funds) to manufacture a specific part. Once these were done, then a testing contract would be presented to the player. They player would need to complete the test successfully for the part to appear in the VAB on a permanent basis. A failed test would require more development funds to release another part for test. Depending on the "level" of a part there might be more that one testing contract required. For example, a Nerva engine might need to short testing in orbit and in long tested in deep space. 3) Missions - Specific funds are reserved to conduct missions - the idea here is that the player would be required to undertake the missions which the player selects. These missions would be planned in the prior annual cycle. If they are not undertaken it would have an negative effect on the next annual budget. if you succeed in achieving your planned missions you gain rep and therefore more funding for the next cycle. Here "Fine Print" could continue to operate nearly the same way. Except instead of the missions giving funds, the player would need to spend funds from whatever budget cycle in which they want the mission to occur. The only science provided would be what they player recovers. Rep should continue to operate as designed. 4) Training - An annual training budget gradually increases the level of kerbals - the player could choose how much funding is applied to pilot, engineer or science training. Kerbals who are hired would automatically be enrolled. Each annual cycle yields improvement. If you lose a Kerbal who has had 5 years of training then you lose that training investment along with a huge chunk of reputation (based on how manny missions he/her had undertaken). It will take time and money to get another kerbal to the same level. The current way kerbels gain experience points would go away. Also,if you time warped just to get kerbals trained up, then you would not be running missions - so your rep will be gently falling along with your annual funding. 5) Program capability (Building) upgrades - Spending funds to upgrade buildings represents improving ground based programs and capabilities. This dynamic would remain very similar (if not exactly the same) as it is now. Once you get to point where the tech tree it completed, and your building upgrades (ground programs) are complete, then you are then spending funds to complete planned missions each year and to keep your kerbels trained. If you can continue to meet your mission plans without losing kerbals you can likely continue on with even wilder mission plans. If you start failing to meet mission objectives then your program will gradually be starved of funding. When the kerbal government sets your funding at Zero then "game over". Reputation would need to change also. Launches should generate rep but it might need more of a half-life. Your rep level drives funding so it need to go up and down based on the programs plans, activities and achievements. I would require a more dynamic model than what currently exists. This is just a thought. A proposal. I expect many of you might think its too far off from the current paradigm and reject it. Others might see it as a fresh take on the current system. Now, please discuss. Regards, Wally.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/67574-Tweakable-SRBs-via-selection-of-fuel-core-mandrel-profile I remember bringing this up last year. So naturally, I agree with the suggestion. ;-)

IMHO if this were an option in the settings menu 90% of players would say yes enable it.