Wallygator

Really nice. Now get them home for a .90 restart. :-) Well done you!!!!!

In response to the OP: You need an engineer on board a craft to do calculations regarding Dv???? So... mission control is just sitting on their thumbs then? And the physicists, and ground based mission planners? In my opinion, requiring a "Engineer" on board to display information is a poor game mechanic and has no basis at all in reality.

I'm beginning to feel lately that the science dynamic should be replaced also. It seems to me that there are several types of information gathered as a result of conducting various missions - observations (reports), data (sensor readings), physical samples, and technical validation (testing). These different types of information might be tracked separately and then combined by the player (according to a formula) to allow unlocking of parts, improvements in reliability, increases in reputation, or perhaps unveiling additional targets for discovery missions. I haven't yet put my thoughts together yet on this, but let be enough to say that I support the ideas and discussion in this and other similar threads. Just like in real life, We don't need reasons to explore, just better mechanics to make it worthwhile.

Yes, there is an option missing. Test new version, then attempt Kerbal returns to KSC.

My .22 save has several dozen kerbs stranded. Have tried to complete a full rescue of all of them but game instability steps in on a regular basis to screw things up. I've converted the save to .25 successfully but am hesitant to attempt closure untill I am confident I can complete it without crashing. So... They shall remain adrift...

I support the idea of user selectable font characteristics. At the very least some form of mouse over embiggining.

Stock drag fix. 99% of my time is spent in space so a more complex aero model is not that necessary for me. However, I would accept any improvements to the stock model if and when they appear.

obviously we just need more things to spend our science points on. perhaps a little steak restaurant / hokey redneck bar a few km outside of the KSC where photos of all the dead Kerbal pilots are posted on the walls. 50 Science points for a steak dinner...

no worries. obviously its a more complex problem than I alone can comprehend... ;-)

To be clear, I'm of the opinion that the issue between KSP and Yosemite on my machine is on the Yosemite side. My Mac continuously rebooted and crashed regardless of whether KSP was running or not while Yosemite was installed. Reverting to Mavericks alleviated this problem. Obviously YMMV. I have 2 concurrent installs. The first consists of KSP running on a Macbook pro running 10.10 which exhibits the normal KSP issues other are seeing. The second is on my later 2011 iMac high spec (like the OPs) running KSP on the last version of Mavericks. This second install was previously running Yosemite, which I later reverted - hence my position regarding instability of 10.10 on a specific Mac platform rather than it being a KSP issue.

Right. So just to be clear, I do not imagine any oxidizer in the tank, so effectively it's half empty. Therefore a slight clipping is ok as part of my imagination. :-)

Until we improve and optimise (via Unity upgrade, code improvements, etc.) then by all means yes. Anything which can help reduce part count is beneficial at the current state of release. Same as Red Crown here - also experimenting with spaceY pack.

Very very nice. The F104K. K for kerbal err Kermany!!!!

Yes this^^^ I am not in support Streetwind's "Wait and see" proposal. Also, just to reinforce the importance of voicing our opinions on the evolution of KSP>>> It's important, the Devs see this, they do need proper feedback and important suggestions. Any suggestion that insists that we stand down, be quiet, and await the next version (beta or not) is not constructive. I support the OP presenting a vision (personal opinion? Yes every thing is personal opinion) and the very well structured recap slide. And yes Cpt. Kipard has contributed to a great proposal which is in close harmony with some of the suggestions in this thread. I can't remember the thread name at the moment. More like a star shaped tree with more available threads. Search it out - its a pretty cool idea. EDIT>>> Found the thread which was referenced: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/99521-Tech-tree-and-parts-final-polish started by Wanderfound. Also a possible error on the progression recap: Gemini 8 used a titan II, while the agena target vehicle was launched with an Atlas - Just saying' :-)

I will attempt anything the editor will allow - except clipping full tanks completely inside one another - it has be be slightly realistic for me to do it, and it needs to look nice and hold together. However, that said, I have no problem clipping the LVN into a small or medium tank, since it reality there should be no need for oxidiser so the tank should be partly empty anyway.

