Come hear about KSP 1.1, straight from Squad!

[selfish_meme]

Lander can. Just hyperedited the lander to a 100km orbit and did a normal landing. I've never even heard of the T-prize

If you got it down and can get it back to orbit with a nuke color us impressed

T-Prize Challenge

[Superfluous J]

If you got it down and can get it back to orbit with a nuke color us impressed

Aha. Mine was not single stage It was asparagus that started with 5 nukes each under a mk1 jet fuel tank, the center one with a lander can on it. Plus some torque, batteries, and solar panels just to be sure.

[Gkirmathal]

6 gigs is perfectly acceptable. The ram creep has really been getting out of hand lately.

This is what worries my as well when I see 'new parts' news.

I do really like them expanding parts on all aspects, although I'm more in for a revamp of some older current parts, or at least incorporate VENS revamp to stock.

But adding more content without addressing the memory issue does really worry me.

64bit is not the wonder cure, if data streaming (ondemand loading/unloading) cannot be incorporated with U5 in the future. One will hit ones physical ram limitation of their computer, for me 6Gb.

So I'd rather have this worry taken away for the future, or having a clear statement that the above is never going to be implemented. Thus then we all know what to expect.

[passinglurker]

Now this is confusing. I thought I was the one arguing from realism, while you were arguing from arbitrary gameplay considerations.

In theory, a jet engine burning magnesium with CO2 might be possible. There are still a million obstacles to overcome before we have a working engine, and it's entirely possible that the engine won't be practical. Even if we get a practical engine, its characteristics would be completely different from a jet engine burning kerosene with oxygen. Hence it makes no sense at all to use the same jet engines to simulate both in KSP.

A nuclear ramjet is a nuclear jet engine, so it would probably have a lower TWR than nuclear rocket engines. It's a ramjet engine, so its stationary TWR would be 0, and it would be useless at low subsonic speeds. It's an air-cooled nuclear reactor, so the airflow must be high enough or the reactor overheats. It can't go too fast either, or the airflow will heat the reactor instead of cooling it.

This is an extremely bad idea. It's the equivalent of giving kerbals rings of ISP +10 (+20 when hovering). It utterly breaks the suspension of disbelief, making KSP just another bad game with a lot of bugs. It would make even less sense in the sandbox, which is the primary game mode for many of us.

If that's your experience, your missions are probably too similar to each other.

The concept seems just as workable to me as nuclear rockets and we use those without fusing over materials and propellants those things are abstracted in kerbal. And it makes just as little sense to say a jet can work both on kerbin and on laythe if you believe the kerbal representation of technology is so sensitive.

At the same time there are loads of other non oxygen air breather concepts, electric ducted fans, air augmented rockets, this unlimited range op science harvesting nuclear ram jet you are rambling on and on about. If they were implemented they would inevitably be redundant in terms of performance(only so many niches in the game play so they would inevitably fall into the same good low, good mid, good high altitude that the current jets fall into) and appearance(they all look like an intake and a jet nozzel from the outside) so why not just roll them into one abstract part instead of arbitrary "you need the red jet to fly on duna but the blue jet to fly on kerbin"

As for building upgrades being a terrible idea. No they aren't. At least no more so than what has been done already. They are already used in this manner with allowing evaing, allowing surface sampling, and allowing fuel transferring. Its just doing your best with the cards you were dealt. It's a game mechanic and this is a game. Use your imagination. I shouldn't have to hold your hand and tell you how making the rnd and sph gives you the ability to fly on duna.

[Jouni]

The concept seems just as workable to me as nuclear rockets and we use those without fusing over materials and propellants those things are abstracted in kerbal. And it makes just as little sense to say a jet can work both on kerbin and on laythe if you believe the kerbal representation of technology is so sensitive.

The concept seems workable, but the details are what really matters. They determine what the engine ultimately does: is its performance comparable to existing jet engines, or is its TWR and/or Isp 5x lower.

From a gameplay perspective, jet engines work on Laythe, because the entire point of Laythe's existence is to have another Kerbin-like planet elsewhere in the system. Jet engines don't work on other planets with atmospheres, becuse the entire point of those planets is to present difference challenges to the player. If you make jet engines work on those planets, you remove more existing gameplay than add new gameplay.

