Observations of a new player (1-2 weeks play)

[tater]

Yeah, wall of text, but I figured maybe a dev might be interested in what someone thinks of 0.24.2 who had never seen the game before.

I checked when I started the forum (I joined on 20 August), and I think I had played a couple evenings before I posted, so these are the observations of a player who has played about 1 week, certainly less than 2 weeks.

I started with a few of the tutorials in-game, then messed with a few scenarios to look around---Flight, orbiting, and the first Mun one. I didn't realize I had to EVA to get to the spaceplane in the Station One scenario, undocked it, and had to EVA to try and get it… which I botched pretty seriously… I then realized there was another spaceplane nearby in orbit, and grabbed that one (yes, I noticed it was damaged). I tried to dock (remember, this is like the 4th thing I've done in KSP)… Think "Gravity" and you'll have a picture of what the station ended up looking like . I then messed with the EVA scenario to try and grok that.

OK, enough practice, I started a science campaign as I wanted to start small and try and learn in little steps with the lowest hardware. That went well, and I even managed a couple Mun landings within an evening. OK, a late night (wife wondered why I came to bed past 1am). I have not filled in the whole tech tree, but a heck of a lot of it.

Played that campaign a few nights, landing on a couple worlds outside Kerbin's SOI, then on the weekend I started a "regular" career. I'm now full up to some of the 300 science stuff in the tech tree, and I'm not really gunning for science since I know I can do it fast with a few landings on the Mun or Minmus.

Rocket construction:

Fun, but the lack of things I'd expect to use being useful is not great. I want to put nosecones on. I don't want lander parts hanging out in the breeze. I've seen a fair number of rockets, I've been to a few launches (even got to see a Kerbal like use of range control at White Sands once… BOOM!). I have expectations of what they look like. I'm fine with spacecraft being entirely different, but that's what construction in space is for. (i.e.: the atmosphere should matter) The lack of dv information in VAB design is a problem (yes, I know there is a mod, this is all about stock).

Basic flying:

The UI is pretty good. It's easy to understand, and uncluttered. Kudos. The interiors don't really have useful view information or I might actually use them to fly (in other games like flight sims, or serious play in Silent Hunter 4, I consider exterior views "cheating" and don't do it, so more useful interiors might be of use, but the exteriors are pretty, so I can live with that (though not for flying aircraft)). For a noob, docking was the hardest thing to get decent at, but the learning curve was not steep, the first couple attempts were… not efficient. I'm still not great, but I don't doubt I can dock, it's just a matter of having enough RCS. Orbital maneuvers are easily possible by trial and error using maneuver nodes.

Science/Tech Tree:

Not a fan of the current arrangement. It's kind of bizarre. I understand the desire to "get better stuff," but it needs to make sense to have enough suspension of disbelief that you can get into it, and not consider it a grind. There are threads here about it, and I sought one out for my first post on this forum specifically. Campaigns are important. I think the devs should entertain novel ideas to make them interesting, and also just really look at the idea of "science" vs "flight engineering data" for incrementing technology. I'd like some major tech nodes, and more incremental stuff in between (same parts being upgraded to slightly better models, slap a new texture on them (even if it's just a part number label on the texture map). The amount you get need to be smaller for some things (sample returns), and larger for others (probe data transmitted).

Contracts:

Meh. Some are fine, others are just annoying. After dutifully trying to test an engine at 1600-8300m and 160-something m/s several times (all 4 things required had checks) but failing (think I needed to stage the rocket right then or something) I simply abandoned all the test contracts that could not be done trivially. I don't mind being asked to build novel test-beds, but some are just too dumb to want to bother with. I realize 0.25 might address some of these last two sets of comments.

Stuff I wish there were good reasons to do:

1. Build even small space stations. I built one in each of my 2 career games "because." There is no reason to make them, I just thought it would be cool. More requirements for missions (life support, etc) might make assembly in orbit critical (which would be a good thing for gameplay, IMHO). I think there would need to be a new docking port that makes 2 bodies rigid, perhaps (a full-diameter ring, perhaps it can even be a decoupler that can be mated in space?).

