pandaman

I don't disagree with you at all there. I don't really like the claw solution for surface refueling etc, but it does at least work.

So what think is suggested here is that green nodes that 'look' like they should connect, but can't because of the tree structure could automatically create a strut joint across the node without the actual strut part. I like the sound of it, but have no idea if it will work in practice. Even if the game had to generate a strut part to make it work it wouldn't be too bad. Would it be possible for the strut to be created through the node centres? That way it knows where to place it and as a bonus it would be hidden inside.

Nice work guys, I'm really looking forward to 1.1. Clamshell fairing option! Nice, though I never thought the confetti type were an issue the clamshells do look better and I'll use them. The search function looks cool, and I'm looking forward to nosing around in KSPedia too. Now all I need to do is persuade my wife to go away for a couple of weeks around the end of March

I think most of the issues with the claw were fixed. I haven't had any problems with it in 1.0.5. yet, and I've used it quite a bit.

Oh the amount of times this has been requested! ! A well needed and very useful feature. In the meantime the only stock solution is the 'claw' part.

As I said before multi player is not really my thing personally, but IF they get it to work in a way they are happy with then I see no problem with it, as long as I can still play solo offline. I can see MP working and being great fun for relatively small groups playing co-op missions or going to war with each other. I really don't envision a MMO type situation with hundreds of players, and if it can be done then thats impressive and good luck to them, I just doubt I will join in.

I think 'unstable' is possibly the wrong word as this can be interpreted to give a sense of randomness, though I struggle to find a better one. I'm not sure how easy it could be for the game to calculate or predict the size of a SOI in advance, but when using a monouvre node to get an encounter then the game knows the positions of the bodies at the time of the encounter so, I guess, it should be able to calculate the SOI boundary position at that point. Also the maximum 'safe' altitude and SOI size will not change, so can be added to the KSPedia database, any orbit in between those will be subject to disturbance at some point. When entering orbit around a body you can see from the map view where it is in its orbit around its parent so you can make a rough judgement how long you have before you risk losing stable orbit and plan accordingly.

As much as it may seem nice to have an idea what features are being seriously considered for the future the current 'system' is probably the best approach. We get regular devnotes and updates where they often tell us what they are working on, and if it hits problems and gets delayed they tell us that too. It's a fine line between building anticipation and causing disappointment and they need to be free to adjust, change, add or scrap ideas and plans as they see fit. They already involve and listen to the community and the game is where it is now and constantly improving because of that.

I continued building my lifter series ready for 1.1. I currently have 2 shuttles capable of lifting 6 and 36 tonnes to 200km orbit. And a set of 4 'B class' SSTO rockets that can reach 200km orbits with 18, 36, 80, and 120 tonnes. Next I will build multi stage 'C class' lifters for larger payloads. Their main use initally will be for launching test craft to orbit in preparation for interplanetary missions, to save me making a new lifter stage every time I want to test something.

I quite like that idea. Definitely needs an on/off toggle in save difficulty settings though. And suitable explanations. It seems to fit with how I see the 'stock' game developing, in terms of adding simple representations of real life spaceflight considerations in stock. With more complex/realistic interpretations being provided by mods.

I think that, realistically, KSP as it is, or even just a ship builder on a tablet, never mind a phone, even if possible, would be too fiddly to actually use. The 'cool novelty' factor would wear a bit thin quite soon for me if my fat fingers stopped me doing what I wanted. On the other hand, offical standalone support apps etc I could see being a viable option.

There is a flight UI size setting which may help. I played on a 22 inch 1920x1080 with the setting on tiny and it was fine for me, apart from the clock in the top left which was readable as long as I actually looked rather than just glanced. So that setting may be worth you looking at especially if you have a smaller screen.

Why would kerbals want their rockets QUIETER?

@KasperVld Sorry Kasper, yours was the first/most appropriate name I could think of quickly, hope you are the right guy to flag. I just picked up this email, On checking the forum Announcements thread I can see no sign of it. My hunch is that its at best a hoax, but potentially a dangerous nasty link thingummyjig I don't know how true or serious it is, but figured at the very least people should be made aware just in case there is an issue... Any official news /comments on this?

A long time ago, once I'd got past the basics of KSP and started planning interplanetary stuff was when I (like many others) thought a simulator to help me test stuff before committing a lot of time to the mission would be a good idea. But the more I though about it recently the more I thought that a proper 'simulator' would not be the right approach for the game. What I think is needed really are a better, more comprehensive, set of design and evaluation aids that can give us the chance to design a bit more effectively. The usual suspects being Dv and TWR info etc of course, but also simple ways of checking that stuff works as we want, like action groups working in the VAB/SPH, a 'wind Tunnel' setting that shows lift/drag arrows that can be tweaked to show the effect of different atmospheres and altitudes etc. and perhaps a 'zero G simulator' setting that allows us to check thrust balance etc and see directly how stuff is affected, without needing to do an 'actual' launch and hack gravity. The kinds of tools that would be available to help RL designers either as computer simulations or physical tests, but represented in game in an easy to use way and ideally available in the VAB/SPH environments. Some of this would, I guess, not be too difficult to implement and other bits would be much harder, but this kind of approach would be better for 'in game' IMO than a 'Hyperedit to x' type simulator. There are of course a lot higher priorities dev wise, especially at the moment, but maybe we could see things along these lines start to appear at some point.

