Stephanie the Viking

As I said, there is no option to control the kerbal, so I literally have him bouncing off the crew hatch and he won't get in.

A few people have mentioned the mission to rescue Kerbals... can somebody tell me how to coax the ignorant little guy to get into the empty pod on my (very early [no RCS, only LV45 engine so no room for error]) craft which is less than 80 metres away so I can go home?

In the 'Rescue kerbal on EVA' contract, does anyone know how to actually do it? I've got a craft to < 80m away from the kerbal (very early craft without RCS, and LV-45 engine only, so stressful and messy into the bargain), but I can't take control of said kerbal, so how do I coax him to get his butt into the empty pod I have waiting for him? EDIT: ...and please nobody say "with cookies"

Previously, the nosecones were used only for aesthetic purposes and I suppose that later on when I have more Roots than I can spend I can use them for that once more. Fingers crossed they take a look at aerodynamics soon eh

Nobody seems to have asked about aerodynamics yet from what I have seen, so I was just wondering... The perplexing 600 Root cost of the nose cone seems a little excessive IF it doesn't do anything (as of 0.24) to enhance the airflow around fuselage (or reduce drag on children?). As a result, in the new career mode (which is WAY too easy but I won't complain because it is awesome nonetheless - and thank you) it will NEVER be used. This is not the only part that will see little use if the question of enhanced aerodynamics has not yet been addressed. Anyway, I'm certainly not complaining and am enjoying the game immensely again after a rest while you finished 0.24.

Life is not like that... I don't see any reason why a spacecraft couldn't have certain things that could go wrong, an EVA to the affected part would make spacewalks necessary and fun. We can already manually repair certain things that break as Mr. Speed pointed out. From a realism point of view, it adds an element of risk, and from a gameplay point of view it makes the player engage with their kerbals and spacecraft in a new way via a few very simple code tweaks. I never suggested that an entire craft should suddenly explode, simply that it would be nice to have a repair mechanic in the game for our kerbals. The worst thing that can happen to a game is for it to become repetitive, samey, predictable and droll... any element of chaos no matter how small can give unceasing quality to a gaming experience.

To be fair, I didn't even read his most recent post. His response to mine was expected, and his lack of contribution in any small part to the thread has obviously been noted by others. Ah well, some people don't get any satisfaction IRL and need to do things like that. On the plus side, bits and pieces of his rants are tres amusant. Back to the matters at hand, I am sure that many of the suggestions I made already exist in the form of mods, and that is excellent but I won't be using them on this game at the moment. Later, when the game is more finished and mods can be used in a stable form indefinitely I will probably entertain a few, but for now I just wanted to point some things to the devs in case I gave them something they could use while they attempt to round the game off and expand it to its final form. In the past I have modded games which were still being patched, and just when you really get hooked on something awesome, a patch comes out and makes the mod useless until the creator remakes it; as you know sometimes they never do. Something like that can ruin an experience and I wanted to avoid that with this game if possible. As for the electricity thing, I see that many people do not agree with it. I'm a builder, I construct things - the more parts I have to work with, the more I enjoy doing it. Laying cables between Battery A and Part B, while keeping Battery Y for Part Z would mean more careful consideration placed on the location and size of batteries. Right now I just stick a bunch of any old battery pretty much anywhere on a ship and bingo, the lights come on. If this is all I need to do to make the light come on (and it requires no deduction, selection or reasoning behind choices and locations) then why bother with batteries at all? The suggestion of wiring was more of a personal requirement if I'm honest, the idea of laying cables behind some of those panels and bulkheads to actually serve a purpose and really bring ship design to life is all it was intended to imply. Some of my ships are large and ostentatious just for the mere pleasure of putting pieces together. If I had a reason to design everything in a particular way it would make the game even more enjoyable - speaking for myself of course. In combination with the hinges I was talking about, if one of my Kerbals had to open one of these panels and repair something that's even better. Macrobiotic life.... I like that idea. If we did not get aliens or evidence of aliens in the universe, then studies of life (in many wondrous forms) could occur on the planets we already have. This would provide a large new branch of science and give rise to a host of new experiments and parts.. Awesome idea If something has been discounted as 'never going to happen', there is probably a very good reason for it. Obviously, not being part of the design team, these reasons may not always be clear to the community, but if we discuss ideas properly, sometimes good ideas are collectively accepted and make it (in some form) into the final game. I'm glad that a few people have grasped that concept and taken this thread in the nature it was intended.

