An overview of the development-related answers from the recent AMA.

[CaptRobau]

I thought it'd be nice to have an overview of the answers from the recent AMA. I left out answers that didn't deal directly with development or going ons at SQUAD.

About a PAX Prime appearance:

“While I do believe there are plans for another LANfest tournament, the KSP team won't have an official presence at (PAX) Prime.â€Â

http://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/2byh5y/im_the_producer_of_kerbal_space_program_ama_about/cjad0ft

On the subject of aerodynamics:

“Aerodynamics needs a -lot- of thought before we do any work on it. Pen it as a maybe outside of some much needed polish.â€Â

SQUAD is doing well financially:

“We can't discuss sales for a multitude of reasons, but you have no reasons to worry about us ending development due to lack of funds.â€Â

http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2byga4/im_the_producer_of_kerbal_space_program_ama_about/cja66gp

SQUAD hasn’t dropped any contemplated features because a mod already did it:

“Nope! Mind you by now we've accepted the idea that by the sheer man hours the whole modding community puts in vs what we put in, they're probably going to have a version of everything we're working in before we get to it.â€Â

http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2byga4/im_the_producer_of_kerbal_space_program_ama_about/cja6byf

SQUAD is working on adding female Kerbals:

“We are actively working on Girlbals (studio petname, not actual name). They will take some time, it's a decent bit of work and we have to get them right. We may be just a small indie studio but we feel that gaming in general should no longer treat women as an afterthought. Even if it's extra work.

Edit: Must clarify. That is just the petname for the project. Female Kerbals are just called Kerbals.â€Â

About 0.25:

“25 will see the growth and further development of the contract systems. We'll also be adding a new building with a spiffy new set of systems within it to make Career mode even more cohesive and interconnected.â€Â

http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2byga4/im_the_producer_of_kerbal_space_program_ama_about/cja5j7y

About a spaceplane part overhaul:

“Hugo (our hypertalented intern) is working on overhauling spaceplane parts a mere six feet to my left right now. Hope to share more pictures of them pretty soon.â€Â

http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2byga4/im_the_producer_of_kerbal_space_program_ama_about/cja5kfm

SQUAD isn’t done with the VAB/SPH parts interface yet:

“The building interface design is not at its complete state yet. We'll get to it, but it needs to be discussed thoroughly.â€Â

http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2byga4/im_the_producer_of_kerbal_space_program_ama_about/cja6lhm

About the 0.64 version/hack:

“Also, to clarify on the 64 bit version. We had been working on it for a while and being really uncomfortable to share its less than pristine stage. If there's anything you can thank the hack for is showing us that it was okay to sometimes show the community something that isn't at 100% yet.â€Â

http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2byga4/im_the_producer_of_kerbal_space_program_ama_about/cja6g7v

Community requested features that SQUAD is opposed to doing:

“Nothing in particular really. Our community seems to be fantastic at asking for things we're not ready to talk about yet but plan on doing.â€Â

http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2byga4/im_the_producer_of_kerbal_space_program_ama_about/cja6n3s

About SQUAD’s future games:

“Way too early to talk about any of that, but we obviously don't want KSP to be our only game.â€Â

http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2byga4/im_the_producer_of_kerbal_space_program_ama_about/cja6xeq

The vision for 1.0:

“Our vision for 1.0 is actually starting to become visible as career mode gets bigger and better with each update, we want you to feel like you're running (and piloting) a space agency with the same levity of games like the old tycoon series. The resources thing was an unfortunate realization that the game was not only not particularly fun to play through, but also was pulling the game horribly out of scope. Kerbal Space Program has to hit 1.0 at some point, y'know.â€Â

About extra star systems:

“No additional star systems within scope right now, the other thing we'll have to wait and see.â€Â

About multiplayer moddability/0.25:

“Multiplayer -has- to have a deep and flexible framework for it to work like we want it to. And yes, the game is not polished in some areas yet, so work will go into several community faves after .25.â€Â

About 180 degree turns on scrapped ideas like multiplayer:

