Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'suggestion'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • General
    • Announcements
    • The Daily Kerbal
  • Kerbal Space Program 2
    • KSP 2 Discussion
    • KSP 2 Dev Diaries
    • KSP 2 Suggestions & Development Discussion
    • Show and Tell
  • Kerbal Space Program
    • KSP Discussion
    • KSP Suggestions & Development Discussion
    • Challenges & Mission ideas
    • The Spacecraft Exchange
    • KSP Fan Works
    • Player Spotlight
  • Community
    • Welcome Aboard
    • Science & Spaceflight
    • Kerbal Network
    • The Lounge
  • Gameplay and Technical Support
    • Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
    • Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)
    • Technical Support (PC, modded installs)
    • Technical Support (Console)
  • Add-ons
    • Add-on Discussions
    • Add-on Releases
    • Add-on Development
  • Making History Expansion
    • Making History Missions
    • Making History Discussion
    • Making History Support
  • Breaking Ground Expansion
    • Breaking Ground Discussion
    • Breaking Ground Support
  • International
    • International
  • KerbalEDU Forums
    • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU Website

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Website URL


Skype


Twitter


About me


Location


Interests

  1. Hi, I know this might be somewhat controversial, but please hear me out first. I love automating things. I spent hundreds of hours in games like Factorio and Dyson Sphere Program and I have also tried to automate different things in KSP 1. As an example, automation is great for things that need to be perfectly repeatable (like an ascent with a specific profile) or that are hard to do manually (like suicide burns). The best way to script it in KSP 1 right now is to use kOS but I think there might be a better option. While waiting for KSP 2 I decided to try SimpleRockets 2 (by the way, it's a cool game, go try it out). So I opened the game, downloaded a cool-looking Atlas V and was blown away by what happened next. The rocket knew how to put its upper stage into orbit not just around its home planed but also its moons at a desired altitude! Turns out, SR2 has a built-in visual scripting language called Vizzy you can use to write programs like that. I decided to try it out and just in a few hours I had two programs for performing ascent and landing for me. Here's how the language looks: SR2 blog post about Vizzy. This could also be used to complement new tutorials by showing not just a video but an actual rocket flown by a computer to teach new players. And yes, all this can (and has) been done before but I find the experience of using something like kOS far from perfect: you need to install the mod, learn a new scripting language, constantly switch to an external text editor, launch scripts from the command line and debugging is often a pain. If implemented correctly, built-in scripting can improve the player's experience, especially if scripts could be shared through the Steam Workshop for those who don't want to code themselves. And hey, it's not a bad thing either if someone learns how to code a bit while playing KSP 2! And the good thing is, you don't have to reinvent the wheel. This has already been done in SR2 and it works great there. So what do you think?
  2. To start off with, I have suggested things for other games before, however, most of these are fantasy games. This is a realistic game, and thus, if my suggestions are hard to read, and you have a stroke reading this and die, then sorry for my bad "ordering" and explanations. I've also never really talked about physics much before, which is another reason this might be hard to read. Anyways, radiation. We know what it is, you get too much of it and you die. We also use it for power, which is why I think that some of the more efficient EC generators later in the tech tree should be powered on radiation, maybe not by radioactive materials, but radiation in space. Or this radiation could be used to turn a non-radioactive material into a radioactive material, which can then be used for EC generation. There could also be a toggle for kerbals to get radiation poisoning if exposed too much radiation, and if you don't get them to an area with mostly no radiation "quickly", they could die (or go MIA on easier difficulties). However, if this toggle is on, there needs to be some form of having radiation bounce off of ships, or radiate out of the ship during interstellar travel, due to what is known as "heliospheres." Basically, stars have atmospheres. Yes yes, the suns corona (which fun fact is hotter than it's surface) is an atmosphere, but it also repels radiation out of its most outermost layer of its atmosphere, which extends well past the Keiper belt. Most stars if not all have these "astrospheres" or "magnetospheres" (which the earth has its own magnetosphere), and outside of this, is an astronomical amount of cosmic ionizing radiation. Basically, if you decide you want kerbals and parts to be affected by radiation, if you dont have practically 9000 layers of 50 feet thick lead, or any other material good at stopping radiation, you will instantly be vaporized. While the astrosphere doesn't stop all of this radiation from entering it's system, it stops a large majority of it (excluding uncharged gamma rays), which means that if that setting is on, if 2 years of floating around the sun between duna and kerbin in no ship were to give a kerbal radiation sickness, being outside this heliosphere would cut that time down to a very short time. Personally, I don't know the exact specifications, but it would probably be a matter of seconds.
