Sasuga

I've had this sort of thing happen to me several times: There's the prefab ship where it's a plane that you can launch a rocket from under it's middle... I was playing around with it, launched my rocket, and then the plane got deleted by the time I got the rocket into orbit. I tried it the other way around, and the rocket usually crashes before I can land the plane, or gets deleted. I strongly suspect it's due to technical issues and difficulties. However, I think it'd be really cool to be able to fly one of the craft, do whatever needs to be done with it (either put it into orbit or land it, whatever), and then rewind time and fly the other craft while the first craft goes through the motions that I just did with it. Essentially controlling both craft in-game simultaneously, but asynchronously-simultaneously. - Crashing into the 'first craft' with the 'second craft' would break the pre-programmed path it would take from the time I flew it beforehand, but other than that, if the crafts don't interfere with each other, I can then fly my rocket up into orbit while my jet lands itself, because I already landed it (and then rewound and am now flying the rocket). Optionally, if I could stick a parachute and a sensor or AI module onto something, and then if it's going to be deleted, it gets counted as fully recovered instead. It requires the cost and weight of the parachute, as well as the cost and weight of tiny sensor(s) that would trigger the opening of those parachutes. Another optionally, an advanced enough onboard computer or experienced enough Kerbal should be able to land a craft without me. I get that the style of the game is that we pilot the craft, not MechJeb (nice mod! that I don't use) but, if I'm piloting a craft... why not (at least with an experienced enough Kerbal or onboard computer) be able to assume the craft lands itself instead of losing it? - I mean, if the craft has to be deleted... Make it an upgrade that we don't lose (and the crew on board) it when it's deleted?

I would like to be able to add objects symmetrically, and then have them each on a different control group. So, if I add three experiment-instruments around a ship, I can do it easily and have them properly balanced around the ship, and each on a different action group. One person's 'yes,' and another person's 'no' in a video game can be the developer's on/off option button in a menu.

I would like to see, optionally, a hybrid between KSP1's Science Mode and Career Mode. Basically what KSP1 Science Mode is except with a money-budget as well. In this option, players wouldn't have to manage a base-budget, reputation, or the base-upgrades and such. Players would be assigned missions, and I like the idea of a running money budget where money saved on a mission gets carried and added into the next, while others might like it where coming in under budget doesn't add any benefit to the next mission budget (but perhaps increases the players score/reputation. - I don't like managing reputation for a base, but perhaps the player has a reputation with KSP. Fail too many missions and you lose? Succeed and get a score. Succeed while coming in way under budget, and get a high score!) I like being able to unlock things in the tech tree, and the tech tree doesn't change. I also like the idea of an optional mode where the tech tree unlocks randomly, making it so that I don't get to decide how the technology advances and have to work with what I get. - There would need to be a bit of logic to it so the missions be accomplished, or at least the missions that get assigned would need to be assigned based on what is unlocked. I also think it'd be neat if we had to test things before they got unlocked, and that while testing items had a chance or higher chance of failure. Having to run each piece of equipment through it's paces before it's unlocked completely would be interesting. Or perhaps, a mode where things have a chance of failure, but the more a player uses them, the lower the chance of failure for that type of item becomes. The more you use it, the more reliable it becomes and more perfected. It'd be fun to have a mode where you can only play through camera angles when there's no Kerbal on board. Kind of like how you can play with complete loss of control on probes in KSP1, partial loss, or no loss. There could be a step-further hardcore mode, where it's like that and then when a Kerbal is on board, they're basically just another camera. Like first person mode that already exists in KSP1, except in this hardcore mode you have to use it or the other cameras you've attached. I think I'd like a red color, so maybe color adjustable. But great idea! Does the mod folder in KSP1 even work? So many mods say to use the main KSP folder and the ones that install themselves put themselves in the main folder.

Then why do they not show up as being archived unless I accept them first?