Yeah, that's the sort of tools I have in mind. When they designed the sky crane lander for curiosity they had to do all the calculations, check 'em, check the check just in case, then just hope it worked on Mars like it was supposed to. That's the kind of design evaluation process I was thinking of. I don't think an 'accurate flight simulator' would be appropriate, but you need to be able to check concepts and run through stuff like launch and staging sequences and get basic aerodynamic evaluation etc before committing to a live launch. Just as IRL they design it on paper and work all the stuff out as best they can before even starting to build anything. I see the VAB/SPH as a sort of 'rocket design CAD package' once it's designed you check it with the evaluation tools and tweak it as needed and when happy, or just impatient, go for launch.

An in-game simulator feature has been requested many times already (including by me) to help with ship design and mission planning. Whilst I think such a feature could be helpful if done sensibly, I had a re-think on what approach would be best for the game and how it could best be implemented, so... As I see it there are two main areas that need to be covered, Design Evaluation and Test Flights. Test Flights are exactly that, a real launch designed to check out and test some aspects of the planned mission or design. As such they will very often only carry the bits needed to complete the test. A good example is the early Apollo missions, they were very much not 'Moon landing attempts' but they were vital to test and evaluate different aspects that were needed for the eventual success of Apollo 11. They were all 'Test Flights' but they were still very real flights with very real financial cost and very real risk. And I think it's this aspect that the 'Trial and Error' approach replicates quite well, no matter how good a simulator is there is still no substitute for trying it out for real. Design Evaluation is where I think a 'simulator' feature should fit, and it's probably a better name too. IRL we design probes for Mars, we calculate what we think they will behave like based on what knowledge and experience we have, but we don't 'know' if it will actually work until it gets there and either succeeds or fails. This is the role I see for a Simulator/Design Evaluation feature, it should not replace Test Flights or the need for them, or guarantee success, but should help players to ensure that the basic design has a fair chance of doing the job it was designed for before committing to an expensive and risky test flight. Effectively an in game equivalent to getting the boffins to re-check all the maths, running computer simulations and ensuring that the ship is balanced and the staging plan works as intended etc. Yes it would need sensible design aids like Dv, TWR, CoM and CoL readouts by stage during initial construction, but also just a simple facility to run a dummy launch sequence, or selected portion of the flight 'in the lab', to check that the ship itself 'works', so that when it's launched either as a test flight or full mission the risk of failure due to design oversight is reduced. Of course there are always the 'Revert' and 'Sandbox/Hyperedit' options for those that wish to use them, but for a 'No Revert Career' game this type of feature could fit in nicely and be less 'overpowered' and a bit more realistic than a 'fully accurate practice run' simulator. Thoughts, comments and alternative suggestions welcome.

That could work. However any 'official' system, by it's definition would need Squad's involvement somewhere, even if it is only giving approval and keeping a wary eye on things to protect their interests and reputation.

We currently have a 'challenges' thread that does this (sort of) where each challenge is 'monitored' by the author. I get your point, and it's not a silly idea for those who want to use it. I just don't personally see any real benefit over what already exists given the difficulty of it. There are so many combinations of mods etc out there that 'policing' a global online competition to ensure that everyone plays fair would be a monumental, if not impossible, task. Do not under estimate the power of ego, as soon as you introduce an 'official leaderboard' some people WILL cheat to get to the top.

I never had much success with the patcher/launcher so I gave up trying and do a fresh install each update. It actually worked out quicker too.

If he got his lips into the right shapes he could make some awesome tunes with that breeze

I think you will need to update etc through steam as that's where you bought it from. But once it's downloaded job done, copy it elsewhere until you need to download again.

I get this (I think). Radial symmetry rotates copies of the original around the 'core', while what the OP suggests would flip their orientation too. It's easier to see with deployed landing gear. With radial symmetry the wheels all point around the core in the same, clockwise or anticlockwise, direction that the original points in. What the OP suggests is multiple mirror 'planes' rather than just the one mirror we currently have, so with the same landing gear mirrored twice you would get 3 copies of it, one pointing the same way as the original and two more pointing the opposite way. Neat idea, I could see it coming in handy actually.

A couple of guys at work talked about it a bit and my (adult) kids mentioned it and said I'd like it. I resisted knowing I'd probably get hooked and didn't need any more temptation to 'waste my life away'. After a while I gave in to temptation and tried the v18.3 demo, got hooked, bought the full version and have happily 'wasted my life away' since.

A thought on this... Given that this feature us not in 1.1, but will be included in (presumably) the not too distant future. It sort of makes sense to prepare for it in the larger plans we may have made for 1.1 so that we don't get caught without an antenna in a future update and our critical probes no longer work. To this end, is there any current info on how the system will work, and in particular what we can do to build in preparations for it in our current plans to minimise disruption?