Wallygator

Holy crap. A 1 year old bug still not fixed. FFS. Thanks Mono, I'll now keep an eye on the bug tracker. ;-)

Yes, A 3 kerbal pod. Just seems out of line though... creating a crew report without a crew. Not a bug then i guess. Sorry for any confusion. You may return to your normally scheduled missions...

Just landed a probe controlled base on Minmus. I clicked on crew report to see what would happen. I was able to complete a crew report and transmit without any crew on board. Haven't seen anyone register this anomaly yet. Is this normal and acceptable? Is this a post that should be under bugs, development? I have no idea... All I know is that it seems I no longer need a crew to conduct crew reports.

In reality is was not fly by the seat. It was extremely well planned and programmed. The astronauts basically monitored the performance of the automated systems for the vast majority of the flights. In fact Apollo 13 was planning on allowing a FULLY automated landing - sadly that was not possible due to circumstances.

Kerbals run the space program, they don't need to immediately go to space. A more open and non-deterministic tech tree is a necessity for deeper game play. IMHO.

from the eula... "( Backup Copies. You may also make copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT as may be necessary for backup and archival purposes." Could you make the argument that the pic you captured is a backup copy of a licensed software generated object stored on the surface of your credit card? Squad should comment on this.

Same. Crashing when changing scenes. Especially to the sph or vab. It's clearly memory related. Sad to see it lingering with every new version.

No. You should not be able to change the physical nature of a part.

First, please just fix the bugs. There are bugs still present in .90 which were there back in .21! I would very much appreciate a singular release (90.1?) which is completely focused on fixing bugs only. Now, as to new features for 90.2... How about a in-game tech tree editor where a player can create and experiment with tech tree arrangements, node costs, node content, etc. Allow these tech tree configurations to be shared just like .craft files. Think of the possibilities!!!!

Nope. You have to control is all the was up to space. It's a basic probe. More advanced probes have improved Sas. I observed that also, interesting suprise. So... need... more... science!!! to unlock better probe bodies...

I am looking forward to the editor changes. From what I can see in the few videos i reviewed, it looks like there are no changes to the basic tech tree.

The legacy traits (courage, stupidity, BadASS) probably serve no purpose in the new system. IF ANY, they might be used to regulate the RATE of experience uptake or possibly the maximum level of experience - but either of those effects are purely synthetic and probably a forced use. I suggest they deprecate them. If they are retained then I would approve of them only being used to calculate the emotional response of the Kerbal in the crew monitor cams - so just a bit of eye candy in the end.

Yes this ^^^. I support. Fully!

I consider KSP to also be an exploration sim. So enhancing the mediums for exploration would be good. The space part is mostly travel. The exploration bit begins when you arrive at a destination. Robot subs, surface rovers, aerial drones, Kerbals wandering around, probe landers, camera surveys... All these things should be potentially available. So, having a space to air interface, an air to ground interface and a ground to water interface all makes sense as content expansion.

Yes, understand that. I'm suggesting a much lighter version - never envisioned needing RPM.

My perspective has always been that the soviet program was advanced probe burdoned with strap on passengers and the American program was arrogant pilots reluctantly fitted with strap on probe cores. ;-)

So, in the end we will do what Apollo did. Put an advanced probe core on each vessel regardless of whether there are passengers or not.

So... all I'm asking for is a pop-up to show the camera view target - which is already calculated. Simples? ;-)

I was under the impression that the camera view focus was always computed based on the center of mass. This seems to be true as the view changes as fuel is burned etc.

Good ol' Blighty!

JTIOAHTIWW you have created a new forum acronym! I shall give you rep. I seriously do not think it will run anything. If that was the case, then the CoM indicator should also be removed from the VAB as it gives too much advantage and makes construction a bit easier. On a more realistic note: It might even be more entertaining to add to the mission control building a vessel schematic "big board" room where the current configuration of all flights can be called up and analysed. static 3d views with all the data available on fuel amounts, CoX indicators, electrical supply, crew stats, etc just like in a Real Mission Control Centre.

Managing a mission back from Jool (Typing this while my final Kerbin transfer burn is underway... 15 min... Girl from Ipanema playing in background over ship tannoy...) Prior to this burn, the Vessel CoM ended up out of alignment due to shift of masses of docked sub-vehicles. I ended up saving it by shifting fuel around but what a hunt and poke operation! It would be nice if the CoM (which is already calculated as part of the camera view BTW!) could be called up with a key press. Rebalancing a craft in flight is tricky regardless, but this would be a helpful feature. I checked the what is already suggested list and did not see this - also it is not specifically banned on the what not to suggest - I think I'm in the clear on this one. Thoughts? W

It would be nice however to be able to build parts from subcomponents - so as an example instead of complete engines a set of combustion chambers, nozzle shapes, turbo pumps would be available based on tech level - you would then be able to customer design an engine so to speak but you would be limited to a set of configs more than having additional parts. This could be set up using the tweakables. Just a thought. Probably no more memory need for this than already exists and it would not be procedural so to speak. Im not a coder any more so shout out if Its a miss. Now, if KSP was coded in Dataflex, Cobol, or Pascal then I would probably attempt it myself - To bad I gave up my legacy borland compiler suite 20 years ago lol.

That's a crazy! never noticed it. So... Assuming all part mass ratings were aligned and balanced against each other... It would be nice to have a tweakable to increase a mass rating if required - allowing added weight where and when it is needed - perhaps some of it being fuel when appropriate.

The propaganda and social engineering systems in Northern Kerbalia are rather good so as to keep the entire nation motivated to give up their lives and loves to sustain the power and political system. Nice idea to skip the inclusion of the ongoing live tele feed as the 100 slowly freeze dry. ;-) (I did like the mission - really nice!)