SEARCHED FORUMS DISCLAIMER: I tried searching the forums to see if this was covered already, too many items come up, and none of the ones I could see answered this for me. I'm sure if I knew the exact search term, if it already exists, I could find it. So forgive me if this has been answered, but I really want to know. =-=-=-= TOPIC QUESTION: I love that KSP got missions, but I've always disliked having to go to the mission control and picking up Milestone missions (and I'm not the only one). [I'm still not sure why it's still that way.] I can't count how many times I've accidentally gone over a milestone I knew was there, but forgot to take it, and then I feel my whole run/game is ruined. (Like just this weekend, playing in a Hardcore mode, my brain was on auto-pilot, and I went into orbit, instead of just escaping the atmosphere, and I missed the milestone.) New players might collect data without ever getting the mission. Experienced players might not know some milestone missions exist and jump right over them. I see this as a bit of a problem in a few ways. New players should be rewarded with the milestones in career mode. And experienced players like me, like to keep track and just see them all, like a list of accomplishments. It's nice to be able to look back at a save and see the various missions I've done, and see that progress. And to find out after playing the game for months or years that I missed some that I could have taken... it's hard to explain why that's stressful, maybe I'm just a completionism or perfectionist, but it actually kinda is stressful. A little bit of that FOMO, except the missing-out already happened. It's like paying buying a game on Steam to only find out later it was free on Humble Bundle or Epic, or something. I really wish the Dev's would change it so that Milestone Missions were automatic and didn't take up slots in the Mission Control, for KSP1. Will KSP2 be different or work like KSP1 where I have to OCD check the Mission Control all the time so I don't miss any?

I'm curious as well, but even if it's not "very popular" I'm sure it's going to only gain popularity. As far as fixing the issue, it's not a Window's Bug, it's a feature. And game developers, game engines, are not taking the header into account. It's not nearly as serious, but a little bit like forgetting most buildings don't have a 13th floor when you're about to bungie-jump.

I use multiple monitors, and playing games in Fullscreen mode can cause issues when trying to switch screens on my system. I want to tell Pandora to skip, or hit next on a YouTube video, respond to a private message in Discord, or whatever, and things go wonky with a lot of games in full-screen mode. I've been using multiple-monitors for many years now, and almost everyone I know uses multiple-monitors. It's anecdotal for me, but I suspect that multi-monitor is very popular and becoming the norm if it isn't already. There are lots of games that handled Windowed-Mode very well, they usually are ones that don't care what size the window is set to, I can click the little "Full-Screen" button (not true full screen) between the little line for minimize and the 'X' for close, and they pop into filling the entire screen up, and they generally work really well. Not always, but most. Then there's another category, that Kerbal Space Program falls into, which is to have fixed sizes for me to choose from. I don't know why a fixed size is necessary in a game like Kerbal, or many of the others, but they have it. The problem is, they don't account for the Window-Head, or Banner at the top of the window, in Windows. So, if I set them to 1920x1080, for example, on a 1920x1080 screen, the foot of the window disappears of the screen. On Kerbal this hides the YAW, The names of my passengers, the HDG, and other things. In some games, it just hides picture real-estate, but in other games like Kerbal, it actually hides information. I'd recommend getting rid of fixed window sizes if possible, or making an option that allows a player to set the window size to anything they want it to be in windowed mode, and leave the fixed sizes in for whoever might want them (I can't imagine how, but I suspect someone likes them fixed or they wouldn't exist as an option). Either way, I'd appreciate it if you-folks took Window's window-heads into account in the future, with all games, as well as fixed it for KSP. =-=-=-= I'm aware of programs that exist to make games borderless windowed, and some games even come with that as an option. Some games and programs don't play nice with that extra program for me, and I feel game companies should have figured this out by now and I shouldn't be required to run a third-party software for it. Also, not all games function well in borderless-windowed mode that come with it as an option. I'm not looking for feedback from general forum users, I'm offering a suggestion and feedback of my own to the current developers of KSP and KSP2. Thank you

I think this would be cool if it can be implemented into the game somehow.

I think it would be neat to have the game treat version numbers of a craft differently (as a separate string) than the name, and suggest/pre-fill the version numbers for us. So, my first craft might be the KSP-1, and the second the KSP-2... And the game/program be smart enough to increment the number from the last craft for us. So if I choose My-1, and My-2, instead, it'd realize the next one was My-3.... or if i went KSP-001, it'd know the next one was 002, and eventually it'd be KSP-011, and not KSP-0011.