As for building upgrades being a terrible idea. No they aren't. At least no more so than what has been done already. They are already used in this manner with allowing evaing, allowing surface sampling, and allowing fuel transferring. Its just doing your best with the cards you were dealt. It's a game mechanic and this is a game. Use your imagination.

The 'sandbox' part of KSP, where you build Lego rockets and fly them in a physics simulation, is ultimately good. The 'game' part, with science, contracts, funds, ISRU, and recovery is, quite bad. The game mechanics feel arbitrary, they're poorly balanced, they don't work well together, and they're full of loopholes. You can enjoy the career mode, but only if you play it like a pen-and-paper RPG from the 80s. You know that the rules are bad, but they can still provide useful structure to the game, if you deliberately stay within the boundaries where you know that the outcomes are mostly reasonable. The more things you move from the sandbox to the game, the worse game KSP becomes.

[cantab]

Thus then we all know what to expect.

One thing we do expect is reduced RAM usage in KSP 1.1. Current versions of KSP have a bug/issue where duplicate data is kept in memory, 1.1 should fix that.

(In more detail, it's textures that are duplicated when using DirectX 9 which is the default on Windows. Using DirectX 11 or OpenGL already fixes that issue but may give other bugs and glitches. Unity 5 games normally use DX11 by default so the problem should go away.)

[tater]

The 'sandbox' part of KSP, where you build Lego rockets and fly them in a physics simulation, is ultimately good. The 'game' part, with science, contracts, funds, ISRU, and recovery is, quite bad. The game mechanics feel arbitrary, they're poorly balanced, they don't work well together, and they're full of loopholes. You can enjoy the career mode, but only if you play it like a pen-and-paper RPG from the 80s. You know that the rules are bad, but they can still provide useful structure to the game, if you deliberately stay within the boundaries where you know that the outcomes are mostly reasonable. The more things you move from the sandbox to the game, the worse game KSP becomes.

This sums up career... perfectly.

The fact I can play it likely harkens to my time playing pen and paper RPGs in the 80s.

[LostOblivion]

I welcome the new Mk1 cockpit with open arms, but I agree with most that it doesn't really replace it as it is really different from the current one in terms of form-factor. To replace the current one a more spaceplane-looking cockpit will have to be made. I say keep both, but make another model to replace the current model! :-)

[problemecium]

Okay so for now I'm gong to treat this as the unofficial official feedback thread, so here's my feedback: things I approve, things I'm not so sure about, and things I hope they add.

- New cockpit: It's good! The old one is also good! Keep both. If that means we have two models that are functionally identical and that's bad, feel free to change the drag / torque / mass / collision tolerance / other stats to balance them.

- Panther and uh, the little jet: Both neat, albeit kinda superfluous. In my opinion the power gap between the Wheesley and Whiplash isn't a big deal compared to several other things in the game. 'Course that's just me.

- Incorporating some of Asteroid Day: I already consider any SQUAD-made addon "stock", but I do concur that some parts, e.g. the large solar panel, ought to just be put in the actual game. If you already have plans to do that, great! I understand leaving out things like the gold probe core though.

- Please add a Size 3 reaction wheel and/or probe core. My Size 3 lift rockets are currently hampered by the need to compromise the structure and aerodynamics either putting an undersized core in the stack or radially attaching a little one.

- Please add a Size 0 drogue chute. There's already a Size 0 regular chute, but it breaks at high speed (as do the other normal chutes). I always did find it a bit odd that that big orange nose cap spat out that tiny little parachute.

- Mk3 tail ramp: Awesome! I'd also really like a Mk1 / Size 1 cargo bay of some kind. Bugs aside, the Size 1 service bay is really small, and with a cap on both ends it can't be expanded via stacking like the cargo bays.

- "Vector" SSME: IMO this does not match the aesthetic of the rest of stock. It's all knobbly and it has a big bell and tiny mount. If you want to redo all the engines to be like this, fine, but if things are going to stay as they are it will stick out like a sore thumb.

- "Goliath" Size 2 jet: Yes! We do need a Size 2 jet. Same goes for a RAPIER-like engine as well, although that can wait. I'd like it to not have that big mounting fin built in though.

