Klapaucius

I realize this may sound like a trite comment, but I mean it sincerely: I've been playing a form of KSP multiplayer since I started. It's called the Challenges forum. Yes, of course, we are not interacting in real time, but we are all working on the same goal. In some cases, as with @Triop's rallies, we are all in a kind of competition...in our own single-player space, but at the same time engaged with the wider community. Or with @KergarinWalker Challenge, which was just insanely fun as we all figured out the mechanics of the new DLC and posted our, um, masterpieces. This is the give and take and sharing that I really enjoy. And as someone who currently lives in New Zealand, the likelihood I will be able to participate in events hosted by players in Europe and North America is pretty small. Forget timewarp in KSP, there is timezone in real life, and that leaves a lot of players stranded.

Perhaps rate on style points?

Can I submit this that I already built? It is train like and I just want an excuse to show it off again! :-) I like the idea of hyping the potentially best game of 2020 with the best addition to KSP in my time.

I hope I am not being greedy, but I got on a watercraft kick a while back ago, and so it was neat to be able to pull these older craft out. None are amazingly fast, though according to your formula, at least one will score highly. Assuming I did not do something dumb in my math (and that is very possible): We have: Rachel: Submarine Speed (level run) approx 43.1 Weight: 98.357 metric tons Thrust: 1 x Panther 130 + ( 6 x Goliath 360) = 2290 Kerbals: 5 (43.1) / 2290)) * (5 *98.357) + (10 * 5) =55.2558 Herman Amphibious Hydrofoil (not sure if it qualifies as may not have enough underwater when at speed) Speed: 71.1 Weight: 12.225 Thrust" 2 x Panther = 260 Kerbals: 2 (71.1) / 260) * (5 * 12.225) + (10 *2) =36.715 Irving: Passenger Hydrofoil (this is one of my favourite things I have built. And the speed, which translates to 55 mph, is pretty realistic.) Speed: 24.9 Weight: 87.767 Thrust: 4 x Panther 130 = 520 Kerbals: 92 (24.9) /520) * (5 * 87.767) + (10 * 92) = 941.013 Video Evidence:

They've alluded to more stuff to find underwater. So, while I think it is too much to hope for (at least initially) for more underwater parts, I would like to see underwater (and surface water) propulsion get a makeover. Right now, the best way to efficiently travel underwater is with air-breathing jets. This stretches credulity. It would be nice to see the one or more of the following: Proper marine props that can be attached to electric motors. Proper water jets (can be air-breathing for surface craft) for example: And just general physics improvements that make water (or whatever liquid a planet happens to have) interaction more realistic (within reason).

Or use turbofans as underwater propulsion.... (Oh, and it also flies).

I just enjoyed your conversation about using nuclear propulsion at the KSC. I can see wonderfully destructive challenges in the future.

I decided to go big for the fun of it. Thus, a very impractical Skiff-powered plane with less-than-stellar build quality. It took some tweaking to get off the ground fully fueled, but it did quite well once airborne. I realized I had not reinstalled Waypoint manager on 1.7.3 so, I saved the game, closed it, installed the mod and re-opened it so I could get the distance. Evidently, a whole forest grew up in the meantime! Total distance: 483.7.

Flying around on my insanely twitchy stunt jet and managed to get this on film. Dang those cockpits are well made!

Try this? Not sure what happened with the URL.

That makes it one of the most useful watercraft ever created in KSP. Range is the biggest issue.

This is a question directed at the Squad staff. Likely there is not a concrete answer yet, and perhaps you could not publicly answer if there was. But I am curious as to where you see KSP1 in 5 years? How do you folks see yourselves co-existing with the new kid on the block? The DLC and the new update tells me there is a still a lot of life left. What are future plans to keep KSP1 relevant and sustainable?

Discussed at 15:50 in video below:

The biggest blocker for me, and this is true of KSP1, is the just the time factor. I've sunk a huge amount of time into this game, and I have barely done any interplanetary missions--though I can pretty much make anything fly. As much as I love KSP, it sucks time from other bits of life, and that is a hard balance to find. I'm learning Italian and I play trumpet in a community brass band and community orchestra. I have not been practicing enough. I need to be able to do a Hermione Grainger and slow down time so I can get KSP missions in (including learning how to properly dock) and still have time for real life.

In the interview with DasValdez, it was noted that there will be a lot more varied resources and that getting them will be part of the game. See about 15:50 in video:

I don't know how much in the background coding this complicates things, but it seems to me you could easily make everyone happy by having a difficulty setting--like you do for example in Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak or even some of the RPGs. This would appear in the start screen along with choosing sandbox or the new "progression" mode (I don't know if that is the official name or not). Easy mode (or easier mode, there should be no really easy in KSP): just like KSP as we know it. Medium: Same as above but with orbital decay Hard: Full life support, orbital decay, fuel issues etc. And leave the rest for the modding community. BTW: Reading between the lines from interviews so far, I think there is going to be some form of autopiloting, so it is conceivable that issues like decay can be managed without too much difficulty. This is, of course, only speculation.

I started a thread last week on this, but I would love your contributions

I'm eagerly awaiting the first videos of learning the hard way with pulse engines. See interview at 14:30.

One of the things I noticed in 1.7.3 was a change in the power consumption of the robotic parts. 1.7.3 pretty much made my Frog and Walker unusable due to their sudden sucking down of huge amounts of electricity. I'm hoping this is being looked into for 1.8. I filed a bug report, but not much seems to have progressed. https://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/23175

This sounds like fun. Though I think you may want to keep restrict it to in atmosphere only. If someone gets to orbit, theoretically they can land anywhere. This sounds like it is as much an efficiency and glide challenge as anything, so it seems adding a ceiling limit would make it more of a competition. Also, when you say one piece, do you simply mean "not crashed" or are you implying that no staging may be used? Cool idea...just clarifying

Hey guys, trying to keep this thread clean with links only. Feel free to repost links in other threads to promote discussion.

I use canards on the front all the time. The thing is to play with the authority limiter until you achieve a good balance between stability and maneuverability. Also I spend a lot of time playing with the initial position and (non-deployed) angle of the canards. Small changes have a significant impact on performance. In addition, I have found that tail fin you are using (the Delta Deluxe) is pretty useless. The rudder is far too small to do much of anything. On one of my craft--which uses a lot of the same parts (KerbalX link here) I use twin C-7s, in which the entire surface moves. Here is my craft in flight, to give you an idea. Very maneuverable but very flyable. In the video I have them set for full movement so I could barnstorm, but I can reconfigure the canards (which are larger than yours) by lowering the authority, and the plane becomes much more forgiving.

I found this video explanation in French. Hopefully this will be more helpful to you in your native language. Feel free to ask if there is still something not clear. Bonne chance!

Wow!