Strikerklm96

Is there ANY documentation or decent tutorials on the config file settings? I want to contribute but it's pretty hard when 5% of the features are actually documented.

At the moment, there doesn't seem to be a way to sort the released Add-ons, and with 84 pages, and about ~14 pages of 1.05 stuff, it can be really frustrating to find what you are looking for. For instance, I wanted to add more planets, and although the Kopernicus mod is only on the second page, it has no indication of what it does without clicking on it, and clicking on every page to see what the mod does is not how I want to spend my time. The "Search" bar also fails to turn up what you are looking for about 90% of the time unless you know the exact term to search. The tag system is a start, but it needs to do what StackExchange does with tags, instead of typing what you want, "weapon", "weapons", "weaponry" are all different tags, that should all be the same. There should be a drop down for adding a tag "Weapons" "Engines" "Planets" "Flight Mechanics" "Overhaul" "Gauges" "Visuals" etc. and finally custom. There is also now way (that I know of) to sort the page by tags, and to only show the posts with certain tags. You can click on them, but it also includes search results where the tag name was in a paragraph. For instance, this post will show up if you click on a tag that says plugin, just because I used the word just then! TLDR; (suggestions for Released Add-ons page) Force at least one tag choice, because tons of posts have no tag, and the name is not descriptive Select, or recommended tags just like StackExchange Searching posts via tags It would improve every mods user base if people could more easily find what they were looking for.

I really like this. Also, I sent you a personal message.

This is a recurring problem in video games, numbers growing large for seemingly no reason. But the problem with keeping things small, is that you lose precision control, so then deciding whether something costs 2, or 3, can be a big difference. But if you can say 2.5633, then you can set up costs very precisely to keep the game mechanics balanced. And someone mentioned earlier, if they just added commas, a number like 300000000 would be much easier to read: 300,000,000

And do you plan to update the costs, I would love to help you and or give suggestions on some stuff. I read some guys article about how the engine thrusts, ISP's are all really unbalanced and he was right! I can't seem to find the post now, but I remember everything!

For parts of your ship that fall inside the atmosphere, you should either get some % back always, or get some % back if there is a parachute on it.

I 100% agree. 300000000 is a lot harder to read than 300,000,000

Players are much more likely to try and get their friends involved in the game if they can play together though, so there is that to think about. And the current game offers more than enough content to play with before they would get bored or put off from it. I can't imagine KSP changing so much that someone who doesn't like it now would like it later. And from a programming perspective, implementing a multiplayer gets harder and harder as the development of a game goes on, because new elements and components may not have been designed in such a way that makes the information they contain easy to send, receive, and sync. So parts might have to be redone and restructured.

There are relatively simple mathematics that they could implement to fast forward 10 minutes, while the thrust is on, and find the new position and velocity. And as long as the projected positions never fell within an atmosphere, or too close to other bodies, and didn't change SOI, there shouldn't be any problems. So you could do this shortcut, and it would either ask you how long you wanted it to run, or tell you it couldn't for some reason, like an atmosphere or projected SOI change. Then, it would either jump to do the new time, or it could fast forward to that new time.

I like the progression based thing. I don't understand why they didn't do that the first time. I was pretty annoyed when they started giving me contracts for things I had already done.

I tested the 4x Nasa rocket engine in SUB-ORBIT and got $650,000+. Lol I think someone mis-typed some 0's in these contracts. But also, they don't require that you come back from Duna, you only have to transmit the data. So imagine getting the $700,000 just from parachute landing a probe on Duna and transmitting. You can do that easily for around 70,000. So now you have a contract that gives 10x returns. The contracts should either say transmit OR return, not either one. Also, most of these contracts are either worthless, or super valuable. I have 3 mil after two days of on off playing. It's easy if you don't try to complete everything you come across.

I would like it if you could adjust the difficulty, which would simply scale the cost of parts. That is, if the cost of parts ever gets balanced/changed. $3000 pressure sensors which get very little science, lol. Some of the costs of parts makes no sense. The cost of liquid fuel should steadily get cheaper as you buy larger and larger containers of it. That seems to be partially implemented, on some containers. How long would it have taken to balance these parts, even approximately? 2-3 hours to calculate a scheme, and another hour or two to change the cost of the parts?

It is very common not to display numbers directly related to game mechanics. Most FPS games don't display dps for weapons, or damage break downs, or rate of fire, or the speed at which you can turn or sprint with the weapon. They don't display the field of view, the hitboxes of the player, or the % increase or decrease for hitting them there. This is a COMMON abstraction that developers do in games to help "immersion", because in real life, you don't get to calculate the effectiveness of something down to infinite sig figs. Not to mention, when new players start seeing spreadsheets, that is a MAJOR turn off. To get around this, they give generic and non specific advice like, this is good for X, and this is really bad at Y. People are acting like this will somehow remove Kerbal Engineer from their games. I have installed kerbal engineer and find it very helpful, but the devs said they didn't want that for stock KSP. I would be happy if they put direct dV and TWR readouts. But they don't want that, and new players do need some sort of hinting, especially with the monetary system. And the idea that you could disable this should remove any hint of "OMG this is annoying". There could be a checkbox RIGHT NEXT TO THE HEAD, so you just click it and it goes away. And once again, it doesnt give in your face messages, it doesn't stop you from doing anything. It is a text box in corner. When I was new to civilization, the advisors were very helpful, and eventually I just ignored what they were saying. And it's not like KSP is the only game where math matters. Here is some math for a catch rate for some pokemon game http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Catch_rate (scroll down) Math helps in most games, but that doesn't mean it should be included in the game so directly. Generic hints are what developers have done for ages and still do, and I doubt that will change with KSP.

