allmappedout

As others have said, any quicker and you actually degrade the quality of each version, both in the amount of time that goes into creating it (thus you're less likely to get a big, cool, thing added as it requires more time to work on), and the value of actually playing the game. Since this game is based on persistence, having to restart every 3 weeks or so would absolutely, totally, ruin the fun of playing the game for me. Just as you get everything in place, all of a sudden you have to start over again? Plus, using hollow phrases such as "people are starting to quit" is classed as an appeal to ignorance, without being backed up by facts, which, I presume, only Squad would have access to via Steam logs, etc. How do you know people are starting to quit? There's no need to act as a doombringer.

This just proves out that smaller is better when it comes to rocket design, which a lot of people often forget! Well done, anyway.

They have no colliders, and you can turn them on whenever you like, so go crazy! PS: Really cool Rover design!

Yes! All of these things! Tweak the tweakables is up there for me. It's given the game a new lease of life in terms of the cool stuff you can now do with it, but there's potential to take it further. Obviously I'd like to see Pintles and Gudgeons (for Whackjob), new Aero model, an expansion of career mode via contracts, which sounds like it's in the works, (as others have mentioned) a change in how science labs work (they're still kinda pointless, for the majority of science missions), and more use for rovers and drivable parts.

The only kerbal ship I actually learned from was the Kerbal X, as it showed me about asparagus staging. Now...whilst I kind of like the idea, I feel like you either have to commit to saying you have everything, or you don't unlock them in the first place. A half-finished ship is no good really, as any one can just load up Sandbox and complete the design as it was intended (or, if the parts aren't available, the ship won't work as designed anyway and you could bring in some other design issues which a newbie wouldn't necessarily know what to do to fix either). Going back to your first point that career mode might limit newbies rather than guide them, well...that's an entirely different argument entirely (that I partially agree with...but possibly for different reasons).

You know, this is actually a pretty good idea, although instead of an accumulation, simply have it so that whenever a kerbal's situation changes (ie: low orbit, high orbit, SOI change, landed), a crew report is automatically generated.

What i'd like is the ability to go to the Tracking Station after a crash...

Wow, big necro! I'm keen on procedural parts, but I think the idea of having set radius parts will make it easier to ensure interoperability. Whilst I think there could be a 3.75m part, it's verging on real-life size human rockets and given that Kerbals are meant to be about 1/10th the size, it might make things a little bit easy (given, of course, suitably large rocket parts to go with the big fuel tanks) to get off of Kerbin with huge contraptions. One of the key ideas of space travel is limiting returns on increasing size. Adding 3.75m parts just sort of says "to hell with building small!". I'm not against it, just that it shouldn't automatically be put in just because 'why not'.

It is absolutely fantastic, I especially like the snap back to target vessel, as it saves you having to tab through all the planets just to get back to your craft for focus, but the ability to adjust the nodes so precisely is only hampered by my inability to follow them to the letter!!!

This is definitely going in my sig!

I don't think they should be treated as debris, but they should have the flight count not include them, nor the filter default to on, similar to debris.

Hehe, the irony of this post But yes! I agree. It'd be much, much easier to perform precision hops and hovers with a reverse chase cam. I always end up like Cleveland from Family Guy...slowly tipping over going "no no no no no no no no noooo!" before crashing sideways.

Just to chime in with further what Specialist was saying - it's not necessarily a binary either/or. Mods fill a gap until the features are (/if they are) implemented into the stock game. The idea that people like to play stock is fine, but if they want a feature in the game and it's already there, why be dogmatic about it? Installing a mod doesn't invalidate a warranty, it doesn't make you a worse player, it certainly doesn't ruin your achievements that you have done. Mods fill the gaps that the stock game still has. As of 1.0, a lot of mods will have no use any more - this is to be expected. Until then, embrace the fact that there's a huge amount of really talented guys who have already had a similar idea to you, and have implemented it, and just ENJOY it! Your idea was clearly a good one if someone has gone through the trouble to make a mod for it! So, instead of getting upset that people suggest mods, put some shades on and realise that other people think your idea is already really cool

Why? There's more science out there than is needed for the entire tech tree. All I would have to do to complete the tech tree is launch a rubbish telescope, and time warp for 5 years, which at 100,000x would only take me about 20 minutes or so to do, and all the challenge is gone from the game. 0.2 science per minute and 1 science per 5 minutes is the same anyway. Time can not be used as a commodity in KSP due to time warp, it just doesn't work. Otherwise, I'm happy with the idea of having telescopes and cool stuff to launch and have persistent in orbit. The idea of being able to run a number of experiments on planets seems cool.

