Wallygator

Can't disagree with this. (although I think your bug report "in total" may not pass the smell test ) I'm the last person to defend the dev-team when huge mistakes are made (heck even minor ones) - they need to own up to it and fix the issues - and for the most part they do this reasonable quickly, all things considered. As to your request for DV readouts, well, you likely know thats a long story. There has NEVER been a desire by the developers to implement such a feature. However... it still appears to be their desire to support a viable and energetic modding community - so there you go, we should support our favourite modders and happily use mods like KER. (My opinion: DV readouts and other aspects of enjoyable play SHOULD be stock features - but not having a specific feature is not considered a bug in the code. It may be a gap in the overall requirements and design that can only be addressed by community outcry, rage, stock sales, street protests, boycotts, flaming pitchforks, etc - oh and also constructive criticism and debate). Also, there is a QA team/function. But like all development efforts sometimes there are bugs that get through due to test plans not being accurate. This is my opinion only. You and others may have drastically different views.

Procedural needs to be stock. I agree!!! But clearly not important enough for @SQUAD to dedicate a few weeks to develop an earlier model set over the past few years. This saddens me. They need to appoint a Historical Content Administrator, to assure accurate-ish game representations. (I could do this - lol, as could many others here in this forum... Oh wait, Why not YOU! @Brotoro) Yes please! Now a limerick... There once was a game called KSP. It was the most fabulous game for me. But it had not a hose. So my anger then rose. "It's not anywhere on the Tech Tree!"

i suggest you comb through the forums first. There are a number of problematic issues within MH. That said, buying it and playing around is quite entertaining. And once they fix all the issues is should be acceptable. Acceptable, but not outstanding (in my opinion).

OP rants about bugs. Thread transitions into deep philosophical discussions about game industry/Dev/QA/Profits/Capitalism... (Theme from Beauty and Beast Playing in background) Bottom line: Post like this all as much as desired - but perhaps simultaneously consider creating a viable bug report <-- only way things can get better faster even with unlimited developer resources thrown at problem.

There are a wide number of issues/bugs in play here. If you can, you might consider posting a bug report via the designated channels.

Let me think on this one a bit...

Many folks who are seasoned professional these days have no reference to days and scales past.

@TriggerAu additionally, I find the visual method of "vertical bracketing" mission objectives in the top level mission screens to be somewhat confusing. Rather than using nested brackets, perhaps you might allow the player to select (toggle between) a simplified horizontal "path" or "dependency" view that clearly displays the mission flow. Not all players will begin KSP with a fundamental understanding of implied branching. And a player should not be forced to go into an EDIT screen to fully understand the flow of a mission. Don't get me wrong here - what you have done is fantastic - I'm concerned with enhancing the accessibility to players who may initially have totally different perceptual queues - unless the game requires a specific set of perceptual skills to begin with. (left vs right brain thinkers?) Perhaps this is an issue you have already deeply thought about. If so, then forget it. BACKGROUND NOTE: I found it initially confusing probably because I stopped programming about 30 years ago. So, it did take a bit of time (for me about 5 minutes which for some folks might be too much of a mountain to cross) to actually figure it out comfortably. So, hence my immediate concern for folks (not me) who may have NEVER coded or who do not think in similar modes.

I agree. I'm convinced they just don't understand proper use cases. I also find the node configuration of this particular pod to be one of the most frustrating aspects of the MH expansion. AND THE POD IS TOO SMALL VISUALLY. The entire idea of having boulders without colliders seems to be non-existent in KSP - makes no sense. its just visual fluff. yea, what happened? the RE effects seem to be gone entirely regardless of entry vector. There is one specific loading tip that states "Faking Moon Landing" or something like that - which I find that slightly offensive and contrary to the entire idea of KSP as a space exploration game. @SQUAD fell asleep at the wheel (sorry navball) on this one. Humour is greatly appreciated, but not when it reinforces non-rational thinking. Perhaps @SQUAD might rewrite that particular loading tip to be "Faking Faking moon landing". Regardless... Well presented @Brotoro. I love it! No wait... to use "Yes to the Dress" terminology... "I Love it, love it!"