2. Apollo-style landers. This is basically asking for cargo stages. An empty tube with a decoupler on the bottom, inside, for the cargo.

3. Longer term science. Place probes in orbit to study a world, sensors left on the surface to transmit science. Medical studies of astronauts on orbit. Probes that skim atmospheres, etc, etc. These provide reasons to build new craft.

4. Make Munar or other world bases.

Other thoughts:

I am aware the devs don't like "random," but there is a good place for some random elements in a game that encourages replay. The player might get a contract to test a new engine. Say the Skipper-X. The X in this case is for "experimental." The reward might be adding that engine to the parts list for him. The testing might be a series of tests in real flights (over Kerbin, near the Mun, etc), but this X engine might have a random chance of failure in a few ways. Doesn't work, has a small explosion that results in fuel leaks, gibing doesn't work as planned (locks at an angle), etc. Chance of failure need not even be super high, and taking the test contract is still a choice. So far some of the most fun I've had has been rescuing a few ships in odd orbits I managed to strand earlier in the week (and one last night when I accidentally staged part of my lander unintentionally). Failures are fun. Even random ones. Heck, random rocks clobbering something would not bother me (it can be a toggle in difficulty settings ).

Reentry. There needs to be a penalty. The only guy I have killed so far was from my recent rescue. I used a grabber to get a vessel that I built before docking rings, and elected to send it home for reentry. I then braked a little, and figured I'd reenter one, then the other. The first hit the atmosphere, and I found I could not switch to the 2d one until the first was all the way recovered, and apparently the chute doesn't open without me hitting space bar and it crashed. Aside from the fact it should not have happened, I could work around and make sure they are spaced farther apart for reentry next time. Still, guys were stuck in orbit for game years in my 1st campaign (did loads of time compression messing with distant probes and left poor Jeb in munar orbit for many years while I sent a couple ships to the other side of the solar system). I'd have tried a rescue earlier if I needed to… because he was gonna die, for example. Anyway, a simple lie support would not be awful.

[Aethon]

Greetings and welcome. New guy perspective is important. It's hard for veterans to remember what those days were like.

Stuff I wish there were good reasons to do:

1. Build even small space stations. I built one in each of my 2 career games "because." There is no reason to make them, I

I hear this all the time. Doesn't anyone see value in having a fuel station in orbit?

[tater]

I hear this all the time. Doesn't anyone see value in having a fuel station in orbit?

In the stock game as-is? Why bother when you can launch anything and not have to deal with docking, etc? You'd have to want to do it by choice, it's really not incentivized (more reality would be all the incentive needed). Or am I missing something? Maybe It'll be required for a manned Jool mission---particularly since I will add hitchhikers, and other realistic stuff to that that is in no way required or incentivized just because such a craft should have minimum life support requirements. Again, like my stations, this will be elective, and in fact disincentivized by the game.

Edited August 28, 2014 by tater

[Ippo]

I hear this all the time. Doesn't anyone see value in having a fuel station in orbit?

Honestly, no. I mean, in theory yes, but on the other hand, you can just strap moar boosters and lift that fuel anyway.

This also holds for career mode, since a refueling station is basically just an interplanetary thing, and by the time you go interplanetary in career you have so much cash that saving money isn't really a necessity anymore so you can just add a bunch of SRBs and call it a day.

[WooDzor]

'2. Apollo-style landers. This is basically asking for cargo stages. An empty tube with a decoupler on the bottom, inside, for the cargo.'

While I agree with some of the comments you made, I am afraid that I have to strongly disagree with you there. I feel KSP is like lego, (back in the days) you had the blocks you had and that was it. Sometimes you had to use the blue roof tiles on a house because you just didn't have a choice. The same with KSP and I love it. I wish this game had existed or that lego was clippable when I was a kid.

I am not trying to show off but have a look at the link. I think it is very much possible to make good looking functional rockets in KSP.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/84441-Apollo-15 (all stock)

[Mr Shifty]

It really really sounds like you need to play the [thread=61632]Better Than Starting Manned[/thread] mod. It addresses almost all of your concerns: deadly re-entry, simple life support, more incremental tech tree with technology unlocks (e.g. better spacesuits), etc. For me, it provides the career experience that I wish the stock game had.