haha, no need to quote the reference, I've seen it a dozen times - not yet managed to find the time to read it though, which is a shame. All points are well put forward, though when I said SETI, I meant more in a theatrical sense than a physical one. Evidence of aliens in some form could be done without the need to actually bring them to life. Simply looking through a telescope, finding an exoplanet and saying: 'There is evidence of life here/ we are picking up faint electromagnetic waves from here / we can see evidence of life here +150 science' would suffice. It's just another thing to add spice, nothing more. Obviously to make it different to other experiments, you'd need a specific telescope/antenna in a specific place to pick up certain evidence. It expands the game significantly, which is what I'm all about. Yes, I meant Action Groups. When a ship is constructed using more than one section post-launch, I think that the action groups should be available for editing, so that engines can be regrouped if nothing else. Of all my suggestions this is one that I'd especially like to see considered. Also yeah I tried as I'm sure many people did, to see if parts could be saved from destruction by using chutes. If an economy (major undertaking) was put into the game at some point, there are many things to consider, this is certainly one of them.

Yeah, this is exactly what I was thinking, space stations [or other veicles/ships] that actually have a purpose because they carry experiments that can only be done on a station (not sure how to enforce the rule at this point apart from making stations a special object that can't be turned off and on like it can now) but anyway, the suggestion that certain experiments can only be done in certain places, or certain times would add variety to an ever-so-slightly bland activity. This is actually beyond what I had in mind, but I applaud the imagination! Something like this would really spice up the search for knowledge wouldn't it

Not really, I use Unity and am currently building my third game with it. I know how much you can reasonably throw at Update(), and the modification of orbits wouldn't need to happen on every tick anyway. The real reason this would cause issues is because the entire system they wrote to cleverly turn all impulse into an ellipse by default would have to be rewritten. I didn't honestly expect Squad to bother with anything like this right away ... personally I think you got the wrong end of the stick about my thread, and the negativity confuses me somewhat, obviously you are used to addressing idiots or something. Erm yeah thanks... Erm... yeah I did, as I already stated, this thread was a summing-up of everything I have been meaning to say to Squad, not you. Also, I was hoping for intelligent conversation about some of the suggestions. Clearly you are not the man for that particular job... If you read it again properly, you will see that I was talking of minor malfunctions, not complete losses. 'Never' seems a bit blunt too, and a bit presumptuous on your part - perhaps the idea that the game would become more challenging scares you. In any game that is being built in stages, few things are ever completely certain. Apollo 13 almost didn't make it back to earth due to a minor malfunction; I don't think it's as outrageous as you seem to think that a game replicating space travel should throw a few curve balls at the player now and then. Space is harsh; obviously you are used to simpler games. Again, not really too interested in your assault apart from pointing out yet again that it is simply a selection of things I'd like to see in the game, I also pointed out that some of them would probably already be considered or condemned. Learn to read. Alright, I did not see the damn list, and since some of my suggestions are NEW, any normal person who isn't itching for a fight would overlook anything that is old. Also, the Kerbals are clearly all dudes. On a side note, I'm not sure what 'Woms' are; I suggest you read more books (those paper things with words in). In fact it's not really that different to adding fuel tanks to make the engines work, or adding wiring in a circuit to make the bulb come on, laying redstone to power the piston and move the door (minecraft?), though I suppose you probably play with all the cheats on anyway so you never need or run out of fuel. Actually it's a case of making it more realistic and for the ships and stations to behave differently as you connect them together and build them up, dock them together, split them apart. Unlike some people, I don't throw my rockets together and hope for the best, or use mechJeb, or any mods at all for that matter, I LIKE realism, I like building things and designing rockets to be incredibly dexterous and versatile, not just strapping a load of boosters to a command pod and thinking I'm a genius. I LIKE adding fuel pipes so that fuel gets moved around the ship, I LIKE adding RCS thrusters in the proper places and balancing the center of gravity of my modules. Saying that 'The inside of all parts has cables in them' is a little childish too (not to mention horrible English), I was simply making a suggestion, if you don't like it go have an Eskimo pie or something dude. I think it's a bit sad that I came in peace with harmless suggestions and your response was to rip it to pieces and try talking down your nose at me. I'm actually used to guys being intimidated by me, but never mind - just remember I make computer games honey, which means I win by default xxx

Wow, thanks for the warm welcome, and for pointing that list out to me; it is inspiring to see so many things on that list which have already been addressed by the developers, for better or worse. I am not expecting any credit for this brainstorm, merely proposing tasty gravy for the game experience. Right now there is a rigidity and sense of limitation/repetition which I wish could be quashed by segregating activities to/or creating occurrences in certain circumstances to create a more organic experience. If any of these suggestions help the devs to do that then I consider it a win

