SlinkyMcman

I am under (probably false assumption) that rocket legs float your craft above the surface, different from how static parts sit.

To be fair I'm not entirely sure what I'm talking about at any particular point either.

So i think really the solution for sliding around would be to implement variable friction quotients depending on the speed of travel and increase joint strength slightly to compensate(I read the wiki on Stribeck curve). I started using airbrakes as landing gear and those are even more slippery than the real thing. But implementing a whole system purely as a workaround for bad landing gear seems like a mistake, just fix the gear. Your idea to suspend physics calculations for the ground/gravity would be a fantastic way to implement permanent installations, with the height above terrain taking precedence over altitude when loading in, you wouldn't have to do physics easing in on the craft, since some amount of clipping into the surface would be fine, and may even help with the structure's immersion. The problem I see is Kraken attacks when you hit remove the parking break and your vehicle is floating or underground, because the world changed on it's own. Never allowing a craft to un-park would be a fix, but it isn't really what you're looking for(or is it with the Duna base?). The docking port problem seems easy, just give parked crafts alignment precedence over all other craft types. I started doing some science with save files may be back with some results. It probably shouldn't be super difficult to implement some sort of pylons/gear that lock your location.

Since the terrain is a computed property based on a bodies elevation map and a variable sample rate, this would cause all sorts of different issues. Static terrain features in game are clipped below the surface to hide the jankyness of the implementation. I think the way landing gear is currently coded is Kerbal's best attempt to do exactly what you want, it's just really hard.

I terms of doing something novel, and polished, and fun, KSP is definitely top 10. Requiring making something new is something that, necessarily limits candidates,( ie Odessy is way more fun than 64, but 64 is OG, so makes the cut instead of all others). So far as I can tell there is nothing that even comes close to the scale that Kerbal encompasses (even wow railroads you for content). And Kerbal doesn't even have Newtonian Physics. Also Kerbal is pretty kinda the only game that is *Hard without being a platformer, or chess(Starcraft is bullet chess mixed with dexterity challenges). They kinda stopped trying to implement a competitive AI in the newest CIV, I don't even know how you would implement a decision tree for the new quest based tech trees(plural? like why two different tech trees) other than just hard coding the tree for each different Nation. My Top 10 in Alphabetical Order: AI Wars Civ 2 Donkey Kong Country 2 Doom Echo Kerbal Mario 64 Myst Starcraft BroodWar World of Warcraft

First time doing a rendezvous with the Lvl 1 tracking center. It was practically a miracle when the craft broke the load in barrier, . .

It's also easier to place the wolfhound since it doesn't require a 5m base.

So I imagine you guys have non-Steam version's of this game? I'm not sure how I would be able to do this locked into Steam's system.

My first career game sent everything from launch->destination so when I actually got to the point where I could build a functional Plane to Orbit (I still drop fuel tanks, because they're cheap, so technically not SSTO) there was nothing there for them to do. So I started a hard career game that has a large transfer station in Equatorial orbit so that there is a reason to send a plane to space. Planes turn out to be the safest way to land Kerbals back on Kerbin anyways, (parachuting out of drop pods causes some folks to blink out of existence or tumble down mountains).

First time posting images hope this works. I have a all in one mining platform for moving Ore around. It's rated for the Mun, just don't bring as many ore containers. It simplifies my Mining processes, and since pretty much all my interplanetary engines are nukes, using ore helps limit unused mass/volume in the form of Ox tanks. There is something like 12t of machinery that it moves around but it's minmus payload is 168t (32+24tanks* 3t per tank) so it's not significant enough to justify provoking the kraken attempting surface docking. Stacking decouplers like the minmus example makes the ship bouncy when loaded, and autostruts only kinda help. I recommend not being quite as modular as I made it. It's also pretty amazing for contracts. You can use an adapter to fit a ore container that can fit in a Space Plane/Shuttle for Kerbin downloading without needing to send up a dedicated drop-pod.

An additional bigger size landing legs that are stored in aerodynamic pods seems like a pretty good idea (there's probably a mod with more landing gear parts). Currently i'm using AeroBrakes from the same purpose on my Duna Lander. I think the game kinda just wants everyone to land on their engines since they're generally more stable compared to landing gear. I want kerbal to extend the tech tree so having these be worth 1450 science wouldn't phase me at all (definitely a mod for that).