KSP is really a game where the devs are relying on the mod community to "fill in the gaps" while the core game is being finished. Things like aerodynamic rockets and better cockpits are available: [thread=20451]FAR[/thread] and [thread=57603]RPM[/thread]/[thread=66198]KSI[/thread], respectively. You just have to use mods to get them.

[tater]

Thanks for the replies, and I hope that any discussion might be of use to devs should they read it. Any other noobs feel free to chime in!

Honestly, no. I mean, in theory yes, but on the other hand, you can just strap moar boosters and lift that fuel anyway.

This also holds for career mode, since a refueling station is basically just an interplanetary thing, and by the time you go interplanetary in career you have so much cash that saving money isn't really a necessity anymore so you can just add a bunch of SRBs and call it a day.

I was talking about career mode, actually, I have not messed with sandbox, I was aiming for the "real" experience to start.

'2. Apollo-style landers. This is basically asking for cargo stages. An empty tube with a decoupler on the bottom, inside, for the cargo.'

While I agree with some of the comments you made, I am afraid that I have to strongly disagree with you there. I feel KSP is like lego, (back in the days) you had the blocks you had and that was it. Sometimes you had to use the blue roof tiles on a house because you just didn't have a choice. The same with KSP and I love it. I wish this game had existed or that lego was clippable when I was a kid.

I am not trying to show off but have a look at the link. I think it is very much possible to make good looking functional rockets in KSP.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/84441-Apollo-15 (all stock)

Clipping parts is cheating, IMHO. 2 fuel tanks in the volume of 1.75 or something? How can that not be cheating? Asking for cargo pods is not unreasonable. What you put in them is your own business

It really really sounds like you need to play the [thread=61632]Better Than Starting Manned[/thread] mod. It addresses almost all of your concerns: deadly re-entry, simple life support, more incremental tech tree with technology unlocks (e.g. better spacesuits), etc. For me, it provides the career experience that I wish the stock game had.

KSP is really a game where the devs are relying on the mod community to "fill in the gaps" while the core game is being finished. Things like aerodynamic rockets and better cockpits are available: [thread=20451]FAR[/thread] and [thread=57603]RPM[/thread]/[thread=66198]KSI[/thread], respectively. You just have to use mods to get them.

I'm aware of many mods. My comments are not to read myself type, I posted (as I said) in the hopes that observations from a brand-new player might be useful at some level to the devs (assuming they ever read posts in this forum (I debated which forum to post in, this seemed the most appropriate).

I could have modded up before even starting my "real" career mode, but then any comments I had on gameplay would be basically useless to the devs (I've been and alpha and beta tester for a number of games, as well as an active modder). I'm trying for constructive criticism

Edited August 28, 2014 by tater

[tater]

I should add (regarding mods) that some games are basically unplayable without mods. Silent Hunter 4 is a great example. Out of the box, the game is awful. I started modding it (both installing mods to play, and making my own) almost immediately. The game was already "done" in the eyes of the devs as I saw it, and no chance to impact the stock game (that boat had already sailed (I used "boat" on purpose, sub people will understand )). I can honestly say that I barely remember the unmodded gameplay specifics at this point, though I could tell you the sink rate I set IJN depth charges to, or how far Kaibokan can throw them (as modded in by me). I felt like if I started to add mods very quickly I'd lose track of where the actual game is.

So since this game is explicitly a WIP right now, I think the least I can do for the devs (aside from spending my money as I did) is to mess with the game as-is for a while, even if some of it bugs me ATM. Again, trying to be a good tester.

[Wanderfound]

I should add (regarding mods) that some games are basically unplayable without mods. Silent Hunter 4 is a great example. Out of the box, the game is awful. I started modding it (both installing mods to play, and making my own) almost immediately. The game was already "done" in the eyes of the devs as I saw it, and no chance to impact the stock game (that boat had already sailed (I used "boat" on purpose, sub people will understand )). I can honestly say that I barely remember the unmodded gameplay specifics at this point, though I could tell you the sink rate I set IJN depth charges to, or how far Kaibokan can throw them (as modded in by me). I felt like if I started to add mods very quickly I'd lose track of where the actual game is.