As far as SETI goes, you got it spot-on; I'm not talking about actually having aliens in the game, but just another branch of science dedicated to discovering and understanding something about ethereal 'aliens' that are light years away or simply died a long time ago. Either way, it gives us another exciting branch of science to explore. I understand and expect that many of my suggestions may already be on the drawing board or may even have already been condemned. I simply wanted to list some of the things that I thought about the game and where it could go so that maybe somebody would look at one and say "yeah, actually that's a nice idea". None of these are pie-in-the-sky or naive in their subject matter, they are the product of my semi-professional (academic?) opinion [unfortunately I am in the middle of my course at university and do not have the time to work on or get involved with additions or modification projects to anything besides my own projects, though the suggestion is well-met]

Hi guys, Steph the Viking here, student game designer and big fan of KSP. Having played the game for some time, got into - and out of various sticky situations - I figured I was in a good place to start thinking about suggestions I could pose, regarding the expansion and subsequent enrichment of this gaming experience. First of all, hands down this is one of the most promising, imaginative and gloriously rewarding games I have ever had the joy of playing, so keeping that in mind I have some logical things which I believe should be in the game... suggestion #1 removed, it's on the what-not-to-suggest list Secondly: intelligent, location-specific scientific expansion with new and varied approaches to the way that research is carried out. Check out the following list and see what you think [it's only a series of examples, the possibilities are endless]... Orbit-only (photography, centripetal force of the body being orbited, density or X-ray scans, mass calculations [this could even be confined to a space station/ ship with a science lab part attached] and have specific appropriate targets on the surface, much like biome detection for existing instruments, but would require the generation of a series of special instruments and instrument mounts) Biome-dependent (humidity, dustiness, local gravity fluctuations, atmospheric molecular makeup) Above-Biome (magnetic investigations, plate/volcanic analysis, planetary layers [mantle, core etc] depth and composition etc) Deep Space Observation (telescopes, particle-observation, radiation observation of other bodies / background objects such as distant galaxies etc) suggestion #3 removed, it's on the what-not-to-suggest list Fourthly, and something I personally would prefer, is the option to toggle realistic orbits; that is to say the probability of orbital decay. In this universe, orbits would have to be monitored much more closely, and would make planning and executing manoeuvres much more realistic and require planning and careful thought. Possibly not to everyone's taste but the option would be very cool [yes I know this would require a total rehash of many things but hey: no ask, no get..] suggestion #5 removed, it's on the what-not-to-suggest list Sixth: A means of changing custom number keys on the fly, so that once a ship has been constructed from several docked parts in orbit, it can be given new custom keys that do things only to this new combined craft. They should also have the ability to be reassigned like this indefinitely. This would by logic require GUI elements to display this information in much the same way as the staging is done at present. Seventh: A means of mapping a planet's biomes from orbit, so that a player can plan their activities instead of going blind. suggestion #8 removed, it's on the what-not-to-suggest list suggestion #9 removed, it's on the what-not-to-suggest list suggestion #10 removed, this is a planned feature suggestion #11 removed, this is a planned feature Linked to: Twelfth: Kerbal Academy: A spacecraft part much like a science lab, but used to train kerbals in zero-gravity and improve various stats. Limited crew: 2 Thirteenth: Kerbal customization: colouring, clothing, hairstyles, facial hair, height, weight etc. Randomly generated or player-invoked are options. suggestion #14 removed, it's on the what-not-to-suggest list Fifteenth: more music variety (I love the tunes, but we need more) suggestion #16 removed, this is a planned feature Eighteenth: S.E.T.I. ? suggestion #19 removed, it's on the what-not-to-suggest list Twentieth: I can't say an awful lot about the contract side of things because I know you guys are already working on it. It will suffice to say I am on the edge of my seat as you introduce an entire new spectrum of activities to the game. suggestion #21 removed, it's on the what-not-to-suggest list suggestion #22 removed, it's on the what-not-to-suggest list Twenty Three: Could we investigate the possibility of laying electrical cable, joining batteries to the items that need power? It could make our spacecraft much more realistic and exciting to build. I propose a series of 'nodes' which are placed by the player between the battery and the powered-item, (raised slightly from any surface clicked), with no regard or worry given to wires passing through any spacecraft part. Wires could go directly from battery to item, though the more artistic would be able to lay them across surfaces, around corners and pass them through other parts at will. hmm... I think that's actually it so far. As I said before, I love this game and can't really fault much in it (except aerodynamics, drag/lift/thrust all being chaotic inside atmosphere, and making proper aircraft designs impossible because the game physics thinks that asymmetrical designs should always flip, when in actual fact the venturi effect should make asymmetrical aircraft possible when inside atmosphere...) but this is a minor gripe. The main thing I would love to see next, is segregated scientific research which HAS to be carried out attached to, under, on, near or indeed in specific locations.

