check

In 1.2, KerbNet can display biomes and topography. Adding a slope map, especially where you can select cutoff values (ie so you can clearly see where the terrain has <5 degree slope for example) would be great in helping the player choose suitable landing sites and would increase the usefulness of KerbNet and scanning satellites.

Usually when I launch KSP, the terrain texture will start look as it should. But after playing for several minutes or more, occasionally it glitches out and looks like this: Compressed in one direction and stretched in another. It happens on at least Kerbin, the Mun, Eve, Duna and Moho that I've noticed. Sometimes the texture won't just be compressed/stretched but it will be shrunk down to a very small scale so that tiling is very noticeable. I have all of my graphic settings cranked with the exception of LIGHT_QUALITY = 8, and SHADOWS_QUALITY = 4 Running KSP 1.0.4 on an ASUS G73Jh notebook, Intel Core i7 Q740 @1.73 GHz, 8 GB ram, Windows 7 64-bit, ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5870 Any help would be great!

Honestly, this makes so much sense.

Is there a way to see delta V? I probably missed that in the preview vids.

Actually it has very little to do with the amount of asteroid bombardment (since on geological time scales of billions of years, little bombardment vs a lot of bombardment will still yield very heavily cratered surfaces). It has way more to do with how young a surface is. Surfaces that are heavily cratered are going to be generally, way older than surfaces that are nice and smooth (assuming no atmosphere). So take a planet like Mercury, for example, which doesn't ahve a lot of surface activity going on. Nothing to weather the craters and really little geological activity. It's covered in craters. Compare that with Io which has tons of volcanism constantly reshaping the surface. Both have probably been hit by billions of asteroids, but one has a lot of stuff going on geologically while the other doesn't. In general, old surfaces are much more prevalent in the solar system than new ones. In KSP, only the Mun looks like an old surface, while all of the other planets/moons look like they have surfaces that were laid down just yesterday. Not only do craters make it the worlds look more interesting and realistic, they're also way more fun to explore.

I wasn't expecting that based on anything that was said about what was coming for 1.0, especially in the last few months. In fact I would have been totally surprised if they included it in this updated. It just seems to me that it's such a basic requirement for manned spaceflight that it's something that should have always been planned to be included in an official release version of the game. Maybe. But nearly all of those things have been talked about by someone from the dev team at some point in the past few years that I've been keeping up with the game...perhaps with the exception of the radalt.

Been watching the preview videos and the live stream. While the new update looks great and there are lots of awesome new features, there's still a bunch of things missing, IMO: - Clouds. Why don't we have them? Visual Enhancement is always the first mod I install with new KSP updates because Kerbin and the other planets with atmosphere's just look so stale and dead without them. - Procedural craters. Only the Mun seems to use this feature and it looks awesome. So why don't the other planets incorporate this? Their terrain is so smooth and boring and unrealistic. -Axial tilt. I know Squad has said they haven't been able to figure this one out with Unity. That's too bad. - An engineer report. Yes, we are able to see the ships dimensions while we build it and now have a checklist that shows what parts or resources we might be missing. But why can't we see thrust-to-weight ratio or estimated delta-V? If Squad thinks that's too much info that a novice player might get overwhelmed by, then why not make that info accessible late in career mode with the final VAB upgrade? -New planets. Don't see any from the preview videos. Sad that we don't have another gas giant, especially a ringed gas giant. -Comets. -Terrain scatter around the KSC. Even some shrubs or patches of tall grass would be nice. -Terrain scatter collision detection for rocks. -A radar altimeter part. Yes, in the manned vessels we can see the altitude above the terrain in IVA mode... so why not have a radalt part that lets us see altitude above terrain when landing probes or from the external view? -Life support. Urg.

Questions! Questions! Fairings: Will interstage fairings be possible? (Aka Saturn V style) Storage compartments: Can we get rid of the post in the middle? With the post there it's hard/impossible to fit a tiny rover. Xenon tank: Maxmaps mentioned that the larger container size is a more efficient choice than smaller sizes because it uses less material (ie has a lower dry weight) than stacking multiple smaller tanks which hold the same volume. Will this be true of other fuel tanks? IE it'll be more efficient to use one large fuel tank than 2 smaller tanks which hold the same total fuel volume because the dry weight would be lower on the larger tank? This would be more realistic and would incentivize players in investing in researching/purchasing large tanks. Clouds: Don't see any in the pictures. Are we getting them? Procedural craters: Hard to tell with the one shot of Duna, but are we getting procedural craters like on the Mun on other bodies, finally? Heatshields: Look awesome!! Seeing as overheating can destroy ships and presumably kill kerbals now, what about excessive G forces? Mk3 Wings: Wooo wetwings! How about the ability to create wings in the same manner as the fairings? Clicking anchor points and then auto splitting the wings into multiple sections? That is all.

I actually wish it was a bit more dense with even smaller craters.

The addition of procedurally generated craters to the Mun back in v0.21 was fantastic. Not only did it add much smaller and sharper features that were fun to navigate to and around, but it also increased the realism of the Mun immensely. In the real world, we find that nearly all solid surfaces are totally covered with craters unless: there is a thick atmosphere protecting the surface (like on Earth, Titan and Venus), or the surface is very young, and subject to a lot of dynamic processes (like on Io, Europa). As it stands now, the terrain on almost all bodies is very rolling and there aren't very many interesting features to visit that are in close proximity... making rover rides on Duna, for example, a tad bit tedious. KSP should therefore add procedurally generated craters to the other bodies, and very the crater density and sizes where appropriate. It would add more interesting terrain to explore, hazards to avoid, and increase overall realism. Thoughts?

If you've got a complicated list of action groups, it's sometimes hard to remember what actions are bound to which group. This is especially true if you're playing a long mission that takes days. I propose that while in flight, we have the ability to bring up a list of what actions are performed by each action group key. The ability to edit those while in flight might also be a good idea.

Apparently we're getting new landing gear for 0.90. This is great and long overdue. I would like to suggest that the new landing gear be adjustable in terms of gear height and wheel and leg angle. The Adjustable Landing Gear mod is a perfect example of how stock landing gear should look and work. The ability to especially adjust wheel angle opens up so many placement and configuration options. I know the devs are hard at work on their own landing gear so incorporating the Adjustable Landing Gear mod into stock is unlikely at this point... but I hope what we get is similar.

Clouds in the MK3 pics?

In stock: Build your rocket. Click "Launch". While on the pad, enter map mode. Click the "I" on the right for information, including mass.

Yeah I've used that method before but it's not my favourite. I just want something as simple as a hollowed out Rockomax Brand Adapter or Kerbodyne ADTP-2-3.