Anybody else a bit underwhelmed by 1.0?

[SelectHalfling0]

Unfortunately, this update is a massive new learning experience, especially for those who have played this game in the old aero for more than a year. I'm adjusting pretty well actually (need fins at bottom. good fins).

[Redwizard000]

Seriously? Do you really fly aircraft or SSTO's in KSP? Esp. in v1.0? I fly with a joystick, and frankly, it responds more like a REAL aircraft now, when flown with a joystick and rudder/throttle controls. It's not "easier" in the sense that everything is ho hum--there are things that make flying more complicated now, such as watching altitude and airspeed because the aircraft/SSTO behaves differently in different altitudes and speeds. If you think aerodynamics made aircraft and SSTO's "EASIER" now, I challenge you to get to orbit with a winged SSTO, and I tell you it's much more difficult now (which actually makes it a little more realistic).

Yeah... I have had a grand total of ONE success with Kerbal airplanes\spaceplanes if you can even call it a success. I made a SSTO orbiter that had just enough fuel to make a 70km orbit and deorbit, barely. Then you have to land it using chutes because I never quite got the hang of how to put the fuel tanks on the planes so that they don't spin out of control senselessly when the tanks are empty. I made it for K-Prize.

I have mostly given up on planes, I stick to my strengths which are rocket building, station building and base building. I can dock like a boss, that is my claim to fame .

[NovaSilisko]

Given I always stuck to using FAR, adapting to the new aerodynamics has proven relatively painless, though the fact fairings are so far down the tech tree is making things annoying. Although, you barely need fairings to be honest, given you can just stick some fins on the rear of your rocket and that will keep it very stable no matter what you have on the top (unless you're shipping, like, a huge cluster of more fins)

It's pleasing to have planes that fly like planes. And, by extension, planes that actually end up looking like planes that actually work, which was hit-or-miss before.

[Rakshasa]

Try playing career hardmode to get a feel for the new update, it forces you to start from the basics and is actually a challenge.

Regarding reentry heat being underwhelming, with the standard pod that seems to be a bit too much in the way of durability... as soon as you try to add goo canisters or anything else things start blowing up unless you are careful.

[Robotengineer]

Never happy. Ever. It's really kinda old now Marclev, it really is.

• KSP is a sandbox game yes? There is no right way to do it or wrong way, so telling somebody what is right and wrong in a game with no rules makes no sense.
  
• One of the major points KSP was early access was for input. Shifting the responsibility from Squad to the player makes no sense, unless the player is just complaining for no reason, or is being irrational. I found Marclev's arguments rather reasonable.
  
• Being excessively defensive and making personal attacks doesn't help to get your point across.

I'm neither underwhelmed nor overwhelmed by 1.0, it's pretty much as I expected it to be, missing some QoL things, no art rework, etc. On the positive side, lots of bug fixes, better aero, and numerous other improvements. I'm impressed with the update, a little upset that they didn't stay in beta longer, but it's over now.

[Kerr_]

Strange that everyone is having so many failures, IMO.

I've made two dozen hard mode 1.0 career launches so far, including mun missions. Some necessary techs and an upgrade to the launchpad for weight is all.

Only one failure - Killed by reentry when I lost electricity and steering(it was going so well!), reentry from my first orbital flight

[m4inbrain]

Yeah... I have had a grand total of ONE success with Kerbal airplanes\spaceplanes if you can even call it a success. I made a SSTO orbiter that had just enough fuel to make a 70km orbit and deorbit, barely. Then you have to land it using chutes because I never quite got the hang of how to put the fuel tanks on the planes so that they don't spin out of control senselessly when the tanks are empty. I made it for K-Prize.

I have mostly given up on planes, I stick to my strengths which are rocket building, station building and base building. I can dock like a boss, that is my claim to fame .

Me too. One plane, that works. Incedentally, it's the one i made 20 minutes ago in 1.0. IIRC, i think scott manley (or dasvaldez?) said that tanks drain equally now, not from the furthest to the nearest. Which, again, makes planes easier to build and fly. Arguing that planes are harder to fly in air than in soup though.. Well.

[Redwizard000]

Strange that everyone is having so many failures, IMO.

I've made two dozen hard mode 1.0 career launches so far, including mun missions. Some necessary techs and an upgrade to the launchpad for weight is all.

Only one failure - Killed by reentry when I lost electricity and steering(it was going so well!), reentry from my first orbital flight

Well, it could be worse. I mean forgetting batteries has to be more forgivable than forgetting a parachute

[MoeKitsune]

I won't play modded KSP ever again, because it would require me to update my game to the poor excuse for an update that is 1.0, which has ruined KSP for me.

[Kerbonautical]

I won't play modded KSP ever again, because it would require me to update my game to the poor excuse for an update that is 1.0, which has ruined KSP for me.

Sarcasm? I can't even tell anymore. That aside I'm throwing down a vote for launch issues. I don't even know how it could be an aero issue since my craft is so simple. One thing worth noting though is the capsules I've sent home always come back at a funny angle rather than the correct angle which indicates the drag is off. There's no parts on the pod to cause it either.

[NovaSilisko]

the capsules I've sent home always come back at a funny angle rather than the correct angle which indicates the drag is off. There's no parts on the pod to cause it either.