As a mostly-tabletop gamer, Silent Hunter is one of the only computer games I've got into apart from KSP. There aren't many things that are more fun than sneaking through a destroyer screen and sending a few fish into a carrier. Crank that up to hard mode and it makes KSP look easy; compulsory trigonometry before every shot.

I haven't played it for years, though; I think my last was SHIII. Apart from the "needs mods" thing, what are the current versions like?

[frizzank]

I really like the idea of major tech nodes with minor unlocks.

[tater]

As a mostly-tabletop gamer, Silent Hunter is one of the only computer games I've got into apart from KSP. There aren't many things that are more fun than sneaking through a destroyer screen and sending a few fish into a carrier. Crank that up to hard mode and it makes KSP look easy; compulsory trigonometry before every shot.

I haven't played it for years, though; I think my last was SHIII. Apart from the "needs mods" thing, what are the current versions like?

I never played III, as I'm only interested in hunting U-boats, not role-playing them

V was not my interest, either, for the same reason (and they jumped the shark and "fixed" the inside, eye-candy stuff instead of making the submarine behave more realistically, and also the game experience more realistic. I was a SH4 guy, PTO. Worked on a bunch of smaller mods, a couple of which are part of RSRD.

BTW, realism comes up in SH as well. It's funny that many equate "harder" with "more realistic" when this is not always the case at all. In SH, you play "easy" and the torpedoes are locked and aimed by the game. Point scope, fire fish, profit. Dumb, and far too easy. "Full real," OTOH, has you plotting the enemy on the map, and doing all the work to set up the attack… the trouble is that that is NOT realistic.

In RL, the skipper points the scope, says "bearing… MARK" and one of his junior officers in the firing party then calls out the bearing… to two other guys, one of whom draws a line on the chart at that bearing while the TDC operator enters that data in the TDC. The skipper then takes a range, "Range… MARK," and the same guy calls out the stadimeter value (based on the skipper's guess of ship class). Skipper also estimates AOB. All of which is plotted, and simultaneously entered in the TDC. Realistic in this case (had they bothered to do it) is a little harder than "easy," and way easier than "full real," as the game has the player doing the work of 4-5m people at once.

Bottom line is that a good UI can make something that behaves in a very realistic fashion not be difficult to play, but you need to think about it that way instead of dumbing it down from the start.

[KerikBalm]

YRocket construction:

Fun, but the lack of things I'd expect to use being useful is not great. I want to put nosecones on. I don't want lander parts hanging out in the breeze. I've seen a fair number of rockets, I've been to a few launches (even got to see a Kerbal like use of range control at White Sands once… BOOM!). I have expectations of what they look like. I'm fine with spacecraft being entirely different, but that's what construction in space is for. (i.e.: the atmosphere should matter) The lack of dv information in VAB design is a problem (yes, I know there is a mod, this is all about stock).

Yea, dV information, even vessel mass would be nice... oddly, you can see vessel mass one its on the launch pad, and you are in map view (click the i) I spreadsheet calculate dV sometimes....

As this is in development, I advise the use of some mods - after all, some of the mods (Space plane Plus now) get added to the game after all.

I really should install kerbal engineer (I'm not doing mechjeb!).

When SP+ gets in .25, you'll have a small cargo bay for launching small probes... I hope this is expanded upon for other cargo bays.

There are mods to add fairings, I think I may want to download thos

I modded my nosecones to hold fuel, ie, they are half a spherical fuel tank to cap my flat fuel tanks with. But after downloading NEAR and FAR, they have an additional purpose

I highly recommend NEAR - FAR has some annoying features... I don't like the mach effects, its the "aerodynamic failures" (I won't get into it here) - although I do like the detailed flight info of FAR.

So: mods, hopefully they become stock:

NEAR

Fairings

Kerbal Engineer

Basic flying:

The UI is pretty good. It's easy to understand, and uncluttered. Kudos. The interiors don't really have useful view information or I might actually use them to fly

Try the Mk1 spaceplane cockpit, and the new Space plane + cockpit.