I would like to be able to sort craft by the date it was created, either in game-date, or out of game-date. I'm working on naming conventions for my craft right now, but it would be nice to have the list from oldest to newest, or newest to oldest designed when loading a craft.Insert image from URL

Perhaps players could choose from the science tree what part they'd like to begin testing on next. Then, do the series of tests required to unlock it before it becomes standard-available. And while the testing process should be somewhat standard and predictable, each part's testing could be slightly different based on its purpose and specialization. I noticed SpaceX in real life tested their heat shielding with just a tiny, handful of heat-shield-cells on one of their regular resupply of the ISS launches. Hauling parts into space and back can be a pain, but its what the missions already ask us to do, and its what we'd be signing up for if we choose this play-style. Another idea would be parts-failures. Perhaps, all parts could have a failure rate, and the more they're tested and used, the more the failure rate could be decreased. So, the more we use a part, the more its perfected.

I'm playing the career mode on a custom, very hard difficulty, and am getting missions to test parts. A thought just struck me. What if, instead of unlocking parts through purely science points and money, but unlocking them through a testing process. The parts would become available as they do now for missions, however the missions will be non-optional (which by the way, is like I believe the milestones should be. I've been begging for milestones to be standard missions that aren't accepted, but given, ever since the new mission system was added). Taking the parts outside of a broad testing area would cause the experiment to fail, and perhaps the part to fail. So, if the mission requires that a part be tested between 10,000 and 20,000, but the part it taking up to 70,000 instead, the part could simply stop working, "fail," as it had not been properly tested and thus had failures shaking and fixed out of it. I of course recommend this only as an optional play mode, not something to be forced upon everyone. And before people recommend I just don't unlock a part until I've tested it now: 1. I'm already doing that. And 2, I'm not guaranteed to get all tests. Like, test at this altitude, then the next, then the next, and at splashdown, etc. I feel each part should go through a standard series of tests in this play-style, which one is not guaranteed to get, as best I can tell, in the current style.

I am so excited about being able to colonize planets in the stock game. I love the challenge of flying a hydroponics and devices to melt ice into oxygen, water, and fuel, etc. I've been watching the National Geographic series, "Mars" and its making me more excited about Kerbal 2. I just hope the resource management is more like, "You have to land a hydroponics, an ice-melter, a device that purifies the water, a device that turns that water into breathable air and fuel, a habitat, (and more!) and a device to provide power for it all, to get a certain number of SNACKS per/time. Or something like. I really hope they don't forget about sandbox mod for people who want that, or a watered down career mode that doesn't require resource management for those who want to play Kerbal 1 Career Mode in Kerbal 2's new graphics and parts and such. Personally, I'm looking forward to the challenge of getting heavy payloads to distant planets to colonize them, but I know a lot of people love Kerbal for just chilling and mild-challenges. Oh, and I hope they have a career mode where milestones are automatic, and don't require me to check into the mission room to take them.