So Squad has said that they don't want a dV readout in the stock game, and probably the same with a TWR stage readout, and I see where they are coming from with this and I agree with them. It somewhat breaks the fun of the game when it just becomes math and or numbers. Instead what they should do is have a Vehicle Assembly Building adviser, sort of how they do now with Gene Kerman at Mission Control, but this Kerbal would say useful things. For those of you familiar with the Sid Meier's Civilization video games, each part of your civilization had an adviser that gave you tips and advice. He didn't tell you numbers or statistics, he would tell you if you were doing something bad, and make recommendations. Although this would mainly be for new players, it would also be for people who want some good approximation of whether they have a rocket that has enough dV and TWR This wouldn't be an "In Your Face" message, it would just be up in the corner, similar to or smaller than that example, but with Wernher Von Kerman. Keep in mind this would not play the game for you, it's just helpful for anyone playing stock, as well as a fun interactive Kerman that actually talks. And if you find that kind of thing annoying, i'm sure you could turn it off. And, as different parts of the game progress, I could imagine an advisor in each building. Spaceplane Hangar, Astronaut Complex, Mission Control(Gene with more helpful advice), Research and Development, Tracking Station. I can think of plenty of advice they could give. So here are some examples of what they would say, as well as the conditions for the message: Keep in mind any dV thresholds would be pretty approximate, and to be on the safe side, a little higher than what you would actually need. Vehicle Assembly Building: The craft is so heavy, it might not be able to take off, we want more thrust!(TWR too low for early stage) The engines are too powerful, and will waste our fuel!(TWR too high for early stage) This rocket probably can't get too far. (dv lower than orbit) Should be able to get into a stable orbit with it now. (dv greater than orbit) I'm betting this could get to the Mun. (dV reaches a threshold for Mun and Minmus) You could get to a nearby planet riding this! (dV reaches a threshold for Eve and duna) This has enough fuel to make it a couple planets away. I think. (dV reaches a threshold for Dres and Moho) I bet the outer planets are within this ships range. (dV reaches a threshold for Jool and Eeloo) By my calculations, this rocket can go wherever it wants! (dV such that it can go to the costliest planet, Eeloo, and back) Solid rocket boosters are cheaper than liquid ones. Save money for snacks please! (person is using all liquid fuel) This craft is so big, it might spin out of control! (large mass, and not much control, with either fins, rcs, or reaction wheels) We might have trouble docking that without finely controlled RCS thrusters. (has a docking port with no rcs or small type engines) What if it runs out of electricity! (probe with no solar panels/not enough batteries) Spaceplane Hanger: Move the wings to the back of the craft or you might lose control! (C.O.L. in front of C.O.M.) This plane might be hard to steer. (C.O.L. too far behind C.O.M.) We will want more wings on this thing. (Lift Rating/Mass too low) More engines would be nice. (Thrust/Mass too low) This many engines might be overkill. (Thrust/Mass too high) How do you plan to land, exactly? (No parachutes or landing gear) It will be more fun to fly if there are flaps you can control. (There are none or too little control surfaces) We should try flying this thing into space! (dv with rocket and max high altitude velocity reach some level) I bet it circumnavigate the entirety of Kerbin! (could make it all the way around Kerbin) Mission Control: Completing multiple contracts on the same flight could save our program money. (person repeatedly accepts 1 contract at a time) We could use this money. (suggests contract high in monetary rewards if low on money) Everyone will like us more for doing this. (suggests reputation contract if low on rep) This program could use the science. (suggests contract high in science if your science is low compared to your money) Tracking Station: If you find some asteroids, I bet they would be interesting to catch and study. The best time to go to [planet] will be in [x time]. (this might not be a good idea) Suggest that you go places, and what you might find. Mountains, water, craters, flatland. And I know KSP is a WIP, but that's why it's a suggestion.

The best kind of science you can implement is the kind that doesn't need a point system. The information you gain from doing the science rewards you directly. For instance, when landing and taking off of Eve, you can save A TON of dV if you land on a high mountain, to avoid the lower atmosphere, and extra travel distance. So using a satellite to map its height pays off directly (or you can cheat and look it up, but you can cheat in a lot of ways). Similarly with the Kethane mod, scanning a planet tells you where to land for kethane, which has obvious benefits. Obviously there still needs to be point systems, for unlocking the tech tree, but more directly applicable results from doing science would be nice. The major problem with building long term settlements in KSP that produce science over time is that you can fast forward, which basically breaks it. But if you force them not to fast forward for it, it's often grindy. If people want to have bases in KSP, then the bases would need to produce something that you wanted, and had to consume. For instance, a base could produce a type of super efficient fuel that your engines can't start with, for interplanetary travel or something. Then, you would have to occasionally dock with it, or maybe simply beam it to Kerbin. The KSP interstellar mod does something like this, but I haven't gotten that far in it. But the reality is, any sort of base system would either become: 1. Too grindy. 2. You only use a base a fixed number of times, or infrequently. 3. You never interact with it at all because it's automated or useless. I'm hoping for #2. If you want a science related reason for space stations that isn't grindy and isn't time dependent, here is one: In order to get ANY science from an experiment: 1. Have to process it in a mobile processing lab before you recover it. 2. Have to have an MPL either on or in orbit of the body before you can do any science experiment. 3. MPL would be REALLY HEAVY, still require SEVERAL KERBALS, and consume LOTS OF ELECTRICITY so that would be an incentive for you to put a MPL in orbit with lots of solar panels in a station sort of style, and then do science on the body, and then dock with the station and transmit. Or maybe you could transmit the science to the MPL from the surface, and then process it, and then transmit to Kerbin. I'm not saying this is a great idea, but it's hard to find a science related reason for space stations that isn't grindy or time dependent, because both of those qualities are very bad.