“Multiplayer was a unique situation in itself. We had been doing testwork and considered it a -long term- part of the plan, although the official line was 'not happening' mostly so it could be an awesome surprise when we got to it.â€Â

http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2byga4/im_the_producer_of_kerbal_space_program_ama_about/cja633p

About the inclusion of clouds, retextures for Kerbals, cities or other aesthetic updates for 0.25:

“We're looking into one of those but probably not 25.â€Â

http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2byga4/im_the_producer_of_kerbal_space_program_ama_about/cja6nvv

About Kerbal Engineer:

“I'm a big fan of engineer and we might need something similar ingame in the future. We're not big fans of the player getting big advantages at zero cost, though.â€Â

http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2byga4/im_the_producer_of_kerbal_space_program_ama_about/cja72er

On the subject of extra planets:

“More planets are a big maybe right now. We have to finish making the current ones as good as Kerbin.â€Â

http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2byga4/im_the_producer_of_kerbal_space_program_ama_about/cja7sep

How did they come up with the idea for Kerbals:

“Our Lead Developer and overall Creator of the game, HarvesteR, used to make little tinfoil men and strap them to modified fireworks. He called them Kerbals.â€Â

http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2byga4/im_the_producer_of_kerbal_space_program_ama_about/cja8kgn

About the contract system:

“We want more contract types, don't look at the current system and think it's finished. It's a great first step.â€Â

http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2byga4/im_the_producer_of_kerbal_space_program_ama_about/cja7k3y

On the subject of cockpit IVAs:

“New IVAs being worked on as we speak.â€Â

About possible returning to resources:

“Currently no plans to re-add resources within the scope of the game. We still bounce the idea around every now and then to see if that nut can indeed be cracked.â€Â

http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2byga4/im_the_producer_of_kerbal_space_program_ama_about/cja7615

About a potential kids/education version of the game:

“We're actually working with the brilliant people over at Teacher Gaming on an educational version. It's a work in progress but they are doing some amazing stuff.â€Â

http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2byga4/im_the_producer_of_kerbal_space_program_ama_about/cja8pat

[allmhuran]

It's an encouraging set of answers, even though I expect people will jump on the fact that some of them do seem to contradict previous statements.

Personally, I don't give a rat's if Squad change their mind on things, I completely support it if the end result is more fun. But right now I'm very glad for the quotes about adding more coherence/cohesion to the various career gameplay elements. That would have to be my number 1 hope as the game evolves.

[BudgetHedgehog]

“Aerodynamics needs a -lot- of thought before we do any work on it. Pen it as a maybe outside of some much needed polish.â€Â

An aerodynamic overhaul is a "maybe"? That's.. disheartening but meh. I doubt it would ever be as involved as FAR so I guess I'll just keep using FAR.

[chaos_forge]

Thanks for the list, OP! Probably wouldn't have found out otherwise. Anyways, here's to hoping that "maybe" in aerodynamics can turn into a definite "yes".

Also, with the release of NEAR, we know it's possible to have a middle ground between FAR and stock aerodynamics . . .

Edited July 29, 2014 by chaos_forge

[Maxwell Fern]

An aerodynamic overhaul is a "maybe"? That's.. disheartening but meh. I doubt it would ever be as involved as FAR so I guess I'll just keep using FAR.

Exactly. FAR is not even close to being friendly to new players, and the current model, while not making a lot of sense, is enough. So I understand they don't wanna change that, since there are replacements for any skills (NEAR and FAR) that are doing extremely well.

Why fix something that isn't broken ?

[TNM]

It was a bit of a bummer to hear they don't think ressources are part of "scope completion". I hope modders keep interest to support their current mods for it, it adds so much more to the game with kethan, tls and mcs.

Maybe..who knows, a DLC someday? Why not...if its done well.

Edited July 29, 2014 by TNM

[regex]

“More planets are a big maybe right now. We have to finish making the current ones as good as Kerbin.â€Â

This is incredibly dumb and should have been a big "yes". Kerbin needs more planets in a very big way.

[Alshain]

Why is it we have to go to Reddit or Twitter or god knows where else to see this kind of thing? Heaven forbid the devs actually do something like this on the forums they provide.

