pandaman

An old one, often mentioned, but repeating it here... A 'folder' system for organising flights in the tracking station. And the same thing for organising ships in the editors.

Well, although Jool has no physical surface that can be landed on the upper atmosphere of is essentially no different to any other planet so you can use it for aerobraking (if you get it right) just like any other. And of course orbiting above the atmosphere is no different to anywhere else. But no you won't be able to fly 'through' the planet, as you discovered. Hope this helps.

As a concept it sounds fine, until you realise that the big issue with improving the specifications of a particular part as the game progresses is that there is no constant... The LV 909 in thge VAB will perform differently to the one on the ship in orbit, and to mine, so ship comparisons and sharing will be all over the place. The only way I can see this working realistically is by creating successive 'models' of the same part with a slight graphic change for a visual clue and it replacing earlier versions in the editors. Which I don't think is a very practical solution. The current tech tree system, although not perfect, does in effect allow you to use your experience, by collecting and spending science, to develop newer and better equipment.

Yes please, these kinds of tools in stock would be a very good addition. KAC is great for reminders of transfer windows, but a 'pre planner' would be jolly useful.

The only thing on your list that I think is out of place is 'another solar system'. If you meant as a second solar system that needs interstellar travel to get there then I can't see that ever being a standard stock feature as its a bit out of scope. Different or alternative versions of the 'single' system we have would be an interesting thing to have at some point, but again I think unlikely to be a stock option for a very long time, if ever. Realistically this is an add-on thing. I think an expansion of the current solar system by enhancing what's already there and adding new planets and moons could be a realistic possibility with the advent of 64bit in v1.1 though. Though I don't expect it to happen immediately by any means.

Apologies if you already know this, but Jool is KSP's version of Jupiter, so it's a gas giant without a proper 'surface' and therefore it's not possible to actually land on it. What happened to your ship is perfectly normal for Jool. All of Jool's moons can be explored though, and each provide different and interesting challenges.

I tend to think that the whole XP system could do with a hit of a rewrite. A lot of good ideas are suggested above, but here's my 2c... As an easy reference for how skilled an individual is then the 'star' method currently is quite good. I do think that 'multi disciplined' crew should be a thing though. I think experience should be gained by not only doing new stuff, similar to how it is now, but also at a slower, decreasing, rate by doing the same stuff repeatedly. An example of this would be how RL pilots log their hours, more hours equals more experience. Some form of on the ground training in exchange for funds and time makes sense too.

This would make building stuff on other planets a lot easier, no mucking about mining for raw materials.

As a basic game play mechanic I'm not in favour of 'random failure' in any form. But as an optional 'advanced' difficulty setting along the lines suggested then I can see a place for it.

Ah yes... I missed that bit... A way to 'flip' the inline decouplers in the editors could be a handy though. I get what the OP is saying about the left over bits of radial decouplers leaving funny looking lugs too, and yes as the OP suggested, a 'flip' option could be useful anyway, and not just for aesthetics. I'm not near my PC just now so can't check, but don't the pylon type attachment points behave like the OP wants, in that the load falls off and the pylon stays on the vessel?

I'd certainly be in favour of most things on the list in some form. Not sure about 'slow time though'. And increasing the magnet strength on docking ports feels too much like changing the laws of physics, but a way to improve docking alignment makes sense.

Don't they have arrows which point towards to bit that flies off anyway? I'm not sure about having them togglable in flight, but in the editors would be useful especially for when you want to reconfigure an existing craft.

This could be a very intetesting addition, effectively 'biomes' in open and interplanetary space, I like that idea.

Firstly, my apologies for not reading every post in this thread fully, so if I'm repeating others' comments then credit to you for thinking of it first. So. .. Whilst I do understand the frustrations of every new update breaking something, however small, what's the alternative? Squad, IMO, are absolutely right to tweak and re-balance parameters and physics calculation and add or change parts etc. to fix what they consider to be faults or to make things work better as a game. Inevitably this can, and does, mean that stuff already launched will behave differently to what it did originally and may fail as a result, so yes I get why that's frustrating, but without the changes the game could not improve. A necessary evil.

Exactly this. And if you want to get whatever you built to the sea to you have to drive it the full length of the runway. Additional runways at different angle would be handy for the same reasons.

Thank again 5th. This week's seemed a bit more informative.

A fairly simple idea... When launching from the runway we get the option to launch from either end. Even if the default when launching from the SPH remains the same, I can't see it being too difficult to program a change into the space centre view so that we click on end of the runway we want to launch from. The same 'trick' could also be used to select the slipway into the water if they choose to add one. (Hint, Hint)

Some great ideas for different types of buildings on here. I'm not sure that the ability to place the buildings where we want within the compound would be of enough benefit to be worth the effort to program though. I think having set buildings always in the same set places works fine for gameplay.

Originally the Asteroid Day parts were released as an 'official mod' which, I think, was the right thing to do at the time. But with them being essentially just more stock parts are they likely to be integrated into stock with 1.1? I know when it was originally released it was suggested on the forum that they become stock at some point. Any thoughts from the community or comments from the devs?

Essentially a very good idea, but risky. As suggested above a 'group select' would be a far safer option as it could be all too easy to 'Recover All' and then realise that your polar science base just got deleted.

England here. Not going to add a K in front as it sounds like King Gland if I do.

Interesting idea. I'm not sure about removing hatches from existing parts, but a new 'airlock' part that can be surface attached could be quite handy.

Yeah, KSP is noted for it's learning cliff. I was grateful for some you tube tutorials (Scott Manley mostly) as it gave me some rope to help me climb it. I would have got there without, but it would have taken much longer. Whatever route or methods you use to climb the cliff it is worth it.

I'll second that, although it's not the first time it's been mentioned. Hopefully it will get addressed in the next update. Another very good, and more versatile, solution that was proposed (can't was remember who by) was to have kerbals exit from the nearest avaliable hatch. And when boarding the 'crew transfer' dialogue opens up so they can be seated where you like.

Not a bad idea, something along these lines could be a useful tool. From a design point of view this kind of aid is not vastly different to the CoM and CoL indicators, so why not? Even if it's only calibrated for Kerbins oceans so you need to guess what it will do on Eve or Laythe.