pandaman

Depending on how you look at it, In effect the stock system does let you 'reuse' parts. You get cash credited for recovered parts which then pays for the next one so it's effectively 'free'. So, in game play terms, it's the same as using the same one again without the added complexity of storage and having multiple places to get parts from. What some of the recovery mods do is calculate whether or not dropped stages would reach the ground safely if they leave physics range (and would normally get deleted automatically), by taking into account what parachutes etc ate fitted, and give you credit for them as if they were recovered normally.

Yes, more flexible sorting of the tracking station flights would be a good thing. A 'folder' type system (as has been mention several time before) would IMHO be a good solution. Then we could arrange things exactly how we want and show/hide flights by folders as required.

I'm not a programmer either so I don't actually 'know' how much work is involved, but it isn't just 'making new parts' (which I guess is relatively straightforward). It's the other stuff that needs programming in order to make it actually work in a meaningful way that I think could be the difficult part.

I'm not keen on the idea of an overall 'play through story/campaign mode' similar to what we get with CoD etc. (If that's why the OP is suggesting) as I think that could just be too limiting. But I can see the value of a few short story type 'sets' of connected missions as linked tutorials.

Not a bad idea, I quite like that. The problem I can see with having the mark on the docking port part is that it may be difficult to get them lined up properly (or easy to forget to do) when building the ship, especially if you are building a ship that you want to dock with one already in orbit and can't remember where your mark was. One workaround is to add something like a light (which will also help you to see when you try to dock in the dark) to your ships which can serve as alignment markers. You can add two lights to each ship to maintain symmetry and use the right click menu to change the colours, so red could be up and green down.

The tutorials definitely need to cover all the UI features and controls (how to'use' the game as KSK put it) as well as covering the settings menus. But I think some basic guides should also be included that cover things like how to reach orbit, dock, land etc for those who want them. These things can be quite difficult and frustrating for new players and a 'nudge' in the right direction can do no harm. Coupled with well thought out tutorial scenarios that cover these aspects in more detail.

As a basic concept I like this (a sort of customisable science lab). I'm still not convinced about the overall value of interactive IVA due to the potential difficulty to implement etc. And whether it would be worth the time to develop for what it could give to the game overall, but that doesn't stop your idea being in essence a good one.

I don't see any real point in an 'app' version of the forum. I just have a shortcut/bookmark on my phone home screen (tap icon - forum opens) no different to an app launcher for the same thing. I still need Internet access to use the forum whether there is an app or not. As for offline 'app' versions of some of the calculation tools, like olex.biz etc, then yes please. But I don't see any real benefit from integrating them into a forum app, better off as self contained smaller apps IMHO. Edit... And yes I'd willingly pay a reasonable amount for that type of thing. In fact I'd rather 'buy' than 'donate'.

Hi Diandriux, welcome to the forums. I guess you mean thermals and rising air currents to allow you to fly gliders 'properly'. I'm not a mod maker either, so sorry, but I can't help you on that score. Although it's definitelty not something I'd want as a stock feature, I can see why you (as a glider pilot) would enjoy this as a mod. To me it seems like it could be quite difficult to get it reasonably relistic, but it may be worth you contacting the author of the FAR (Ferram Aerospace Research) mod. He seems to know his stuff, so at he may be able to give you an idea of whether it could be a viable possibility and how difficult it may be.

Definitely not very high on the priority list, but some sort of brief 'history' behind the other (apparently) kerbal made sites would be a nice touch. Not sure about the monoliths and crashed ufos etc though, I think they may be best just left a mystery

Yes. There was a discussion about this almost immediately after 1.0.5 came out. I'd support a universal 'kerbals automatically appearing from the nearest available exit' solution, rather than a 'side door' on the mk1 crew cabin. Apart from the fact that long row of doors on the side of a small plane would look a bit silly, it automatically covers cases where exits are blocked by a players ship design.

Well done, that feeling of success when you do that kind of thing for the first time is just awesome. It's one of the thing that make this game so cool. I tried the 'get out and push' technique once, but I couldn't get him in the right position so gave up. Then he couldn't get back in his seat before the lander hit the atmosphere again, but he just had enough propellant to put him in a safe (40 X 140) Duna orbit though. Luckily it was a multi ship mission and I was able pick him up and bring him home.

Sorry, can't give you an 'answer' as such, but for starters have you tried it both with and without passengers to see if that makes a difference? This kind of detail may just help the devs track the issue down and make it easier to fix any bugs. I had a similar issue with the ion engines a few versions back, it even seemed to cause lag in the VAB.

Yes, agreed the WNTS list needs updating. Whilst the OP's suggestion for a simple LF system is a fair one. It has been suggested many times already and also discussed fairly recently. So, might I suggest that, as well as a list of mods, the WNTS list also has a list and links to threads that cover the items in it. This would allow those with suggestions and ideas to easily check out previous discussions on the subject and post in the relevant existing threads.

I struggle a bit with the rationale behind the rescue contracts. Out of the blue some random dude gets himself stuck in orbit, for no apparent reason. Surely if another agency was operating you would know about it, and when they launch stuff, even if it's beyond your current capabilities. And if he/she needs rescuing then they need rescuing NOW, not in a few months when you develop the tech to do it. The OP's suggestion does address some of this. I like the idea that they give a great opportunity to learn rendezvous etc so they serve a valuable purpose. Maybe a rescue should be exactly that, get the poor soul home in 2 days or he dies or maybe the agency that put him there gets him. No profit, but lots of rep. And the current 'rescue' contracts would possibly be better re-purposed as 'go fetch that satellite you put up last month' or 'a small asteriod has got captured in orbit please retrieve it'. They serve exactly the same purpose as rescue contracts, but make a lot more sense.

