shizophrenic

I think there is no one right way to play KSP. Mod it or don't Mod it the way you want. Before 0.25 i did all manover by hand and building by estimating and now i use Mods. I hope some of the concepts of mods make it into later versions of the game. The reasons can reduced mainly to: - better visuals/audio - more game depth (Scansat, Contract packs) - lazyness, because even if i can do it i don't want to waste my precious gaming time on calculating dV (KER) or eyeballing docking alignment (NavHud)

Since i have no really knowlegde of the internals of the contract system, I have maybe stupid idea for the problem with the interplanetar stations. How about a naming plaque part one the station core that defines the destination of the new station? When the plaque is in any orbit the following contracts like adding moduls getting available. That way its possible to add modules before the launch windows or at a seperate windows. The contracts are naturally only fulfilled when the destination is reached. The part only needs to have a selector for the destination. And a naming plate is usually lightweight, aerodynamic, cool looking (maybe) and wouldn't interfer with other mods. Maybe another purpose for this plaque could be with a hidden ID to distinguish seperate stations in around the same planet.

Regarding aktivating through stageing: If you toggle an engine via an action-group it doesn't count as staged yet. So you can lift off the launchpad by setting throttle and toggleing the engine on AND stage the same engine when contract conditions are met.

when your first manned mun craft actually lands, and can't do eva because you placed a parachute on the hatch

i like the idea of more animations. kerbals don't doing something ...uhmm.. errm silly i can't quite imagine ... i remember a video footage from the mun ... about repairing a wheel...

Just to make it beforehand clear. I am not against any other aerodynamics at all. I am just totally aganist the way a lot of ppl behave. You say You Hate building planes with stock aero. I really HATE how ppl DEMAND things (may it be Features or shedules), call The ppl who do the WORK in THEIR game incompetent, come up with arguments that are not per Definition are right (like more realism is always better), and never try to consider that others may have another view to that matter. Example: someone was complaining in a treat stock aero is flying like aganist a brick wall, to hard etc. I consider i more like a challenge, making a plane fly there. Why should it be just fun doing it the way reality works. if ppl want a game that represent their ideal game, then go ahead and make it yourself.

i agree to that Statement. And because we are not the devs, who do the work, all we should do make humble suggestions, and not go like "this has to be "

this was lost in copy/ paste I my personal opinion it is better to have a less realistic model for education. The students see something that works generally but they see that it doesn't work like the real world. with asking why they think it isn't like they expect they have to look into the underlying physic. They have to Analyse the physics come up with the improvements by themself. Giving them a premade solution that is quite accurate, there isn't any Need for them to think for themself. Best would it be if they could Experiment with the physics model in the game to test out their solutions

you bring that for educational purposes it is better to add realism. i disagree, you have to consider the audience you are teaching. if you take ppl that are study physics a great amount of realism might be good. if you take a class of 14 years old you want to get started physics it is different, since they probaly could easily overstrained and lose interest forever. even the early lessons in physics study start with simple Problems. more realism doesn't lead atuomactically to better educational value. and i never stated that i am against N-Body Solutions in game, just stated that it isn't as easy as it seem. One main Problem i see is that the planets/moon orbits are on the rails, and there is a discrepancy to rest of their data.

Actually it is mathematicaly proven that for N>3 Body there is no exact solution. for n=3 there is only for 2 Special cases a solution there (one is the Lagrange Points, the second is about three Bodys with the same mass on a Special trajetory). All other solutions use approximations and/or are solved numerical. even in case your post doesn't wasn't aimed at my post before. even if my post was exaggerated, it Points out that more realism doesn't equals better. the same applys to less realism. it isn't automatic better either. often it is argumented that more realism is better/more fun, that is just simply wrong.

i totally agree, my post before was intended to remind the ppl that even if we discuss how it could be implemented there is already a concept that the devs have realised (to a quite high percentage)

/sarcasm start sometimes i wish they go to a Company with Expertise making extremly accurate air flow and drag modells like Boeing, take those models and put them 1:1 into the game. Just to add realism. i think the FAR planes (never installed so only guess) would fly only like arrows... Well, probably but no one would ever see a plane flying anymore since calculating 10 sec of flying would take a loooooooonnnnnggg time. ... i don't have one of the supercomputer as ring with several 100 cpu and Terabyte of Memory. ah and while talking of realism, get rid of the time warp button, too, /sarcasm end

well this disscussion is in one Point really senseless. regardless want we are here say, Squad has already choosen a economic Modell. it is only not implemented yet. their testers made them realise that, only with Features they planned to implement in 0.25, the contracts would give the Players the Feeling to have a proper reward for fullfilling the contract.

if the economic Modell bases only on the parts you probably right. but if put in daily costs for maintance of buildings and salarys for the employes. it becomes different. even while the Craft flies your wallet shrinks and shrinks. then you would be happy for any extra way to increase the Overall Profit of a mission. the Voyager missions were started years ago the 'parts' already paid, but still they cost NASA about x Million Dollars each year

i agree with you and red iron crown. if it Comes i dont wan't it to be complicated. a single sourse System is more than sufficent. and since kerbals are Aliens, there is no Need to assume their biology works like ours. until a life Support will be implemented i belive that kerbals can eat anything. so they live of fuel and can breath oxidizer. (actally they fly their craft no so bad as we see, the missing fuel was just ... a midnight Snack)

for my post, its clicking "recover vessel" for disappearing: as far i know only parts with a periapis below a certein height get deletet when not controlled. some write it isn't height dependend but pressure dependent but in a certain degree its practically the same. also i think certain parts in Orbit get deleted if they leave the 2,5km radius sphere. for if height/pressure dependend deletion, they could make a it look like: 1. check on the velocity is, 1.1 over a certain velocity it is considerd burned up or crashed so hard that wouldn't be any use. 2. under that velocity check are paracutes 2.1 no--> Crashed so hard that wouldn't be any use. 2.2 paracute are there. calculate the stable descending velocity the craft would have at 200 m above ground. simulate the the Crash at that Speed. 3. for landing Point: just assume Point mass with graviational pull with an constant decleration factor based on the drag the craft would have at a certain height/pressure i know thats not accurate physics and doesn't takes in account planelike crafts , but no one would witness the criminal wrong landing of the craft , so the crime would be perfect.