- The new Mk1 intake fuselage is kind of ugly. I hope that the other parts with built-in intakes (precooler, radial nacelle) stay as they are (actually the precooler could use a radiator module, since it doesn't last I checked and thus doesn't really DO anything) so that the new intake isn't my only option. It'll probably be great for replicas, but not so great for making things "sleek".

There. That's all my feedback, unless I forgot something xD Oh yeah, and I'm super hyped about 64-bit on Windows.

[LostOblivion]

I'd also love a Mk1 cargo bay. Especially now that COMSAT's are a reality. It's overkill putting a small comsat into a Mk2 cargo bay.

[RocketBlam]

Before 1.0 came out, people complained that Squad would stop working on the game.

Now, at 1.04, they're releasing another expansion to the game (for free), and are still refining it, and people complain that there are too many jet parts now.

There's just no pleasing some people.

Regarding more rocket parts, what are you not able to do with the rocket parts they have now? Where is the glaring, missing piece?

I'd like to see a 2.5m nuclear engine and 2.5m LF-only tanks, but other than that, I don't see what there is to add to the rocket side of the game.

[JedTech]

Before 1.0 came out, people complained that Squad would stop working on the game.

Now, at 1.04, they're releasing another expansion to the game (for free), and are still refining it, and people complain that there are too many jet parts now.

There's just no pleasing some people.

Regarding more rocket parts, what are you not able to do with the rocket parts they have now? Where is the glaring, missing piece?

I'd like to see a 2.5m nuclear engine and 2.5m LF-only tanks, but other than that, I don't see what there is to add to the rocket side of the game.

I'd like to see more space exploration parts: Better landing modules (not just cans), habitat modules, thrust plates, longer ladders, longer landing legs, service modules. And then I would appreciate a art pass or revamp of all of the older fuel tanks.

[User Unrelated]

I'd like to see more space exploration parts: Better landing modules (not just cans), habitat modules, thrust plates, longer ladders, longer landing legs, service modules. And then I would appreciate a art pass or revamp of all of the older fuel tanks.

I would like to expect that those things are coming at some point. Especially with SOME parts already getting nice make-overs.

[Foxster]

...and people complain that there are too many jet parts now.

Oh, no. Not too many jet parts...not enough rocket parts.

[Alshain]

Before 1.0 came out, people complained that Squad would stop working on the game.

Now, at 1.04, they're releasing another expansion to the game (for free), and are still refining it, and people complain that there are too many jet parts now.

There's just no pleasing some people.

Regarding more rocket parts, what are you not able to do with the rocket parts they have now? Where is the glaring, missing piece?

I'd like to see a 2.5m nuclear engine and 2.5m LF-only tanks, but other than that, I don't see what there is to add to the rocket side of the game.

I don't object to the plane parts, I love building planes, but a refit of the rocket textures seems warranted given the nice new plane pieces.

As far as missing parts for rockets, we need bigger SRB's (which will help planes too) and as you say some nuclear expansion wouldn't be a bad thing.

What we really need however, is some attention to everything else. I know it's easy to focus on planes and rockets, but the support parts are drastically lacking. Lighting (2 parts, really), parachute options (why oh why can we not have a stack parachute? Or a drouge/main combo nose cone?), and Structural pieces in bigger sizes and variety (I still say we need a limited version of TweakScale for these).

[problemecium]

What's the deal with bigger SRBs? I see every other person saying they want them, but I hardly ever use the things and when I do I find that the big ones are way overpowered. Perhaps they'd be of use in RSS, but that's not SQUAD's department.

o_O

[Alshain]

What's the deal with bigger SRBs? I see every other person saying they want them, but I hardly ever use the things and when I do I find that the big ones are way overpowered. Perhaps they'd be of use in RSS, but that's not SQUAD's department.

o_O

Have you ever built a shuttle? The Kickback SRB is vastly undersized, under-powered, and under-fueled for a Mk3 shuttle. I mean, ISP and Thrust asside, even appearances. Go find a picture of the shuttle on the launchpad, then open KSP and put a kickback next to a Mk3 cockpit. They also don't work that well on 3.75m parts, forcing you to rely on LRBs. A lot of people like to build realistic rockets and very few rockets have LRBs.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Alshain

[Halo_003]

Have you ever built a shuttle? The Kickback SRB is vastly undersized, under-powered, and under-fueled for a Mk3 shuttle. I mean, ISP and Thrust asside, even appearances. Go find a picture of the shuttle on the launchpad, then open KSP and put a kickback next to a Mk3 cockpit. They also don't work that well on 3.75m parts, forcing you to rely on LRBs. A lot of people like to build realistic rockets and very few rockets have LRBs.