The Space plane + cockpit is freaking awesome... showing the potential of the game when its finished:

FWIW, I don't think the Mk1-2 capsule IVA is too shabby either... the view is pretty restricted... but... I guess it would be nice if you could lean forward and really put the kerbal's head to the window. The lander cans are decent for landing in too.

They have the navball, and a window, which is all you really need, they also have a radar altimeter, which you don't get in external view.

For a noob, docking was the hardest thing to get decent at, but the learning curve was not steep, the first couple attempts were… not efficient. I'm still not great, but I don't doubt I can dock, it's just a matter of having enough RCS. Orbital maneuvers are easily possible by trial and error using maneuver nodes.

It was pretty hard for NASA too

Science/Tech Tree:

Not a fan of the current arrangement. It's kind of bizarre. I understand the desire to "get better stuff," but it needs to make sense to have enough suspension of disbelief that you can get into it, and not consider it a grind.

Yea... its a bit... odd, but it seems functional to me. Some argue its really more of a tutorial, so that new players are introduced to a few parts at a time, and start out with simple rockets rather than being overwhelmed by lists of parts when they don't know what to do with the parts.

Contracts:

Meh. Some are fine, others are just annoying. After dutifully trying to test an engine at 1600-8300m and 160-something m/s several times (all 4 things required had checks) but failing (think I needed to stage the rocket right then or something) I simply abandoned all the test contracts that could not be done trivially. I don't mind being asked to build novel test-beds, but some are just too dumb to want to bother with. I realize 0.25 might address some of these last two sets of comments.

Well... I agree... the contracts are a bit.... meh... 0.24 was delayed because they had less than positive feedback about contracts and they wanted to fix the issue... I wonder what it was like before. I hope they continue to refine contracts.

One thing I'd like is for the contracts to auto complete when all conditions are met, without having to click "run test" or activate the staging of the part.

Also a bit more refinement about what the test conditions are would be nice... I don't know why they want me to test a jet engine on the moon. And if they want me to experiment with a jet/ion engine, let me also have intakes/xenon tanks... etc.

1. Build even small space stations. I built one in each of my 2 career games "because." There is no reason to make them, I just thought it would be cool. More requirements for missions (life support, etc) might make assembly in orbit critical (which would be a good thing for gameplay, IMHO). I think there would need to be a new docking port that makes 2 bodies rigid, perhaps (a full-diameter ring, perhaps it can even be a decoupler that can be mated in space?).

IRL, there isn't much point to them either...

One thing I do have are "science stations" about the Mun/Minmus, to refuel and reset the experiments on a reusable lander

2. Apollo-style landers. This is basically asking for cargo stages. An empty tube with a decoupler on the bottom, inside, for the cargo.

I do plenty of apollo-style landers...

But you're asking for a fairing, and in fact you're getting basically what you are asking for in 0.25, it least in the space plane cargobay, it doesn't hold much, but its enough for a 1 kerbal mun lander.

Lander+command module, while still attached to the trans-munar injection stage, a fairing would be nice, but its not that bad looking (IMO)

How its configured when I do the munar orbit insertion burn (appropriately putting me into a retrograde orbit, as I was on a free-return trajectory)

...skipping the science topic... there are whole threads on it

4. Make Munar or other world bases.

Yea... Kethane mod perhaps?

Or you want long term pretige/science data from doing this?

If you can't mine, there isn't much point in going anywhere if you don't want the science

Reentry. There needs to be a penalty. The only guy I have killed so far was from my recent rescue. I used a grabber to get a vessel that I built before docking rings, and elected to send it home for reentry. I then braked a little, and figured I'd reenter one, then the other. The first hit the atmosphere, and I found I could not switch to the 2d one until the first was all the way recovered, and apparently the chute doesn't open without me hitting space bar and it crashed. Aside from the fact it should not have happened, I could work around and make sure they are spaced farther apart for reentry next time. Still, guys were stuck in orbit for game years in my 1st campaign (did loads of time compression messing with distant probes and left poor Jeb in munar orbit for many years while I sent a couple ships to the other side of the solar system). I'd have tried a rescue earlier if I needed to… because he was gonna die, for example. Anyway, a simple lie support would not be awful.