with no offence, noone can see all outcomes, since they strive to achieve their 'ideal' Vision and it would only improving the current status. what i find totally wrong, is not even trying to look from a other Point of view. i am in the "its their game/they can ignore us if they want" crowd too, since they have to the WORK. if you do something for fun ist fun, but if you do it as work it can easly be ... well ... work. with work a lot so resposibliltys kick in. doing it for fun doesn't has them and that is a big difference. i like it that they decided to look at ideas/concepts brought to them from others, but that doesn't force them to take them into their game/work. so i will wait what the game Looks like when finished, and THEN i look for mods that bring in what i think it lacks.

i think there isn't a real Need to prevent sidestepping. You Play career mode. that implemets a lot. you want to have a economic Modell, because you think ist fun. sidestepping the economic is like playing without economic with more preliminary Actions before a Mission. if you sidestepp you also can use a toggle economic off in the cheat menu. you kill your fun on your own, and shouldn't blame the game for it.

i like the idea, since it would be dev-approved toppics. i hope you have cleared his before with Rowsdower beforehand. if the dev/Rowsdower declines this idea for whatever reason lot of ppl would be dissapointed or angry and statments "See!! they are ignoring the comunity" will Pop up.

i have read that the planets surfaces Models are procedurally generated. Are we are loading those precalulated models or are they generated each time at the start of the game? i just don't know. depending on that answer we have already procedual code with a seed or not.

not implemented yet doesn't mean forgotten. most mods Focus on one aspect. that one solution to do something how that aspcet could be done. but is it the ONLY solution?? from dev Point of view it wouldbe ONE concept that is more or less proven that it works. nothing more.

nice list. before someone starts saying anysthing. consider please: would it fit in the Setting of game: Kerbals are a more or less human like sentient lifeform. Kerbals live on a planet similiar to ours. The kerbal solar System is similar to ours. Their technological evolution is close to ours . what the dev not want or happen in their game: randomnesss (i read that at somewhere). warfare, anything that could lead/viewed as discrimination how much it changes the difficluty of the game: some items would increase the difficulty quite a lot. others decrease. how much is the gameplay changing. some have fun playing ksp but would never touch a MS flight sim. would it be fun over a Long time? what Impact would it have of the performace of the System: all the items that would require additionaly parts for a flight would have Impact on the performace. how much would Change it the requirements on the pc runing it on. i am sure there are more things to consider. any poll/answer should should take These things into account

i agree that with using a seed based System Generator falage's Argument from the interview becomes obsolete. there is still one weak Argument against i can think of the Setting of the game: kerbals a a humanlike sentient lifeform on a planet similar to ours. kerbals live in a solar System with a similar structure to our solar System. their technological evolotion is very Close to ours. seed based solar System could be quite different, E.g a jupiter type planet innermost. that wouldn't be anymore similar to ours. any travel between stars would break that Setting too. if you don't care about Setting the argument gets pointless to you. kerbals could even start on a eve like planet or a gas gigant for you and and look like flat disk with a single antenna on top

i agree that it would be a hell of balancing. i personally think it they won't Change much of the 'on the rails mechanics.' i would make it like : 0. there is a assembly cost depending on part Count and mass 0.1 soft mode : payable when you lose the abillity to return to Launch/Asssembly 0.2 hard mode: payable imeditaly after leaving assembly 1. recovery cost: recovery is dependent on distance and mass (maybe x kerbal Dollars + y kerbal Dollars per mile and per ton of mass.) 1.1 you can choose to sell those parts to a junkyard. (x kerbal Dollars per ton of mass) 2. you have to repair cost depened on most g force/temperature endured and Mission time, based on full Price (like 5% to 10%) each 3. fuel Comes extra. maybe 15% the Price of a full tank. 4. the command modules and probe cores would be quite expensive compared to fuel tanks and common rocket engines. cheapest would be Boosters. 5.1 recovered crafts, stages and parts go to a 'hangar', 5.2 they would be fully reusable if you like it. 5.3 you can disassemble them for a certain cost, and they go into your part storage. 6. Maybe some parts like struts, grinders, decopplers, and srb never go back into your part storage, but are cheap. for recovery as functional craft/ stage you have to rebuy it upon recovery. what do you have: you don't have to Change the engine. every landed/crashed part has still value a recovered fully functional stage/craft has even more value. ssto would be quite valuable a fully destroyed/lost in space part never gives a recover value creating the Need to earny Money. recovery, repair and dissasembly/assembly cost creating the Need to earny Money. fullfilling a contract could have Options like complete duna landing and return in less a year you get addionally 10 sls engines to your part storage since you have a storage

i am in favor too, since i have the Need to press other keys too in the style shift+ Key example : conserving/running out of fuel and using RCS instead