Shoot on that note a bigger SRB would be sweet for something like an ARES I-X replica.

[Hotaru]

One reason big SRBs (like the ones in KW) are hard to use is that we can't give them thrust curves. I've tried building low-cost lifters out of the KW 2.5-meter SRBs but the problem is if I set their thrust so they just barely get off the launch pad, by the time they burn out the TWR is up to 6 or 7. If we could have even a simple, linear thrust curve, big SRBs would be a lot more useful.

[Kuu Lightwing]

What's the deal with bigger SRBs? I see every other person saying they want them, but I hardly ever use the things and when I do I find that the big ones are way overpowered. Perhaps they'd be of use in RSS, but that's not SQUAD's department.

o_O

One of the rocket configurations IRL is a high-ISP cryogenic hydrolox engine with low thrust plus huge SRBs for early thrust (up to 90% of thrust!) That's Ariane V, Space Shuttle and SLS (in development). In KSP we can only do something like Atlas 5 or Delta II/IV with relatively weak SRBs, and our boosters look way too big for that.

[Captain Vlad]

I hope they retain the current Mk1 cockpit as it looks, to me, far more appropriate for a single-seat "faster, farther, higher Chuck Yeager broke some kind of record in this" type craft than the new Lear Jet-styled one. But the Lear Jet style cockpit also looks neat, and I see no reason not to include both, especially as it looks appropriate for other types of designs.

The smaller jet engines and fuel tanks have me excited, as does the two-person crew cabin. The second seat should greatly simplify some of my early-career designs.

I missed anything else that's been confirmed because I didn't want to sort through pages of people arguing about crap.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Captain Vlad

[magnemoe]

One of the rocket configurations IRL is a high-ISP cryogenic hydrolox engine with low thrust plus huge SRBs for early thrust (up to 90% of thrust!) That's Ariane V, Space Shuttle and SLS (in development). In KSP we can only do something like Atlas 5 or Delta II/IV with relatively weak SRBs, and our boosters look way too big for that.

Back in 0.9 my standard launcher was a skipper, two orange tanks, up to 10 ton payload I think, TWR was around 0.9, 4 of the large SRB to get this up and running, an smaller version had 1.5 orange tank and two SRB. This worked nice and was cheaper than an rocket SSTO because of the fuel cost of an 4 times larger rocket.

SRB since 1.0 has been too weak and too expensive, main use is just too compensate for low TWR at launch, not really to work like an first stage like on Shuttle or Ariane.

[steve_v]

Agreed, I like mostly-SRB first stages, but it's pretty hard to find a reason to use them now as LF boosters are far more efficient and not too much more expensive.

Eh, I guess bigger SRBs would be nice, but I'd prefer a simple toning down of the nerf-factor.

[Kuu Lightwing]

Back in 0.9 my standard launcher was a skipper, two orange tanks, up to 10 ton payload I think, TWR was around 0.9, 4 of the large SRB to get this up and running, an smaller version had 1.5 orange tank and two SRB. This worked nice and was cheaper than an rocket SSTO because of the fuel cost of an 4 times larger rocket.

Well, but this configuration closer to Atlas 5 or Delta II - you use some SRBs to provide enough thrust at liftoff. I did the same thing for my orange tanker (I used more SRBs, though)

SRB since 1.0 has been too weak and too expensive, main use is just too compensate for low TWR at launch, not really to work like an first stage like on Shuttle or Ariane.

Well, but you see, they didn't work like that earlier too, because even the largest SRBs are way weaker than LFO engines.

[cantab]

I think the liquid rockets selection is pretty comprehensive, in need of an art pass more than anything else, and maybe LF-only tanks or better a switching feature in stock. The SRB selection is rather lacking though, with a clear need for a 2.5m SRB or two. I think I'd round out the selection with a .625m SRB, offering similar fuel as the Flea but in a lower-thrust longer-burning package, and an upper-stage SRB with good Isp but weak thrust for when you want to circularise or escape Kerbin and aren't fussy about precision.