I see where you're going with this. The sequencing as displayed above did give me pause to reflect a bit. No criticism intended, just a little additional perspective... a) Titan was launched and effective before the X15 - so to suggest that aerospace plane research programs always preclude aerospace rocket research is not always a correct statement - it was happening in parallel. Much of the "competition" between plane and rockets has a foundation on the early assumptions regarding whether a pilot (read "test" pilot) should be in control vs an automated system. many of the early aerospace "Plane" research activities were engineered to establish a clear indicator that the pilot was destined to be in complete control. They lost the argument to the digital computer. c) Somewhere Robert Goddard was forgotten ;-) d) I also feel (in agreement with the OP) that the tech tree needs polish - but I think any adjustments should be structured in a less deterministic manner and should allow the player to choose to either develop planes or rockets or both at the same time - just like in real life - let the player make the decisions not the tech tree designer. Finally - Well done on the summary display! Really nice - Rep to you!

I think we have the same spec machine. I had these exact problems when I installed Yosemite. It then gradually became random restarts. Reverting to Mavericks has fixed the issue for me.

The CoX indicators in the VAB should remain radially static with respect to the camera - thereby allowing more accurate assessment of CoX placements.

When a piece of debris is terminated, it is replaced by a debris "Cloud" whereby a vessel can possibly be impacted when it is within a relative range. Debris clouds cannot be accurately tracked.

For some reason after reading this thread I started visualising a solar powered toaster stapled to the rear end of the Hindenburg. With George C Scott somewhere in the middle... Recalling my basic chemistry and Physics, I don't see this working very well.

THIS. Plus... Reliability and Risk is a core concept in "space" anything. Currently in KSP, parts have perfect reliability. Risk is entirely based on a players construction skill, and operating capability. RELIABILITY: Today, when we get a testing contract, we get a part which is already at 100% reliability regardless of where it is used. Sometimes we never run the testing contract and just keep using the individual part over and over when possible. We don't need totally reality here, but come on... this isn't even close. I concur with JohnFX. Failure can be demonstrated in a multitude of ways which are fun and add to playability rather than detract. Think about how many real life missions got REALLY interesting when some small component failed and yet the mission controllers were STILL able to complete the mission! The Devs have just not thought enough about this. RISK: This is where the player should NEVER be without control. It should always the player who makes the decisions. So for example, making a decision to utilise a newly acquired part (which has not been tested and is considered unreliable) on a deep space journey should translate into a known level of risk. I believe there is a very powerful game mechanic lying around in this pile of concepts and discussions. It needs to be more fully explored and documented prior to deciding on its inclusion or exclusion. Warning: slightly off-topic but not intended to hijack paragraph coming... I read in detail most every bit of news and comments from the Devs. over time, I have developed the feeling that our beloved dev team seems to have "everyone doing everything" so this means individuals who are adept at coding are also doing all the strategy and design activities and vv people who are driving the design and strategy are also pilled into coding. This model always ends up in disaster - because there is never enough time to do everything since you always have to do something else. Perhaps there now needs to be an improved IT operating model implemented wherein a planning team is created who do not touch the code but rather drive the conceptual design. So... the team need to get bigger and their delivery and organisation model need to evolve. Also I sense they have a great grasp on physics and orbital dynamics but not so good an understanding of running a space program. This is not being said in a disparaging manner - I still love this game and am in awe of the success so far by the Devs. (If you want to respond to this bit then please PM me and let us consider starting another thread rather than sidetrack this good discussion)

Final update as posted in the OP. Moderator Request ---> I kindly ask that this thread be closed. As this issue appears to only affect my installation and it is clearly NOT a KSP problem. Thanks in advance! And cheers to all the other OSX users.

Is it ok to not like this idea as a permanent feature? Ok, I do not like it. Seems like flowers for algernon. When the snack wears off the kerbal become a complete idiot. It might make a nice mod though. Still, I would not use it.

I fully support this. Yes! Additionally, updating the social media link menu on the forum menu bar with ALL the various channels that the devs frequent regarding KSP iow reddit for example.

Single Click a previously placed part in the VAB pops up a dialogue for choosing radial or linear translation. Double click deletes part. Click and hold to remove part and drag to new location (maybe harv's gizmos will address this?)