No part in the game currently calls collision on it's own ship, tethers that properly wrap around a craft would break that design decision. Multiple active tethers would create an oversized burden on the model not comparable to the advantages they confer.

Oh man, that's light enough to make it to my mods list, thanks.

I rotate all parts that should face east to face east in VAB, and every time I forget I slap my face.

I started assembling my interplanetary crafts in High Mun Orbit. Reasons are for refueling, and second for the easy Mun flybys from the Mun, just leave 2 Munar months ahead of the transfer window and leave the Mun's Soi at the point you want the flyby to happen . I tried doing a similar thing, but with leaving from Minmus, but the long minus month ruined my window as I was traveling in the wrong direction relative to my ejection. Ended up costing 1kDv more to get to Jool than the next mission that left from the Mun(although there were other issues with the Minmus send). My Mun->Jool trip cost around 2.1kDv, where as my Minmus->Jool was something like 3.4k, and is also not in the right inclination.

Hmm, that's not something I had though of and probably is a factor, the 8x times more than other types of crafts probably is a result of a bunch of different factors. Maybe only counting the Downloads would be better, and would also maybe say something about the use of mods, what IDK. I feel like a data scientist would have a field date with the Steam Workshop.

Probably an easier way to gauge interest in types of crafts would be to look at the Steam Workshop. 15500 total crafts, 8000 of them are planes(500ish of those have SSTO in title/description,). If I ran Kerbal and wanted to make a quick buck, putting in plane specific content seems like a sure thing.

Hadn't though about that, I'd imagine a work around would be to do a door blocked check and eva automatically when transferring to the part, and the inverse when entering "select the compartment to transfer to"? Yeah I see how that might not be good. Although this would save multiple clicks to eva on ships where most doors are blocked, like on mk1 cabin part.

Maybe like, a FT-100 reskinned as an "airlock"? 0 capacity, just a door.

I would def spend 20$ on a 10 part propeller pack with 5 propellers, and 5 plane parts.

I currently run, alarm clock, docking port alignment indicator, and KER. I use KER for Torque and Dv in the VAB, and for giving me an excuse to bring an engineer everywhere. I think that the alarm clock should be something that unlocks with a T3 upgrade on a building. Now that I rendezvous with my eyes closed, docking alignment indicator is not something I would go without, since I still have a hard docking incident(every time) if i don't use the alignment mod. DasValdez seems to be using an alignment mod that has no UI, and is built into the flight ball, probably is better for lack of UI.

Think OP might be talking about linear aerospikes, like on the X-33. I'm not sure how they'd fit into the radial centric design of current parts, but they would definitely make some neat looking ships.

I agree with 100% of this. One of the Pros was that it doesn't break life-support mods. Like the thing T2 can do that modders can't is add really good looking parts to the game.I've sent 4 caravan to Jool, that have never reached there because constructing the space stations was the best part. I want them to add more types of space station parts because, like that's why I play the game making sweet stations. Juggling <1t of snacks for efficiency sake isn't something people who are just learning the game can get behind because learning the game require failing to juggle multiple tons of fuel. The only way they're going to add them to Stock is if they fit into a a System that is so easy a noob could understand it. Because most of T2's money comes from the type of people who play The Sims. We get the parts in the game, then it's trivial to integrate them into mods.

Those are the actual reasons we will never have a robust stock life support system. The best we are probably going to get is a Happiness system that mimics it. Any system system that implements different function on crew parts needs to fully address all of these issues to make it to the stock game. "They interfere with current save games" = causes a genocide if you didn't read the patch notes. None of those additions you cited actually were bad for casuals. Further i'm not arguing against adding systems to the game, on the contrary, my idea implements concepts that exist irl. Gravity's affects on the body is pretty well known to good(there is a treadmill that simulates gravity on the ISS), you probably don't want to spend 4 years cramped into a 747 seat, and the BFR is going to have a dedicated room purely for recreation.

Kerbal is the sims in space, imo i'm playing the exact game I want to play. I kinda read that both ways. Do you not like the idea that one would have to keep track of kerbal's individual happiness in the same way someone would keep track of life support? Or is this a dig at causal gamers, because The Sims isn't a brutally difficult game where it's trivially easy to kill your creations though unintentional neglect (ie LFS>happy because LFS= more realism)? [snip] Feels good to be here, thanks!