Actually no, that was just an example of the type of thing it could be used for. But I have had a few cases, with smaller probes, and flags, where it would have been handy to be able to do it. I do realize that its not a trivial task, and that all the orbital info etc would need to be copied across somehow. I wouldn't expect it to work out the exact position the ship would be in at the 'new' time, but put it in it's current position and inclination etc relative to the body it is orbiting. I guess it could be easier for stuff that is landed, but still a fair bit of data. I'm thinking along the lines of - copy it from one save and 'hyperedit' in to a new one, by maybe selecting it in the tracking station select the 'copy to hyperspace (or whatever)' option then opening a new save and paste in to into the tracking station there. Rather than the inherently risky 'mucking about with the persistent file' option. This is very much a 'that may be useful, is it feasible?' semi-hypothethical suggestion, to maybe open up a discussion, rather than being a full on request. And thanks for the replies and suggestions, very much appreciated. Cheers

Now that's just evil . I see a challenge... Sink through the ice, circumnavigate under the ice skin and get back out through the same hole (if it's not frozen over by the time you get there).

Hi LemonSplatter, welcome to the forums. I think customisable interiors, and being able to float around inside 'cause it's cool' (nice though it would be) would be a HUGE amount of work for no real gameplay benefit. Maybe a couple of interior options for some modules, such as a horizontal and vertical layout for the lab would be a nice touch though, and if we could activate some experiments etc from inside then yes I can see a gameplay reason for it too. Being able to apply different colour schemes to ships would be a nice feature that I'd like to see too (I think there is a mod that does this), but it wouldn't have much impact on actual gameplay so, depending on how easy it is to implement, may not be a good use of devs time at the moment.

I just voted option 2- 'yes, but toggle'. Because if it is included I'd just like the option to be able to turn it off if I want to. This is one of those things that to me won't really make any difference whether it's there or not.

Yes, that piece of advice is very out of date. The advice given by others above is right, watch film of actual launches if you can, if it's from the right angle you will see the curve towards horizontal start as soon as they clear the launch tower. But above all, enjoy learning and playing this great game.

On several occasions I would have found it handy to be able to transfer or copy a flight or flights from one save to another. I know I can build a ship and copy the craft file into another save easily enough, but that's not what I'm suggesting. Example... Say I have 2 saves, one save where I was experimenting for fun and finished up with (among a lot of other stuff) a pretty cool mining operation and refueling station around Minmus, and another save for my Jool expedition, for which I have several probes already in the Jool system. I realise that my Jool mission could take advantage of my Minmus refueling station, but it can't because it exists in an alternate reality. If i could copy the Minmus stuff into the Jool save (or vice-versa) then I could avoid needing to duplicate a lot of work I'd already done. Ok... IRL space agencies, like NASA, have lots of different missions and flights on the go at any one time, some may be related to some others and some not. But say NASA decided (or was ordered) to re-purpose one of its cluster of weather satellites for 'other purposes'? Easy, after filling in the relevant documentation, they just hand over control to the guy in the secret 'other purposes office'. Now in KSP I can't do that, because the 'other purposes office' is effectively in a different dimension. So. A way to copy individual flights to other saves and/or merge two saves into one could be quite handy in circumstances like this. Obviously, there would need to be some 'rules' that deal with time differences etc as no two saves will be at the same point in time, but is it a viable option and does anyone else think it could be useful?

Did YOU test it (in orbit) before sending it all the way to the Mun? I've done that kind of stuff myself too, several times, annoying as hell, but all my own fault. There are many reasons why there were multiple Apollo missions before the 'big one', and that is an example of an obvious one - to make sure stuff works as intended. Success is great, but failure is a much better teacher.

A thought... IRL stuff breaks unexpectedly, so the design solution is to build in backup/duplicate/redundant systems for the critical stuff. So far the only way to do this in KSP is duplicate the part... 2 probe cores instead of one. Twice as many fuel lines etc. Which increases mass and part count a lot. Perhaps a work around could be included, such as - pay more funds, and in proportion to how much extra you invest, get a slightly heavier part that gets 'multiple lives' or a reduced chance of failure.

The basic idea here is that each UI feature has it's own independent window(s) that can be collapsed and/or moved around the screen as the player wishes. Eg. The Staging display (probably not the best example to use admittedly) is locked to the left side of the screen, and can take up the whole height sometimes. If I could collapse it so that it does not obscure the view and expand it when I want to check it and/or move it across to the right side so I can still see it without it blocking my view of the landing site. This principle could be applied to all flight UI features, and probably the editors too for standardisation. An added bonus would be for second monitors (if enabled) where the UI windows could be dragged across to it, off the main screen, but still fully visible.

I'd love to see a better experience and training/skills system implemented. Exactly in what form I don't really know, though there are many good and interesting suggestions on here. One thing that does concern me a little is the danger of it being too detailed on an individual kerbal level. I really like the idea of each kerbal having their own skillset and specialities, it makes training them more worthwhile and relevant, crew selection would be a more important part of mission planning too, and players would have more investment/attachment to individuals which would increase immersion. But I don't want to be running a kerbal character RPG rather than a space program.