What I really want to see is the 'Docking mode' readout in the bottom left corner be more useful - it already has the cross that you need, but what it doesn't have is any alignment details. If it could combine the alignment indicator into that, then docking mode would be the go-to thing to actually use to...you know...dock, rather than just staying in staging mode.

Honestly, the current jet pack is overpowered (for gameplay purposes, I'm not complaining). an MMU does not carry 500m/s of dV (which is around what a kerbal currently carries). The idea of giving a kerbal more means that they could get into orbit around the Mun, and pretty much any planetary body smaller than Duna. Probably not what the devs intended

You can copy your config file over from version to version (usually...) and most of the controls stay in tact. I used to use the xbox controller regularly for rocket flight. Laziness means I'm not back to KB and trackpad, but I always used to copy the settings over from update to update and I kept most, if not all, of my custom controls

Agreed. Usually, there are seismometers deployed relatively near, so perhaps the science part from an impactor would only work if the part that was the science creator exploded within 2.5km physics range of the piece.

I'm with Kasuha on this, although another fix could be that if you do put crew in the ship, that change is permanent until the ship is launched. It's very frustrating setting up your lab with 2 kerbals, only to fly it up and realise it has noone in it because you added another antenna.

That'd be awesome. I use the fancy PreciseNode mod which gives you almost everything you need. One thing that I think the game needs is a bit of a better UI for calculating ejection angles and phase angles between bodies. As it stands, the maneuveur nodes work fantastically between two bodies with only one SOI in between (ie: Kerbin to Mun, etc), but when there's an intervening SOI (usually the Sun), it becomes very difficult to set up your burn, because of the distances involved. Having PreciseNode helps a lot as you can edit your burn whilst looking at the 'bigger picture', but at the moment there's no real way to work out where to set a node, apart from a lot of clicking, testing, zooming in and out again and again, etc. But that's a minor gripe of mine

Nova, that's fantastic. I enjoyed the read!

How do we know they're sterile until we do SCIENCE?! Lord yes! I know you can edit the cfg file to fix the worst atrocities, but it's still a pain!

The thing to remember, which supernovy alluded to, is that with tweakables, you can choose a bigger tank, and scale down the oxy fuel you need to provide the required liquid + (liq/oxy) amount to get to orbit. The fact is that, more than anything, less is more on an SSTO, so adding oxy will mean you have to add more fuel/wings/engines. It's probably better to just take off maybe 15% of the oxy in a normal tank and use the liquid fuel available. Odds are you will get more dV out of your craft doing that than adding oxy (which is very heavy!). Slightly off-topic actually - has anyone noticed that with tweakables your liquid fuel/oxy seems to snap to set numbers rather than be a sliding scale? I'm not sure whether I love or hate this as a feature yet I think I like it, it makes sense, but I feel like there's scope to have a pairing button which reduces oxy and liquid fuel by the same ratio amount, which you can then untick to top up a little bit of liquid fuel. Maybe i'm just being picky!!

Kethane works as is, because it's one resource. Whilst I don't derive much joy from finding and mining it, it enables you to do more stuff that might require a refueling mission. However, having the resource chart as it was would mean searching for multiple parts of multiple different resources in different areas, combining them, and refining them, just to do what Kethane can currently do in one. Kethane works because it's not overly complex and so it doesn't add too much to the mission length. A full resource tree is a COMPLETE other story.

I think we're finally agreeing I do feel like it was a bit of a throwaway comment by them, I think that it might be worth them going into more detail about their rationale about resources, as it could be just a big misunderstanding. Part of me thinks that his 'too complicated' line may have been misconstrued (although I'm at work at the moment so I can't view it to confirm exactly what he said). I think maybe he may have meant 'overwhelming'? I dunno, I'm just conjecturing here. I hope that it's all just a big fuss over nothing and we'll get resources soon anyway