I do not find bracing to be an issue, I play stock only (mods become outdated and I can't be bothered with that in this game) The real issue is, as has been mentioned several times, one fuel tank is often sufficient for any particular stage, and any extra fuel that is required should be applied radially and not vertically. Another particularly useful approach I have found is to build the initial core as the final orbital rocket, and build the second and third launch stages outwards from that rather than below [within reason]. The orbital/transfer/main spacecraft can sit atop this construction, providing enough triangles are constructed to hold each part to its neighbours. Struts only weigh 0.05 anyway, so using them will never add any significant weight issues in my experience. I have carried the most obscene constructions into space by using the 'several cores' method because the entire rocket never really goes above 120m in height. Another nifty approach is to have extra engines placed radially on the final craft to aid and stabilize the final launch rocket which is applying thrust some distance below it. http://www./view/myfiles/#kwhihrx8ys5i4po http://www./view/myfiles/#6whs60n6paak652 http://www./view/myfiles/#wz4e81kow5sk31v

Personally I'd like to see a reward system based purely on this kind of structure. It is rough and probably has holes in but makes the most sense when applied to the existing game. It involves spending money to build rockets, and being paid for specific experiments or actions. By this one's estimation, one would have to be really very bad at the game to end up with not enough cash to build a five-part rocket and get a kerbal to somewhere alive. Mission Board: Ten random missions, of which any number can be accepted at any time - on completion of a mission, all unchosen missions are replaced with new random missions (one of which must always be a task on the surface of kerbin) 1: Mission type: take special part (science lab, hitchhiker pod etc) to, land on, bring back, observe X from orbit etc. 2: Chosen Planet/moon: xxx 3: Biome: (if applicable) 4: Type of retreival (physical or transmitted) 5: Payment on return of results in chosen format or successful placement of chosen object in chosen place Starting money: 1) Regarding: Cost of a simple rocket ~ _____1a) Any Unsponsored Exploration (UE) ~ _______1b) Payment for Unsponsored Exploration (may be repeated, diminishes and has a lower limit that is always __________(cost of rocket used +1 [hundred?] ) __________[ensures it is impossible to lose the game for lack of funds even if Science reward has become zero for a particular investigation]) __________1c) Also takes into account the possibility of recovering purchased rocket parts and players attempting to keep discarded rocket parts intact for reuse) _____________1d) Payment for UE are linked explicitly to science point reward system for any investigation/result/sample/observation that is not sponsored at the moment of science point payment. Moderate money: 2) Regarding: Cost of a better rocket (probes, simple space stations and celestial bodies in proximity to Kerbin)~ _____2a) Payment for Sponsored Exploration (SE) (terrestrial and orbital observations; [anything close to, high over, upper/lower atmosphere etc]) ~ _______2b) May be repeated for full payment as many times as an official job is undertaken, ___________even if science has become zero [any experiment done on the sortie which is not part of the job is also paid as a UE]) More money: 3) Regarding: Cost of an advanced rocket (landers, advanced stations with advanced experiments which can ONLY be used on them, ___________also anything regarding celestial bodies which are distant from Kerbin) ~ _____3a) Sponsored Exploration including recovery of samples and other ground-based experiments from bodies near Kerbin [anything that is "on the surface of..." is viable, as is planting of flags] _________3b) Can also encompass particular orbital observations of distant planets without landing, ____________may or may not stipulate the use of a science lab to transmit data in certain jobs ____________NB this implies the need for permanent stations near planets, so that when a job comes up that requires a particular station, it can be reused for the purpose or expanded with new experiments as they become available ____________3c) May be repeated for full payment as many times as an official job is undertaken, _________even if science has become zero [any experiment done on the sortie which is not part of the job is also paid as a UE]) Money varies: 4) Regarding: Recovery operations (recovery of Kerbals, stranded spaceships _____[possible inclusion of job-inspired artifacts on surfaces of planets or even in space]) ~ _____4a) Payment for Recovery Operations (RO) can exist for any spacecraft which has a docking port AND fuel tanks AND engines ________OR any live Kerbal who is not on surface of Kerbin OR in a spacecraft in contact with Kerbin's surface _______4b) Failure of recovery operation (no docking port AND no remaining fuel / Kerbal dead/ mission critical part [engine] destroyed etc) __________4c) can and will include objects and ships that have been placed by the player - if mission A was to place a Science Station NAME on Mun, and the station has necessary parts [engine, fuel, docking port], that same station can crop up in mission B: "Retrieve Science Station NAME and bring back to Kerbin intact" Large amounts of cash: 5) Regarding: Several specialized rockets _____5a) Special missions including several player-defined parts, inevitable docking and refuelling, construction in zero-g to complete task etc ________5b) Payment for SE ___________5c) Includes landing on distant planets and physically bringing data back and/or carrying out operations on their surfaces ***IMPORTANT*** Each mission must have a unique goal. *Wishes she wasn't working on university projects in Unity and could dig into KSP, _________________but is resisting the urge at present*