pandaman

@Warzouz summed up my thoughts nicely. The basic idea is sound, but for parts to be developed and improved within the stock game then I think there needs to be distinct versions, each with there own 'version number' and subtle appearance variations. So if the LV909 got upgraded then say an LV910 would become available and, possibly, replace it in the editors. But this could play havoc with sandbox if all the variants are available at once, it would mean a serious rejigging of how the parts are organised (though it could do with improving anyway IMO)

The game already knows which biome you are flying over for any particular body. So if Jool had a 'virtual' surface then it could possibly be done that way.

Career as an idea is great, like you I sometimes like to have goals and limitations that I haven't set for myself, but for me it's just the current implementation that puts me off. It just seems a bit disjointed, and place holder like to me. But now squad can see what the current career mode plays like over a long time for a lot of different players they can see where they think it needs work and address it over time.

Until it goes into experimentals the train is not in a suitable condition to take any advanced bookings as there is no real indication of how long it may be before the tracks are even laid.

It may not be 'realistic', but I do like the audible indication that whatever action has taken place and I'd rather the sounds we have than a generic sterile 'beep'. Maybe an on off toggle or slider specifically for 'ambient sounds in space' would do the job.

True, at the very least it would sound different to what you would hear in atmosphere.

Yes, I like the idea of this. altitude us the obvious one, but low fuel, electricity etc are all the kind of things that RL pilots would get warnings for anyway.

I just replaced my old machine out of necessity, but was planning to upgrade soon anyway. Quad Xeon w3550 (3.07 to 3.33 Ghz) 12 Gb DDR3 ram Nvidia GSX 950 graphics card 120 Gb SSD + 750 Gb HDD Starts up KSP in 30 seconds (from nearly 10 minutes before), big improvement in frame rate, and finally been able to look at 'eye candy' mods at last.

But won't those Inside the the ship hear it?

Exactly this. What's needed before any software release is reliable comprehensive reporting of issues. Hundreds, or thousands, of enthusiastic and genuinely well meaning players reporting that 'X doesn't work' is unfortunately of limited help and can often clog up the system and slow the process down. A reasonably large, but controlled group of testers that can identify issues and report effectively on what happens, and ideally what steps to take to recreate the issue, so it can be worked on more efficiently is by far the most practical way. Yes some seemingly obvious things will get missed completely, and other more unusual things may not come to light for days or weeks after release, but that can happen regardless of how many players test it.

I'd opt for for the tanker option too. You can be much more flexible in what ships you send to deliver fuel. As long as it has the same sized docking port you can send any vessels you like, and you will have a lot less shuffling about when you get there - just dock, transfer and go.

That could work I guess it would need to be per stage rather than by engine though.

That's exactly what I thought when I read it. But I suppose if the real cause can't be traced then it's better than just leaving it.

If the object is to simulate that (IRL) LF and Ox are in separate tanks, one above the other, then even if they are in the same 'outer' tank casing then the shift in CoM from top to bottom would be slower than for a single large container due to there still being a part filled tank near to the top. Would it be possible and/or practical to simulate this by not shifting a tank's CoM so much as it empties?

Yes, as an easy way to more accurately simulate what happens IRL that does seem to make sense. As well as helping reduce the 'sudden flip syndrome'.

As a option definitely.

For me the main appeal (and what I think KSP is essentially about) is building and flying my own rockets. I Don't think it would have grabbed me quite the same if I couldn't do that. That said, I can see the appeal for a less 'hands on' style of game. I don't think that will become part of the current game though.

Personally I would go for the KSP store. I've only had an issue when a new release comes out and the site has been struggling to cope with the demand for a few hours.

For me this is one of those 'makes sense and nice to have' things that can wait until dev time permits.

I thought that might be the case, but it was worth asking. Thanks very much for your replies.

Okay. I know windows 10 has a gameplay recording feature which I have played with a bit and so far it works fine. So no problem there. What I want to ask though is... Is there a way, or is there some software available, that can record the gameplay, but not the UI? So I can play as normal and record it, but not have the navball etc visible on the recorded footage even though I had it visible while playing.

S O O N Please apply your own words... Mine are often along the lines of. S**t. Oooh. Ooh. Noooo!

I guess you could just play in windowed mode if it won't play nice with your monitor .

I haven't seen it yet (since v18.3) one day it will appear! (But probably when I'm closing down in a hurry and don't see it until its too late)

Interesting point. Naturally the rewards should be low enough to make this an unattractive strategy, but I suppose it's one of those tricky 'balance' problems where there is no overall 'best' solution. However... The game knows which ship the various parts of debris come from. So it could possibly assign a science limit per ship based on original size/cost/part count or whatever maybe even adjusted on how long it's been in flight and where it's been. So If you crash your science research mission on lift off you get very little reward, but if it crashes on return from Eeloo then you may get to salvage more data. Though I guess it would be simpler to have a cross the board per part method where you get (say) 20% of the funds and 1 science point per 1000 funds original cost, so more expensive, and therefore usually more complex parts, yield more information.