Nice lander! I saw the original at the London science museum a while back. Your representation conveys much of the same vibe. Cool!

Exactly my thoughts also. I wonder if playing around with the scale factor in the config might be helpful?

I just quoted you. Make it so!

I just want to wish you good luck. We're all counting on you...

@Brotoro Dude! Welcome back. Nice missions and nice commentary. I have likely mentioned this before but your original blog(s) was the key instigator for me finally taking the plunge into KSP. Nice to see your new content. I hope i speak for many others when I say I'm happy to see you providing even more inspiration to existing and future KSPers. Well Done! PS: I also have struggled with properly modelling an atlas booster - it is a real pain with the existing part connectivity constraints, but whatever, as long as it conveys the essence of the mission. I'm disappointed that the relative size of the service module seems way out of proportion to the CM and any reasonable LM configuration. Oh well - off to assess other parts for this purpose.

@TriggerAu ... It would have been nice to allow a player to execute a mission normally and have it concurrently "recorded" as a mission file for post editing. This might have required the player to indicate that the mission was to be recorded prior to the start of the mission - a small price to pay/play. Can you consider this? Or at least reflect on the complexities considering your current mission architecture schema? NOTE: I have not yet dived into the mission editing environment, so if this is already available then please either insult me or ignore me - either one is acceptable.

And another DEV Blog... OMG! I am pleased. Extra pleased because its a really interesting subject. Well done guys. I'm going to attempt changing the title of thread now... EDIT: Please refer to OP edit section for update. Keep it up @SQUAD...

Making History Bugs and Money And great job at that. Sadly, I agree with other folks. I'm currently struggling with these damn-delicate-made-of-glass-stock fairings. Jeeze. Oh, and the random "rocket won't ignite" feature. And STILL there are very little interesting things to do and see once your precious little Kerbals are in space... I am now reminded why I stepped away from KSP a number of months ago. There are s few of us who have had this opinion since .25

Just now trying it all out. The MEM seems to be basically a redesigned tuna can with a few extra features. A bit narrower so it might fit inside a more tapered fairing. I like that it has no magical reaction wheel - Finally! I''m ok with it all for the most part. I bought the DLC for these kinds of parts. Glad I did. Yet also glad that I did not get all hyped for the other non-part bits of the DLC. Jury is still out though...

thanks @TriggerAu. I've not been playing KSP much at all since 1.3x. Just today downloaded 1.4.1 and the DLC. KAC has always been the first mod I look to for an update. So much appreciated! Now, off to check on KER...

I have no words... EDIT "Zombie Dev Blog"

Sorry in advance... Just now jumping (placing toe in) back in to KSP 1.4... Just saw the "Private Division" splash show up. Any insight? Is this a T2 subdivision? Thanks in advance - without any expectations...

Seriously... Downloaded 1.4. Tried to run the installer. And... No Joy. People, please can someone address this? Its been going on forever. Squad was too cheap to deal with it. Take Two seems no different. I can get the game to run via exposing the package contents, but seriously, is that they way it should work? What about new OSX customers?

holy crap a new dev blog entry!!!! I need to now cancel my therapist session...

@SQUAD could easily answer this. Hello?... Frankly, since ANY data collection is definitely of importance or concern to most players, it is reasonable to expect (and demand) that the game start dialogue must allow a player to TOTALLY DENY OR ACCEPT data transmission - regardless of a clean or dirty install.

Well, I’m looking forward to 1.4 fixes for sure... low expectations on the dlc. I’ll buy it anyway just to able to be consistent with the wider community and assure that I have a basis to complain about later. Regardless, complements to @SQUAD for completing another important milestone. SWdev is not easy.