  3. In a sun - planet - moon system, the orbit of the moon can look like a square relative to the star, as was demonstrated in this video. It would be quite a sight if, from the moon, you could time-warp and see yourself going further, and closer to the star in a square shape.
  4. not my work , all credit goes to: Askerad man this is a banger
  5. Maybe if all goes well and ksp 2 is on PlayStation they will add sack boys space suit as an exclusive suit varent for PlayStation users (see picture below as refrence) it would be very cool if they did
  6. What if there were automatic routes set by the player where the rocket could to many things: Refuel Transfer Cargo Mine This is a late game thing when mid tech gets that high
  7. Improvements to the presentation In KSP 1 aside from the initial launch and the landing you spend most of your time flying the craft in map view. It would be a shame for the developers to beautifully shade, light and texture the spacecraft parts just so we can spend 90% of our time not looking at them. This is a difficult problem to solve as it objectively is easier to fly the craft in map view. Maybe you could add a small orthographic top down view of your orbit around the planet, you could use this for simple stuff such as circularizing your orbit, and you can use the map view for more complex maneuvers such as rendezvous. Although it would be ideal to only setup maneuvers in map view, but to perform them while looking at the ship. It would also be cool to have a cinematic camera that automatically chooses good camera angles so that both your spacecraft and the planetary body you're orbiting are in view. Time Warp improvements KSP 1 time warp is completely linear, speed in eccentric orbits isn't. This can be a problem as when you are approaching periapsis your spacecraft speeds up rapidly and that has made me miss my maneuver so many times. The fix for this would be to make the timewarp non linear. So when you are approaching periapsis timewarp would automatically slow down. And it would speed up as you're approaching apoapsis. Also general improvements to timewarp (like fixing warp to node, or automatically slowing when getting close to a node etc.) would be good. RCS and reaction wheel balancing Let's be honest, reaction wheels are very overpowered and not very fun, and RCS is pretty much useless unless you're just learning docking. It's sad to see RCS, which is an integral part of most real life spacecraft being overshadowed by reaction wheels (which have a much more niche use case). RCS in KSP1 is 100% active continuously throughout rotation (even though its much more efficient to do a small burn to start the rotation and then another equal one to stop the rotation), this leads to frequent overshooting and a lot of wasted monopropellant (which takes a lot of space and is generally heavier than using reaction wheels), making RCS and SAS work together more elegantly would solve this problem. Reaction wheels should only be used on small space probes, and RCS should be used for everything else. At the start of the game you should be working with small unmanned probes which would use reaction wheels, then you could slowly introduce RCS, flattening the learning curve. In conclusion RCS is really cool and I would much rather have cool jets of compressed gas be rotating my ship than an invisible arbitrary force. RCS add a lot of interesting depth to ship design which should not be ignored. Probes before manned To be honest, the only reason I wanted probes before manned was because it's more realistic. But after thinking a lot I found a great gameplay reason to implement this type of progression. People mostly stop playing KSP1 because they get stuck somewhere, I think that is because the leaps from one goal to another can be very jarring (especially in the early game). Unlocking probes first would be a great way not only to add realism, but to also flatten the learning curve. Instead of after achieving orbit, you immediately try landing and returning from the Mun. What if your next mission would be just to set a satellite in orbit around the Mun, without the need to return it. This goal seems much easier and only teaches one simple concept, while going from barely knowing how to orbit to landing on the Mun and returning to Kerbin intact seems like an impossible challenge. Constantly having challenges that are difficult but doable would make newer players want to continue playing. Although Kerbals are central part of KSP, they can still be in the picture when piloting probes. Imagine while you're piloting a probe instead of normal kerbal