[Linear]

This is incredibly dumb and should have been a big "yes". Kerbin needs more planets in a very big way.

Yeah i hate Kerbin without planets..

[regex]

Yeah i hate Kerbin without planets..

Kerbol, Sun, whatever.

[Renegrade]

This is incredibly dumb and should have been a big "yes". Kerbin needs more planets in a very big way.

I'm devoutly hoping that Squad meant "maybe" as in "might not make it into 0.25", rather than "maybe" as in "might not EVER be added".

I'd be fine with more planets arriving in 0.26 or 0.27 or 0.32 or whatever. Just so long as they do eventually arrive...

[Sky_walker]

Exactly. FAR is not even close to being friendly to new players, and the current model, while not making a lot of sense, is enough. So I understand they don't wanna change that, since there are replacements for any skills (NEAR and FAR) that are doing extremely well.

Why fix something that isn't broken ?

1. it isn't enough

2. it is broken (obvious example: nose cones)

[Wanderfound]

Exactly. FAR is not even close to being friendly to new players, and the current model, while not making a lot of sense, is enough. So I understand they don't wanna change that, since there are replacements for any skills (NEAR and FAR) that are doing extremely well.

Why fix something that isn't broken ?

The difficulty bump from stock to FAR is slight, and stock aero is spectacularly broken.

The event that finally inspired me to go to FAR was attempting a dead-stick landing with an out of fuel spaceplane under stock aero and realising that the orientation of the plane made absolutely no difference to its speed or direction when the engines were off. That's just ridiculous.

[Linear]

The difficulty bump from stock to FAR is slight, and stock aero is spectacularly broken.

The event that finally inspired me to go to FAR was attempting a dead-stick landing with an out of fuel spaceplane under stock aero and realising that the orientation of the plane made absolutely no difference to its speed or direction when the engines were off. That's just ridiculous.

Wrong.

It would be slight if people hadn't been playing on stock aero for so long. It's going to be a future update, and it's going to mess with the majority of people (i get that stat from <50% of people using NEAR/FAR).

[Majorjim!]

I'm starting to see things from Squads point of view. The number of planets we have now is fine. Sure for someone who has played the game for 1000 hours it will seem like not enough but we are the hardcore.

And as Squad have said they will improve the current ones to make them more interesting first. Adding geysers and other nice details.

Us hardcore players will just have to be patient.

Most people will never see all of the planets. There are plenty already.

MJ

[Renegrade]

The difficulty bump from stock to FAR is slight, and stock aero is spectacularly broken.

The event that finally inspired me to go to FAR was attempting a dead-stick landing with an out of fuel spaceplane under stock aero and realising that the orientation of the plane made absolutely no difference to its speed or direction when the engines were off. That's just ridiculous.

Uh, how long ago was that? I'm not a huge fan of stock aero (the mass=drag thing is incredibly obnoxious), but planes from 0.22-onwards most certainly respond to both wing orientation and control surface input.

Of course, thanks to mass=drag, your dead sticking will result in falling short of the runway unless you're fairly close by.

Stock has a good deal of fakery in it, but it's a simple, easy to grasp fakery.

I happen to like FAR, but that's for the challenge and learning, not because it's easy.

[Wanderfound]

Uh, how long ago was that? I'm not a huge fan of stock aero (the mass=drag thing is incredibly obnoxious), but planes from 0.22-onwards most certainly respond to both wing orientation and control surface input.

Of course, thanks to mass=drag, your dead sticking will result in falling short of the runway unless you're fairly close by

This was under 23.5.

The plane was still responding to control surfaces in the sense that I could change its orientation however I liked, but nothing I did would alter the velocity vector or rate of descent. I had about as much control as an unpowered reentry capsule, even after I got down into the thicker air.

It was a big plane coming in hot from orbit, though; there may have been some subtle effect that wasn't apparent at the time.

In contrast, with a similar plane under FAR I can usually glide to KSC even if reenter halfway around Kerbin.

[Wanderfound]

It would be slight if people hadn't been playing on stock aero for so long. It's going to be a future update, and it's going to mess with the majority of people (i get that stat from <50% of people using NEAR/FAR).

