DocMoriarty

The setting 'Disable Crossfeed' on docking ports is ignored by jet engines. That means for example that a transport space plane drains fuel from it's payload and if user doesn't notice it it might end in a big unnecessary and unwanted surprise. And when this gets fixed finally also let this setting be preset already in VAB/SPH and save and restore the current state of the crossfeed setting also in the savegame. Geezus!

I don't think KSP is a good game for multiplayer, mainly due to it's necessary time compression feature. So adding MP to KSP would probably lead to compromises that are not good for the game. So I'm all against MP in KSP. Not every game needs to be MP!

Thanks but I really prefer stock KSP being in release quality and not pre-alpha quality.

I designed my first arc-class space transporter for bulky payload in KSP 1.0.x. The arc space transporters are named like that because their center is under an arc and free for any type of payload. After several tries and modifications it was finally able to deliver a new rover for an Eve mission into space and dock it to the 'space train' which is being assembled in LKO. Here short after launch: Docked at the 'space train': Successful landing, just a few units of fuel left (still needs improvement). Thanks to the sub-mod-worthy new medium and large landing gears it's not possible to taxi to the hangar due to the missing steering option. Hope these wheels get fixed in some version and get steering, lights and actually turning wheels like the small landing gears though knowing SQUAD and their policy to not fix non gamebreaking bugs I don't have much hope. I just hope that this type of 'love' for airplanes is terminated soon and replaced by some pro.

The pick up point for the Kerbals should be reasonably far away from KSC but the recover function should either only be available lets say in the bright green gras part at KSC or at least the mission payment should depend on how close you are to KSC when using the recover button to finalize the mission.

For KSP 2.0 I'd like to see a more professional and consistent approach of development, less half baked concepts, devs that actually fix bugs even if they are not game breaking, ...

I still have to get there and recovering far away from KSC costs quite some funds. Also the mission can test whether the recovery takes place in the vicinity of KSC. Just a question of how it is implemented. My main concern is that regarding all the stuff we have to fly around on Kerbin we need more to do on the planet. - - - Updated - - - And yes, I'm not a fan of mods. Playing mostly vanilla except for chatterer and alarm clock. Also if I'd be content with mods then I wouldn't need to post here, would I?

Currently the number of missions offered depends on the number of free mission slots a player still has. That doesn't make too much sense and limits too much because I don't get a selection to choose from. The number of missions offered should be constantly like 5-15 missions independend from how many i can still accept, even if there is no more free slot at all because it might make me free one up to be able to accept an interesting one.

I get missions to rescue Kerbals and all kind of bodies but not for Kerbin. I think it would make a lot of sense if stranded Kerbels after return from space would need rescues on Kerbin too. Would also add some sense to the currently fairly useless atmosphere only airplane stuff (except for scan this and that missions). Kinda missing that.

Improvments for engines: - Better jet engine simulation where a small delta in thrust setting is executed a lot faster than now. Currently it doesn't matter what the delta is, it always takes a lot of time to be executed which makes it hard to fly VTOL's - Electric propeller engine (useful for explorers in non-oxigen atmospheres), not too powerful just for small planes and runnable with fuel cells. - Reset COM of jet engines to a reasonable spot. The current COM is totally unintuitive because outside the model and WAY TOO FAR ahead of the engine. An engine COM of an engine constructed from intake, engine body and rear end looks like this currently and doesn't make no sense whatsoever: - it should at least be in the center of nacelle or it is definitly not possible to build a well balanced nacelle where COM stays in middle during flight! Should have never been changed! - 2.5m, 3.75m nuclear engines, having only 1.25m nuclear engines unnecessarely increases part count for long range tugs dramatically and of course either some 2.5m and 3.75m LF only tanks OR make all tanks configurable either as LF, LF+OX, Mono(, Xenon?) to decrease number of parts.

+1 to longer CoT indicator and to CoL indicator too. Should be somewhat dependant on vessel size perhaps. Edit: Forgot to mention that CoT should be based off of an selectable engine group because right now it's pretty much useless if your vessel has multiple engines facing in different directions such as a VTOL.

I like the science lab as is. It's not thaaat easy to set one up with enough data and at least 3-star kerbal scientists. When I reach that point I already have a lot of research done. And this gives the lab some purpose. It's still too easy to get science overall. It should be like 20% less or maybe 30% so that player is forced to leave Kerbin and go at least to Duna and/or Eve to finish the research tree.

Stay clear of the Claw, lots of weird things happen when you use that and the bugs haven't been fixed since it's introduction.

These orbits should actually be normal. I mean it's the Kerbalverse, isn't it?

Walt: Time for a little news from our side. An increasing number of private and corparate Kerbals seem to find it funny lately to get stranded in fancy orbits or on surfaces of other celestial bodies. Wernher von: Yeah but we finally found a remedy for that ... and a true Kerbal construction ... the tripod rescue rover lander lifter vessel ... called REPOMAN. It can pluck stranded Kerbals including pods from orbit as well as surfaces and return them to KSC. And if it lands too far from KSC it can just taxi back! Isn't that just great?? Gene: Yeah and now we get lots of missions to rescue those freaks. Mortimer: Missions = Money - But you guys wasted quite some funds too, think about the Minmus mining rover incident! Gene: Oh no, we lost our old mining hulk on Minmus and brought a new one immediately since otherwise our trainings mission for 9 Kerbonaut trainees would have been stranded on Minmus. At least no Kerbals were harmed in this one. Wernher von: Bah we have way better ways to burn funds! Just think about testing of our new prototype Shuttle-06 for extended orbital operations. We already rammed one of those into the runway! Walt: I hate to step in here but we are here to report from successes not fails ... ... TRANSMISSION INTERRUPTED ...