I hope we can do "railgun," "magnet acceleration," or "Gauss" launches. Super advanced tech to put into orbit/create a space elevator would be cool. I hope it has a satisfying resource requirements, like the Kerbal Snacks mod. Or perhaps an 'advanced resources' option that requires managing food, water, oxygen, etc. However, I feel for standard gameplay the 'snacks' idea/mod is great. Although, I might have the kerbals actually die without their snacks (unlike the mod, which just lowers rep)... at least, as another option. I hope there will be reasons for the bases we're seeing aside from purely our own thing, though sandbox mode is awesome! I hope that the mile-stone missions will not eat up space in our missions, and will be both automatically taken/queued, and awarded, while other missions are treated separately. I think playing where you have to manage supply chains would be fun (for me)... but perhaps setup the ability for mission control & AI to handle some of the supply runs, after they become routine for certain vessels and stations. The money gets spent for them, the launches happen, and every now and then a problem arises and I as the player have to deal with that problem. For that matter, I hope they do parts failures... and, part of research would be to reduce failure rates and come up with redundancies. I know in real life that Aerospikes are not practical because of the level of complexity they have, and the higher the level of complexity the more likely something will break (or sooner something will break). While in Kerbal Aeorspikes are fricken awesome because we don't have to worry about complexity and parts failure. There are mods that add in random failures, but I'd like to see parts failure as part of stock KSP2. (And, of course, the every present, menu option to broadly adjust failure rates or turn them off.) However, with enough research, we could (I hope) reach sci-fi levels of failure rates, where things that are impractical in reality and maybe to start out in Kerbal, given enough research points and time, the failure rate on an Aerospike or any engine can be reduced to nearly zero. (However, never actually zero on 'standard difficulty' IMO). So, that an aerospike can become awesome with a 0.001% chance of failure or happening. Wear and tear. Anther thing about real life SSTO is wear and tear. Rockets, Airplanes, Jets, Automobiles, everything in real life requires maintenance. Maintenance takes time and money, takes resources and man power. I love making SSTOs in Kerbal and watching YouTube videos of other people's SSTO AND BEYOND! Massive cruise liner ships taking tons of kerbals to Duna and such SSTO. I think its great that we can do that... however, I think it should be difficult to create such things in standard play, especially early on, as they'd require maintenance. And, then why maintain something when a newer model might be better? I'm not saying make it so SSTOs are horrible and never used. I'm saying, I hope they become a late-game thing, as opposed to an early-mid-game that they seem to be now.

I'm watching the National Geographic, Mars, TV Show right now. In the third episode, a man says that we've only mapped 3% of Mars' surface, and that its difficult with the level of resolution we're mapping it with to really know anything about Mars. I haven't done it too much in Kerbal, but it seems we can get a full planet scan for resources with a single satellite in Kerbal. I think it would be neat to require more than a single satalite to get 'serious data' from a planet in Kerbal 2. Perhaps requiring at least three satellites in an equally spaced orbit or something to get a full unlock. I'm not saying that a single satellite shouldn't yield any data, and in fact perhaps a single satellite could eventually map an entire planet with the right orbit (over the poles perhaps?) and enough time. I'm just saying, I'd like to see it be a bit more difficult for that full surface information via satellite that we're able to get right now with only one sat. I'm sorry my technical jargon probably isn't 100%, or even 50%. I hope I've been able to express my idea well enough to be understood.

Kerbal Alarm Clock be added, stock. It could be part of the Tracking Station in Career even.

Kerbal Alarm Clock

I'd very much like to be able to put multiple missions across different monitors, then again a map-view and the current mission I'm on. I haven't tried that plug-in (it requires multiple installs, not something I feel like doing). I'm finding air-breaking very annoying, since I can't leave the vessel 'alone' (at least not for any length of time) as it's in atmo, or going through atmo (the whole air part of air-breaking) and since I messed up and ran out of fuel, I've been waiting (so far) about 20-in-game days (and probably have 10 or 20 more to go). I can't reverse the launch as I've closed the game and re-opened it, so I'm stuck baby-sitting this single mission (more or less) while I wait for it to descend. While I don't PLAN on missions taking this long in the future, it's entirely possible I'll mess up again and they will. So... I thought it'd be nice to be running another mission while keeping an eye on this one, but I don't want to risk losing this ship or have it not lose altitude or whatever happens when I leave it alone.... I could (and have) played other games while waiting, watched TV shows, etc. But, I really want to play KSP and not risk losing this ship or having it stay in orbit forever, neither is desirable. So, multi-screen for multi-missions?

It shouldn't matter, but it's always bugged me that temperature, goo, and other data isn't different during reentry. There are heat-effects flying past the ship, but the temp is the same as if there wasn't? I'd like to see science-data added for that, for educational purposes. I know Kerbal isn't a 100% realistic simulation, but just like parachutes don't work on the Mun, the fact that reentry is HOT could be something kerbals and people alike could learn! Thanks for reading, thanks for making the game!