Which is why I'd expect Squad to implement it as a switchable difficulty/realism option. Keep stock aero for them that wants it, but integrate something equivalent to NEAR/FAR into the stock game. Ditto for things like reentry heating and the like.

[CaptRobau]

Why is it we have to go to Reddit or Twitter or god knows where else to see this kind of thing? Heaven forbid the devs actually do something like this on the forums they provide.

The KSP community is bigger than just the forums. Reddit however is a one of the biggest sites on the web and is frequented daily by a large amount of the people in this community. So this QA not only allowed fans to ask questions, it also exposed new people to KSP. SQUAD made an announcement for this on the forum, on their social media and many of the other KSP communities on the web, pointing them to the Reddit AMA.

[CaptRobau]

I'm starting to see things from Squads point of view. The number of planets we have now is fine. Sure for someone who has played the game for 1000 hours it will seem like not enough but we are the hardcore.

And as Squad have said they will improve the current ones to make them more interesting first. Adding geysers and other nice details.

Us hardcore players will just have to be patient.

Most people will never see all of the planets. There are plenty already.

MJ

There's only so much that can be done with the current set of planets/moons and the distances between them. Electrical management is no problem, since you don't need RTGs for power until you're far beyond Eeloo's current orbit. A super-hot planet with lava lakes would provide a nice challenge but can't be implemented without completely redoing one of the other planets. There's a lot of interesting things that new planets/moons could bring, so I wouldn't want ti completely off the table. I do agree that making the current celestial bodies more interesting is a higher priority though. But after that's been done, I'd like to see some new stuff too.

EDIT: Sorry for the double post.

[Boris_T_Roach]

This is incredibly dumb and should have been a big "yes". Kerbin needs more planets in a very big way.

Actually, this is a big no (shock horror forum member agrees with squad )

What we need in planets is to bring the current planets upto the state of Kerbin/mun/minimus with various biomes etc, that way when new planets are added, squad dont get

moaned at for not finishing the current planets first.

And please dont remove the mohole.. its my only reason for going down to moho in the first place (getting back has proved to be another matter.. )

Boris

[Renegrade]

This was under 23.5.

The plane was still responding to control surfaces in the sense that I could change its orientation however I liked, but nothing I did would alter the velocity vector or rate of descent. I had about as much control as an unpowered reentry capsule, even after I got down into the thicker air.

It was a big plane coming in hot from orbit, though; there may have been some subtle effect that wasn't apparent at the time.

Sounds like it might have been very high wing loading..at least the bit about thicker air. Generally you skate around with little control at 35km+ altitude in any atmospheric system

I'd say the lack of 'glide to KSC' in stock is that drag=mass thing (again, massive hate for that thing!) .. it just devours your inertia.

Here's a simple example deadstick landing in stock aero:

Note how the speed bleeds off incredibly quickly. The glide ratio is probably ... 3:1?

ALso don't forget infiniglide - you don't need some crazy long snake of a plane to leverage that..

In contrast, with a similar plane under FAR I can usually glide to KSC even if reenter halfway around Kerbin.

Yeah -- I've actually flown little capsule-modules (like a mk1+science jr+1t fuel tank) about a quarter of the way around Kerbin in FAR thanks to their sleek shapes and the lifting-body effect. Well, when I can avoid having them torn apart, that is.

[regex]

Actually, this is a big no

Why? Yes, the current planets need polish and yes the current planets should come first, but saying

“More planets are a big maybe right now. We have to finish making the current ones as good as Kerbin.â€Â

is just dumb. Why are new planets a "big maybe"? That should be a definitive and resounding "YES" because that sort of content is the life blood of KSP.

[Renegrade]

is just dumb. Why are new planets a "big maybe"? That should be a definitive and resounding "YES" because that sort of content is the life blood of KSP.

I'm reading that as "a big maybe right now" as in "we'll do it after we add biomes to the existing planets".

(it had better be that, in any case..)

[regex]

I'm reading that as "a big maybe right now" as in "we'll do it after we add biomes to the existing planets".

I read it as "we have literally no plan for the future beyond the next update", so hopefully you're right.