Tyko

Totally agree...you can really get away with one for most missions. I include an interplanetary relay on my initial survey sat and with a little planning you can land anywhere on the planet with just that. You just have to wait until that high orbit relay sat has a field of view onto the landing site. If I'm planning a bunch of landings I'll send a single launch with 3 satellites and place them in an equatorial equilateral triangle and then I have 99%(ish) coverage.

Agreed. You need 4 sats - One high power interplanetary relay in high polar orbit and 3 lower power relays on the equatorial plane, same altitude, set at 120 degree intervals. If you want to be REALLY thorough you could have 3 high polar in the same plane at 120 degree intervals - this would ensure coverage of craters at the poles and those brief moments when a single high polar relay might by occluded by the planet it's orbiting.

Kind of cool, but... 1) the game would need a part failure system which it doesn't have and 2) In most cases launches are just delayed during inclement weather which means hitting the "advance a day forward" button a couple times til the weather clears - not really much fun. It would be interesting to see it added to the Mission Planner because MP does have a failure system and the mission designer can give reasons why you can't delay - rescue missions, pressure from leadership, etc.

My apologies for misreading your intent...I removed your quote from my previous post. Thanks for pointing that out

Isn't this because Kopernicus isn't updated?

Ven's Stock Revamp has a 1.25m Docking Port with integrated chutes too.

The only way I see this working is if Squad comes up with a way to link up to SpaceDock in the same way CKAN does so that mod makers only have to post once. AND (big AND) takes on all troubleshooting related to Workshop installs. If this happened, then adding it wouldn't impact mod makers. Let's consider for a second what happens if @linuxgurugamer or @Galileo or @Beale or @CobaltWolf or any of the other amazing mod contributors says "F it!" and just quits posting mods because Squad flubs it and buries modders in more work. Galileo has already said his team is getting burned out. LGG wasn't supportive of Steam. IMHO our VIP players are the modders. They play and support the game for others. I'd suggest that Squad should be much more interested in keeping them happy than a few players who can't be bothered to learn how to drag and drop a folder into the GameData directory.

If the goal was just to allow modded craft to be shared it would be a lot easier to just use some sort of tool to recognize that a craft has mods and flag it as such. This is what KerbalX does. KerbalX doesnt need all the mods to be hosting on it's site.

I play Science mode and really like early to mid-game challenges, so find ways to make science more interesting and slow it down - 40% science returns Any experiment that relies on physical material can't be transmitted for any value - Mystery Goo, Material Bay, Surface Samples must be returned to gather science. This has really encouraged me to develop more complex sample return missions. Science Labs - a big one... First, I use Life Support, so there's a real cost to staffing and maintaining labs. Any given experiment from a specific biome can only be processed in one lab - I don't carry copies of the same experiment to multiple labs Data to Science conversion rate is dropped from 5:1 down to 1:1 - the best I can do is to double my science return from a given biome, but at the cost of building and maintaining stations. I love stations, so this works really well. I have to do a ScanSat altitude and biome survey before I land anything. Other non-science rules: Always have to have a plan keep Kerbals alive and to bring them home I can fly test launches, but have to decide beforehand if it's a test or the real thing. If it's the real thing I don't revert I use Kerbal Launch Failure set to 10% early and 5% in later game. So every crewed craft has to have an LES of some sort. I don't leave any expendable components in planetary or moon orbits. It either has to be de-orbited or in a Solar orbit.

Mod authors already devote their spare time to supporting the community. Place additional burden of working on yet another distribution system on them will accelerate burn-out. I think mods on Steam is an awful idea...I can just see all the mod forums "when are you putting this on Steam?", "will it be on Steam soon?"...etc etc... And...not to put too fine a point on it, but a huge chunk of popular mods are all run by @linuxgurugamer, so the devs should really be asking him what he wants. If he's not going to support Steam, then it's a moot point in my book.

I don't want them to stop developing. I think it's great they're still adding more in. My problem is the method by which they are doing it. They should (according to standard the development process used by most companies) have released 1.4 with whatever new features they wanted, then used maintenance releases to fix bugs. Instead they kept trickling in new features with each maintenance release which caused new things to break.

Thanks for the advice, but I play GPP which requires Kopernicus...

Great news! Please complete it quickly and then stop with the maintenance releases so modders can catch up and I can actually play the game again Thanks - Tyko

All you're really doing is creating lots of splinter timelines with no elegant way to merge them back. You'd start off playing with friends on the same timeline, but as soon as any person / group time warps they're in a new splinter timeline. For example. You have a team working on LKO on a space station. Your other team travels to Eve and returns to Kerbin. For the Eve team many months have passed, but for the LKO team it might have only been days. They're now on separate timelines that can't be merged without seriously bending the "time/space continuum". If you let them re-merge then either time really slowed down on Kerbin or the Eve team was using near-instantaneous travel. This might work within the new Missions system where you could define the roles and mission components with a limited scope. I don't see how it would work in a normal open world KSP game though

If MH didn't do well I hope they'll at least consider that maybe it wasn't a case of "DLC = bad" but rather "mission builder wasn't what most players cared about". Also, it would have done better if all the bugs and delays hadn't caused their Steam rating to plummet. I hope the lesson learned would be listen to what the community wants and do a better QA job before releasing...I really love this game, but it's been since March that I've put any real time into it because it's gotten so frustrating.