Mods...

Yes, I know, mods mods mods... hopefully that won't be the case when the game is at release 1.00, but we're at 0.24, so give it some slack.

[tater]

KerikBalm, your points are all well taken. I do plan on modding up, I just wanted to let the devs know what I thought od KSP before I in effect started playing a game they didn't entirely make.

I like your lander stack. Does it wobble much?

[Pecan]

A very well considered and written appraisal, well done. First impressions are always useful.

Can't say I disagree with anything you said either. I do use spacestations, but only because I want to make a reusable space-based infrastructure rather than launching everything in single-shot missions from Kerbin. Other things I almost completely agree with - especially that the tech-tree is, essentially, fatally flawed as it is.

...The Space plane + cockpit is freaking awesome...

That's nearly all thanks to the RPM mod though - any cockpit can look like that if you install it.

Edited August 28, 2014 by Pecan

[tater]

Regarding stations, I suppose there are two mechanisms for making them "useful." One is that refueling or building ships is orbit is somehow encouraged (clunky stuff impossible to launch intact, for example). Or perhaps at a certain level you can unlock a "Spacecraft Assembly Module" that has manipulator arms, etc, and allows a "VAB in space." The other is simply by contract. The contract could be to erect a solar power station in orbit, for example, where it must produce a certain amount of power, and have facilities for X crew (maybe add a new part to beam microwaves to Kermin).

The latter is legit, though ham-fisted. I'd like to see them useful because they are useful. In RL, it is more of a human physiology lab, though for longer duration flights presumably there might be some in-space assembly of the actual spacecraft that might use a station as a marshaling area, right?

[HafCoJoe]

I particularly like your "skipper-X" idea. I mean, why have "testing" contracts when there isn't a possibility of failure? Your testing an engine you know works as well as it will ever work. Regardless if you do the test or not. Perhaps when you first unlock an engine its isp is considerably low, and as you continue to use it or keep running tests on it, you can increase its isp? Is that something you condone or are going for?

This thread should get stickied somewhere.

[Aethon]

Well... I agree... the contracts are a bit.... meh... 0.24 was delayed because they had less than positive feedback about contracts and they wanted to fix the issue... I wonder what it was like before. I hope they continue to refine contracts.

One thing I'd like is for the contracts to auto complete when all conditions are met, without having to click "run test" or activate the staging of the part.

Also a bit more refinement about what the test conditions are would be nice... I don't know why they want me to test a jet engine on the moon. And if they want me to experiment with a jet/ion engine, let me also have intakes/xenon tanks... etc.

I like a lot of what you say here. Bone picking:

I think contracts make perfect Kerbal sense. This is in fact another world. When I first stumble upon Kerbals, they've never been to space. I mean if some smart ass Kerbal told you there's no way the shiny new turbojet engine you designed will work on the mun, would you believe him (/her??)? Heck no you wouldn't! You'd pay some fool to fly it there and prove this ass wrong.

IRL, there isn't much point to them either...

One thing I do have are "science stations" about the Mun/Minmus, to refuel and reset the experiments on a reusable lander

You list two reasons why stations are valuable while denying their point.

Rushing to get in 'afore forum blackout.

Recent play throughs, when each IP launch windows come up, I send sufficient ScanSats and a relatively simple fuel pod. Can no one see the value in having fuel waiting at Duna or Dres for your KSS Fat Wackjob when it finally lurches in from IP space? It's a station.

Edited August 29, 2014 by Aethon

[tater]

Regarding contracts, I'm fine with a lot of them, but some are so bizarre the best way to do them is to hang the part off the side I guess and "stage" it at the right moment, even if not hooked to anything fuel wise, for example. Any contract that involves an actual test that doesn't seem unreasonable I try and do. Some are more trouble then they are worth.

Regarding stations, that is indeed a decent reason for a little depot of fuel. I added a docking ring to my standard Mun rocket stage that I do the orbit insertion and capture with, break with it, then leave it in orbit with some fuel for this reason. I don't think of it as "a station," though. I reserve that for a manned station, though the science lab is a great actual station idea to nab all those biomes! See, it's cool when there is a reason to do stuff… I know my next build now.