A game usually has a main loop which basically looks like this: Process Input -> Do Calculations -> Paint Frame -> Repeat The more complex the game world and objects are, the more time it takes for one iteration thru the main loop. A good game bases it's calculations now on the time elapsed since last frame. And here comes the max physics delta into play: If the time elapsed since last loop is > MPD then time elapsed for physics calculations = MPD. Thats what the MPD is for.

OMG don't tell me the goo and science junior isn't generally accepted science???

Well the nose mounted chutes should act like a nosecone though due to their shape which is pretty similar to the standard nose cone. In some cases you have to use them since they are a lot more effective than the radial ones.

Those are great charts in the OP. Would be interesting whether the node-mounted parachutes also reduce drag. They should due to their shape but who knows. Also the shielded docking port would be nice to know, should also act like a nosecone.

I disagree. I could build lots of aircraft without that change and had no problems whatsoever. BTW, its not only a nozzle but also something else inbetween, like a tank or nacelle. Edit: If the COM in this engine + nacelle + nozzle would be in the center of the nacelle it would be right. The current COM though doesn't make no sense whatsoever and is unintuitive for that matter, nobody would expect it there. This looks like the nozzle weighs 5 tons. All jet engines should be modified so that the COM is right in the center of the nacelle when using the above assembly.

I disagree with the COM of engines being moved forward completely. It doesn't make things easier and leads to retarded looking aircraft actually. And who can't get his alignments right with the old and better COM won't get them right with the new one either! The most superflous change of all time! Example aircraft: I even reversed order of elevators and main wings on this craft but the main wings are still at middle of the craft thanks to the new totally misaligned COM. On a real craft the main wings would be way back at the rear end of this plane with this configuration. And with this new COM way outside the jet engine it's actually impossible now to build well aligned and balanced VTOL's anymore. Also the argumentation that a real jet engine also has a body is wrong either because you need to attach stuff to the engine that makes it look like a real jet engine, tanks or intakes, too which have their own weight and move COM forward anyway. And to top it off, it's totally unintuitive and not the first post about that topic! Change it back already!

Walt: Quite some time since we last published our progress! So here goes our press release for the past week. Enjoy! Gene: Yeah, but not a lot happened, mostly routine tasks in the new Kerbalverse that big banged a week ago. Wernher: I wouldn't say that, we made quite some progress and designed some fancy vehicles never seen in any Kerbalverse before, at least not in their current shape! Gus: Oh yeah! I remember producing kinda turtle shaped mining vehicle which does now service on Minmus. It's kinda mining-tanker-rover-lifter. Wernher: We even upgraded that for the upcoming Duna mission. Also the basic turtle design but more advanced parts. And this time we didn't forget to add an antenna! Here flight testing at KSC. Features 8 wheels partly in fancy positions under the tanks and 4 aerospikes. Would even be able to do service on Duna itself if it had chutes for landing. But the best part is that it is 'stackable' in the main axis of a space train. Gene: We had some fun here at the control center too this week. The worst case landing ever! The capsule came down right in the Mountains of Doom west of KSC at the steepest slopes possible. But unlike other occasions where the chutes vanish when the craft hits ground it didn't happen this time. It scratched down the slope hangin on the chutes until it finally landed safely on some less steep ground! Needless to say we needed a round of snacks after that. Gene: But we had some really bad incidents too. There was the new research and base rover that we tried to develop. Like 3 of them crashed while testing on Kerbin around KSC for no obvious reasons. And the worst part was that Jeb was in one of them. At least it was a nice funeral. Well here is the final version exploring the Mun. Jeb: Grrrrrr Linus: And we got our old research rover near KSC finally set up with loads of research. It's not really easy since all research topics are only worth 1/10 down here on Kerbin when adding them to the lab. But a few good landings of returning research vessels nearby helped remedy that. And now it produces quite some results. Gene: Another fancy thing was an order we got to create a space station with an ISRU in a Minmus orbit. Not that it makes a hell of a lot of sense to refine stuff in orbit but it was paid well so we did it. Now our Minmus station looks kinda ... interesting. Mortimer: Money is always good! Gene: And finally our professional crew training kommenced with kommisioning our new crew trainings vessel Bully-09. On it's maiden flight it had 9 Kerbals on board, 6 kerbonauts and 3 tourists. Don't wanna know what that smelled like in the crew cabins on their 3 step roundtrip. Walt: Well thats it for today. Have a snack and fun and all such and stuff.

The last thing that made me stop playing my save was a bug. At some point just everything that was a little bigger than a handful parts started to explode as soon as I made it the current craft or at the latest when I started to accelerate time. It was not a SAS thing. Not even rebooting the system helped. So it must have been a bug written into the savegame, probably a falsely changed parameter about forces or something. My suspicion is that it was the result of a claw related bug since I play vanilla KSP. Other than that I try to stay to my savegame until a new main version is published. For most main versions so much changes (like 0.9->1.0) that it makes more sense to start out new. So the reasons why I start new saves are: - New version of KSP with major changes - Bugs in savegame

I paid like $ 16 long time ago and spent more than 2000 hours with it meanwhile. Thats 0.8 cent per hour! I think never had cheaper paid entertainment than this.

Believe it or not, when I was at school I had one of the first programmable TI pocket calculators with 50 program steps, like 35 years ago! And I made a program pretty much like KSP, just a bit simplier (tbh, grafix sucked). You entered a point, a vector and fuel consumption for next step and it calculated the next step on an orbit. Then you put your needle which represented your spaceship to the new coordinates on the playfield. Worked great.