I've noticed that too, and I'm wondering if there's a deliberate center of mass or center of drag offset on the pods to simulate the way Apollo did its lifting reentry

[MoeKitsune]

Sorry. Heard about heat shields being necessary and stuff like that and got upset. I'm still not playing, though.

[NFUN]

Sorry. Heard about heat shields being necessary and stuff like that and got upset. I'm still not playing, though.

There is a setting to turn off reentry heat.

[Kerbonautical]

Sorry. Heard about heat shields being necessary and stuff like that and got upset. I'm still not playing, though.

It's worth a shot I'd say. You can always keep .90 backed up anyway. Seriously though heat shields haven't been an issue, there's a good bit of room for error even without a shield and popping one on doesn't take long. If you're worried about larger more extravagant craft, it's a non issue. The controlled descent you'd likely be using for such craft will be enough to protect them.

It's worth a go just for the fact it's like playing all over again since basically everything has been adjusted. Plus you never know, it might just click. I hated deadly re entry for what it's worth and never installed it other than to test it.

[Hotblack Desiato]

This is absolutely not true for the launch phase, it is so much easier (with regards to power/fuel requirements, not stability) to launch now than in 0.90. If you're having trouble launching, its probably a design issue (pancake rockets are not a thing anymore) so make sure you build with aerodynamics in mind (tall and thin is good, add nosecaps to boosters, etc)

my rocket was the exact opposite thing to a pancake rocket.

first stage: the s1-srb + AV-R8 (4x symmetry)

second stage: lv-t45 + lv-t800 tank

third stage: lv-t909 + lv-t400 tank + fairing, chutes, probecore, dockingport

so basically it was a needle...

true, that thing made it into orbit, and the third stage was nearly full. it wobbled like in the good old 0.23 times before squad got hints from ferram4 how to reduce wobbling.

[Redwizard000]

Sorry. Heard about heat shields being necessary and stuff like that and got upset. I'm still not playing, though.

Dude, the heat shields are no biggie... Besides, if they upset you that much, just turn the setting off.

[Gkirmathal]

I am very underwhelmed already and I haven't even stated playing, it is NOTHING about gameplay related stuff btw!

First thing I did was: open up windows process manager to see how much ram 1.0 eats, THEN did 20 or so VAB > KCS scene changed, no building!

Ram increased, yes still increased! on every change with 20-50mb per scene change. Didn't even do any building yet and after 3 min it already hit 2.3Gb and showed no sign of correctly lowering/clearing of memory...

[Kerr_]

Well, it could be worse. I mean forgetting batteries has to be more forgivable than forgetting a parachute

I only had the first Tier of tech at the time - no batteries at all. I literally had 4 units of fuel left to de-orbit that flight. I was making a controlled decent, skipping across the atmo as long as possible. then I tumbled lol.

Also, discovered PARACHUTES totally break the re-entry heating system. Place them sensibly so your craft doesn't rip apart and you can make a death plunge with parachutes out. you'll get like a 20G spike right around where re-entry heating is important, and then you are good to go.

Also, skipping along the atmo to slowly deaccelerate doesnt work well, you just accumulate heat anyway, while a straight death plunge seems to have no issue.

[rodion_herrera]

It's pleasing to have planes that fly like planes. And, by extension, planes that actually end up looking like planes that actually work, which was hit-or-miss before.

Exactly how I feel. I can now transition between my flight simulation games and KSP easier.

[Matt516]

Manually turning 45 degrees at any point =/= gravity turn. More realistic aerodynamics forces you to do an ACTUAL gravity turn, which is to keep your rocket pointed prograde and let your trajectory change naturally due to.. y'know... gravity. Real rockets don't point off of prograde while in atmo, or they are ripped apart and explode.

[Wintersdark]

Sorry. Heard about heat shields being necessary and stuff like that and got upset. I'm still not playing, though.

i don't understand why heat shields being necessary is an issue? You can just turn off reentry heat if you want to go back to the 0.9 reentry scheme.

- - - Updated - - -

Manually turning 45 degrees at any point =/= gravity turn. More realistic aerodynamics forces you to do an ACTUAL gravity turn, which is to keep your rocket pointed prograde and let your trajectory change naturally due to.. y'know... gravity. Real rockets don't point off of prograde while in atmo, or they are ripped apart and explode.

There's definitely a lot of relearning for those of us who don't know much outside of what the old KSP taught us. Its part of the fun, though, like a whole new game.

Its initially harder, but at least its pretty logical when you think things through as opposed to the old way.

[Caelib]

OK, after several hours I think I've re-learned how to launch and re-enter. I think the most difficult part of launching is learning the new rocket power and not go too fast. I would also suggest putting a heat shield on your capsules as I thought these were built-in, but they do not appear to be.

[locustgate]

- Does re-entry heat actually do anything? I launched a basic rocket to 250,000m and it sort of just fell pretty much straight down. The g counter went to max and flames every where, but not a scratch on the craft when it landed back on Kerbin. Settings where "Full entry heat", so what am I missing, shouldn't it have just disintegrated?

I lost all of my planes control surfaces in the first 2 minutes of gameplay. I lost 2 rockets by go straight up and coming down at 1km/s, with no shields and one at a wrong angle.

[biohazard15]

Massless heatshields. Unbreakable parachutes made from the same material as Superman's suit. "Fairings".

Am I underwhelmed? No.

I'm pissed. Because all these things could be easily avoided.

[timandy1]

I wish the new wings had more G-Rated names because my little brother plays ksp too ):