[SRV Ron]

KSP lets you try realism, as others have posted, or try direct landing and returns.

[tater]

I posted a story in the "What did you do today…" thread, and it was a screw up that forced me to rescue myself. More fun than what I had planned, actually.

Mistakes, catastrophes, etc… can be really fun.

[KerikBalm]

I like your lander stack. Does it wobble much?

Nope. Its bigger than it needs to be for aesthetic purposes. I don't have the fuel tanks all full.

This is the craft: https://www.dropbox.com/s/kt0954r1ix00nlr/Saturn%20V.craft?dl=0

Allows for a mission profile fairly close to the real Apollo missions. 2 stages during ascent, 3rd stage circularizes and then sends it off on a free return trajectory to Mun, command module flips around and re-docks with the LM (note there is a fairing glitch, the fairing stays stuck to the docking port even after decouple, a simple quicksave followed by quickload makes the fairing disappear).

LM is all mono-prop, with a descent stage and ascent stage. Its bigger than it needs to be, but meh. The descent stage could be used for a lot of the ascent (especially if the descent fuel tank is full, and you land efficiently), so I've got it action grouped to allow you to shut down the descent engines, so you can go full throttle for the decouple and ascent stage (the ascent stage is just the lander can, the 2 cylindrical monoprop tanks, and 2 radial monoprop engines).

You list two reasons why stations are valuable while denying their point.

I said there isn't much of a point, I didn't say there was no point.

I was mainly talking about kerbin orbit stations.

Why bother lifting fuel up to a station, when you can lift it up with the main craft, and not have to deal with the rendevous.

Also, in LKO, there isn't much point to a science lab.

Stations to refuel landers around other bodies, are useful however - but my stations are all actually just orbiting ships with their own propulsion system - although if you make use of LV-N tugs, I can see a station being useful.

The science lab station is also questionable.. but thats a science lab thing.... you may just want to have an orbiting stockpile of science Jrs and Goo cans with docking ports - intended to be disposable. It only breaks even if you visit more than 11 biomes.

[SRV Ron]

Actually, the Moon lander and service module used a fuel oxidizer mix just like their launch vehicle. They just used fuels and oxidizers that could be stored at normal temperatures without vaporizing. The two chemicals in use ignite violently upon entering the combustion chamber. You can redesign your lander to use the far more efficient Kerbal fuel oxidizer mixture since it can also be stored long term before use.

[tater]

So I've been messing with "contracts."

Some observations:

1. Some seem broken. I had a parachute test, and engine test with "normal staging" and all the marks were checked green, no success. A decline all those at this point. I had a test a poodle landed at Kerbin. Again, normal staging. Didn't work, though kerbin and Landed were both marked with green checks.

2. Too easy, all carrot. Decline anything you don't feel like. No time limits. You can bang out "science" without ever doing anything interesting. The whole "contract" mode needs to be more complex.

[Linear]

So I've been messing with "contracts."

Some observations:

1. Some seem broken. I had a parachute test, and engine test with "normal staging" and all the marks were checked green, no success. A decline all those at this point. I had a test a poodle landed at Kerbin. Again, normal staging. Didn't work, though kerbin and Landed were both marked with green checks.

2. Too easy, all carrot. Decline anything you don't feel like. No time limits. You can bang out "science" without ever doing anything interesting. The whole "contract" mode needs to be more complex.

The contracts system was created and refined, with a few simple contracts added (simple as in easy to understand, not necessarily to complete) - this was because the devs knew the modding community would step on it to create some actual gameplay where they didn't have time (see the fine print mod, i think it's called).

I agree with the devs decision to work on structure, design and implementation rather than spending their time filling out mechanics; we're also blessed to have such a competent and generally awesome modding community.

[Linear]

Mistakes, catastrophes, etc… can be really fun.

That's a large proportion of the game. You think you'll get to the point you're such an awesome pilot/builder it wont happen - but you just get more extravagant.

You turn into a Kerbal.