When I go to select a build, I get a huge list of builds. I can delete them, but I actually wish to keep them so I can look back at them to see a history of how my builds progressed. It would be nice if I could archive my builds with-in a save its self, so that I can store these builds for Posterity. I'm sure there are ways to share builds across saves, especially with mods, and with that I'm sure there's some way I can back up the builds and clean up my "Select a craft to load" list, but again, I'd like to be able to archive in the game its self, because different saves have different technology advancements, and some games I go airplanes first and try to do single stages to orbits, others I try to do stuff with as many solid boosters as possible, others I use only liquid boosters, and others are more 'conventional' doing whatever I feel is needed at the time. - I'd like to be able to look through the history of a save and watch as my Mun Lander Mk1 becomes a Mun Lander Mk42. For that matter, it would be nice to have a Museum building that can be purchased and upgraded, and perhaps display the various craft of my choosing in different places and be able to load the museum up and look at them. It might require some magic, maybe baking the skin of the ships and removing all the parts so it is just a 3D mesh, maybe even without any collision, in order to allow for faster-enough loading and rendering, but that would be neat! The way I imagine it, I'd click on the craft in in the 'Select craft to load' menu, and down where it says Delete / Cancel / Load, there could be an extra button that says "Archive" and then it just stores it in another tab called "Archive" - There could even maybe be seperate VAB and SPH archives, I could see people wanting that, I'd be happy with just another "Archive" tab. Then, it of course gets removed from the VAB or SPH list, so that only the most modern/current builds are in the list and I don't have to scroll through hundreds of builds to find the one I want, nor delete my old builds that I want to save for posterity. Thanks Guys! you've done a great job in creating this game, I'm jealous and love playing it. Thanks for reading my suggestion, Sasuga twitch.tv/sasugatv

How does the game determine when a part breaks? ... Can the game do a calculation that's 10 minutes ahead and then determine if a part would have broken with-in those 10 minutes? Or does it have to go step-by-step to figure it out in real time? Because, calculating acceleration, fuel-loss (and thus acceleration), and velocity, and all that 10 minutes ahead or whatever is just math. Can the game recognize if the ship would have broken in that time though? Can it jump to 10 minutes and see if the ship is breaking at 10 minutes, and if its not breaking at 10 minutes would it be safe to assume it wouldn't have broke at 5 minutes either, or is that an incorrect assumption? Things like eclipses blocking sunlight is also calculable.

I think it would be nice to be able to transfer crew from one part of a vehicle to another part of a vehicle, if the two parts are directly connected together via a medium or large clampotron, without EVA.

Most new players aren't aware of this fact without doing research. Most players who are aware of this fact aren't going to make the effort to stay on Kerbin. Personally, I love visiting other planets so I'm going to do so. The contracts will get people to visit other planets. If people want to play 'science mode' and never leave Kerbin, that's their thing... I say let them. Doesn't hurt me any. No one says you should go collecting all the science that way.

I disagree with the idea that they should be combined. Each impact was caused by a different object striking the mun. Each strike is different, and by studying each impact the Kerbals can (attempt to) determine what struck the mun. Also, I like having lots of different bioms. I didn't quite read the rest of the message, but I think that having a different contract for each biom would be awesome. There should be a contract to take a surface sample from each crater. The twin craters should actually be split into twin one and twin two (or something) and then have a contract to bring back a surface sample from each of them.

I'm a streamer, and I think it would be fun to have some Kerbal Gestures for when out on EVA. Things like: Thumbs Up; Touchdown Dance; Maybe an RCS assisted back flip, and whatever else Squad-ies and perhaps people here in the forums could come up with. Now, I'm sure we can get a few hundred (at least) recommendations here in this forum thread, but really a few different celebratory gestures (so it wouldn't be the same one all the time) would be cool. When I started this post, I was thinking of something like the number keypad to pick the different gestures, and something like that would be really cool... However, just a random gesture or one related to Courage and Stupidity would be neat (but then I suppose, if one didn't change Kerbals, the gesture wouldn't change ... Keypad would probably be better.) Anyway, thanks for reading!