Sky_walker

Poddle-engine equivalent - short, single-nozzle upper stage engine. SAS Stack Separator Service bay (so we could hide all these radial scientific items inside) Ore tank (both: short and long) Monoprop tank Size-3 equivalent of Hitchhiker Storage Container / landing can Size-3 equivalent of Lab? (shorter but wider) If not a battery then a fuel cell? Or heavy RTG? (in a shape of battery instead of radial) Size 3 -> 5x Size 1 adapter? ^ If you'll add that adapter - also add liquid fuel tank Twin-inline-docking port (one dock above, one dock below, for large inter-planetary missions with landers) It's Size 3, not Mk. 3. As in: rockets, not planes.

People play stock for dozens of different reasons. You can even see it in this thread. Saying that they do it because they are "just happy with the game that the developers have released" is a nonsense.

Items based on a real scientific instruments. That's the most obvious thing.

I'm surprised people still repeat that nonsense even though it's been debunked dozens of times.

That's supposed to make it any better? We're talking here about system with mixed - objects being comparable to realistic, rocky planets and objects being closer to neutron stars (having neutron stars in their cores). This cannot end up being anything friendly for cactuses. Or trees. That's a very, very basic fun with n-body physics. I would be very careful calling it a "simulation".

This. Even more so considering that we've hit 1.0 release. I know I wouldn't come back to it after having a longer break. And that's a really bad testimony to the quality of vanilla game (and a great testimony to the quality of community gathered around KSP).

That must have been one badly made simulation if neutron stars travelling through the system didn't cause massive perturbations.

I don't know why the surprise. Read my signature: Battlefield will teach you more about shooting than KSP about space flight.

Completely differently. Planets don't use any realistic densities to begin with. Kerbin would probably have a neutron star in a core, Jool wouldn't be a gas giant but rather solid, rocky planet with higher density than Mars (but lower than Earth), etc. etc. Jool would shoot it's moons in all directions, affecting all of the other planets, Kerbin would be bombed by asteroids destroying all life trees and cactuses (cause these are pretty much only life forms on a planet other than a few Kerbals)... TL;DR: if you'd try to make kerbal system with realistic physics it'd instantly collapse.

You went all the way to tier 5 without going to the Mun, rescuing kerbal or doing 4 contracts in a single flight? Wow, I admire your patience. I'm usually on a moon (at least in an unmanned one-way mission) by the time I go through tier 3, I'm way too impatient to grind my way to tier 5 on Kerbin alone...

There's no point deorbiting junk. Once I intentionally demolished entire space station into dozens of derbies and then put another space station on an overlapping orbit - never got any collision happening, no matter if I spent in-game weeks looking at my station in a hope something will collide or went out and spent few months at maximum time acceleration testing if collisions can occur while you are in a space center. De-orbiting junk is a waste of time in KSP. Space is huge and a risk of collision is tiny. If you'll be very lucky you might see a close fly-by. But collision is way too unlikely to bother preventing it.

Rapier, the most OP method to run SSTOs is "completely useless"? What an uninformed tread is that?!

Yes, it is. But it's far less predictable now (as obviously shape of your and how you align yourself during maneuver has a huge impact). Easy-mode way is to just save beforehand and make some re-tries until you hit the right point. Random hint - add aerobreaks and use them if you reached periapsis and see that there's still a plenty of breaking you can do.

Also doing too aggressive maneuvers while still in the atmosphere. If you still have a problem despite of being very careful - sometimes it might just be better to push above 15km with SAS on before touching controls. Yea, you'll waste some Dv, but also save a lot of time.

Eeloo. Got few probes that could easily reach it, perhaps even land there, but I just can't be bothered... there's nothing to see. If it'd have cryovolcanos, or something interesting I would be all over it, but KSP planets are just... meh... after you reach few milestones it makes zero difference where you are as there's just nothing to explore or see.

Why would you use LV-Ns for simple Duna trip? There's no reason. It can be safely reached with regular rockets.

I don't know what it has to deal with my post, but we are in a total agreement [edit] actually I suspect you think that "Didn't NovaSilisko plan to add" means "Didn't NovaSilisko plan to create a mod that adds" while in fact I meant him adding this into KSP itself, but he left the team before implementing any of this other plans.

Here's quote from 0.23 change log:

I use them very, very often. But needed be I can fly without nodes too - eg. in my current career playthrough I rescued Kerbals, made a Mun landing and Mun satellite without maneuver nodes. But nodes give you precision that you wouldn't have otherwise, so... there's no reason not to use them

Didn't NovaSilisko plan to add sort-of campaign to KSP with SSTV signals and some other stuff to discover and explore on a planets? [edit] for those who don't know: he is a former dev, probably best known for having plans to add second gas gigant into KSP along with cryovolcanos on eeloo (link)

Yea, it'd be great. Mostly for adding a difference between ice, snow, rock and sand surface of the planets. Landing on a different grounds could start to matter in other way than just slope. Sadly I think that it's yet another of these things where shortcomings of Unity Engine will make it very difficult to implement.

Good idea, +1

I'm not a big fan of locking progression to objectives. IMHO choosing your own objectives and your own flow of the game is a large part of what makes career fun. I would really hate having that cut down to much more linear progress. Tech tree does require a huge revamp and re-thinking along with contracts (I like suggestion someone gave for starting programmes - eg. Mun landing programme, Duna exploration, etc.), but really, building career around linear progression doesn't really work beyond atmospheric->suborbital->orbital flights at a very beginning.

No achievements, no steam workshop, no locking the game down to Steam, please.

I'm fine with having it sorted by something that's not related to the real world, that's why I mentioned "power" scaling, or really - whatever else as long as it makes some logical sense. And that's not the case in KSP. Here order of unlocks is next to random, often less advanced parts are unlocked after more advanced. That's why tech tree gets so many complains.