portraits, there would be a mission control portrait and the Kerbals would react to whatever is happening to the probe, they could be screaming as the probe is about to crash,or they could be celebrating a successful landing. Some minor things Ballistic entry would be awesome since, if you nerf reaction wheels, the commands pods falling through the atmosphere would only be able to turn using aerodynamics, so having a ballistic reentry profile would only make sense. I find it much more fun to dock with a docking camera than just blindly, any way to measure movement relative to another ship would be great. Non linear thrust would mean that you wouldn't have to mess with the engine thrust menus just to accelerate less than like a 100Gs. Engines should also not accelerate to 100% immediately, they should take some time to spool. Engine gimbal should be smooth, would make rockets more stable, and of course, make the game more realistic. And last of all, just take your time, I have a lot of faith in you guys and I wish you godspeed in the development process. I hope that you guys can make the best version of KSP2 possible. Cheers!
  8. Hi all, i have some ideas for features in the new game First off, i'd like to talk about "Suit Upgrades." You can find them in the administration building in career and science mode, but in sandbox they are automatically unlocked for you. In career you have to use credits to purchase the upgrades. That makes us go to Grav Boots. Do you hate it when you make an interior for your ship, only for your kerbals to float? That's where gravboots come in. You can toggle them with a button press and they make you stick to the floor and walk around like if the ship was landed. Something else i'd like to note is interchangeable launchpad designs. I know the game wilI have launch towers, but i would like them to be colorable and customizeable to fit rocket sizes, something like modular launch pads does. Also a weird idea, but i want cosmetics inside of the pods. Like, say i could add maybe a teddy bear or something in the pod. In iva, it will be there, and the lower the gravity gets it might float. I would want that feature to liven up ivas. hope people like and agree with these ideas, maybe to the point they're implemented. And, speaking of suit upgrades, i'd also love the feature to be able to upgrade the jetpack, for it to consume less fuel, or go faster, or consume different types of fuels. I would also absolutely adore communication upgrades for suits, for longer range signal bouncing. Edit: i have more ideas. How about docking ports that your crew can go through, kinda like connected living spaces? Also, i would love adjustable or longer ladders.
  9. There's one thing in KSP1 that keeps bugging me every time I've started a new career game. As of KSP1, when starting a career/science game, you've got: No thermometers No pressure meters No accelerometers (When using SCANsat) no radar altimeters And yet, the UI has: Overheat indicators and F10 thermal view Atmosphere density indicator (below the altimeter) G-force meter (right of navball) Altimeter OTOH, one of the things that I learned when using KER is that if I want the UI, I must plop a part onto the controllable part of the craft. Which makes sense IMO. So I wish that KSP2 would unlock UI elements as the player progresses, instead of full UI from the beginning. Research thermometers, you get temp gauges. Research inertial gyros, you get prograde/retrograde indicators on the navball. Upgrade the tracking station, you get sea-level altimeter. And so on. A hardcore version of this idea would be to tie UI elements to parts in the craft, KER-style. But this would need some QoL in the form of "always add flight instrument parts to probe cores and pilotable cabins". Ideally this could lead to "know your instrument" tutorial missions, to soften the learning curve of KSP. Get this experimental part, put it in a sounding rocket, and watch its readings. Maybe do something when the reading reaches a threshold. Would this be a chore to seasoned KSP players? Yeah. So make it skippable. But I would expect fans of the caveman challenge would love this. Maybe the "right" way to achieve something like this is to make the KSP2 UI architecture more mod-friendly, so mods could add (or remove!) flight instruments. I wish for the possibility of having KSP2-KER fuse seamlessly with the KSP2 UI.
  10. Hey everyone, this text is my attempt at proposing the idea of a system which could greatly improve the career mode gameplay by introducing new challenges and new mechanics inspired by real life. Please bear in mind that I am not a rocket engineer nor a specialist in any of the topics I talk about. The features i suggest should be considered optional difficulty settings for the career mode and may not be included on easier difficulties by default . Also, sorry for any spelling mistakes as I am not a native english speaker and my native language is german. So...let's begin! The concept of rocket reliability My first idea is not only a requirement & a big part of the second idea coming later but also, in my opinion, a concept really missing in the current KSP. Rocket reliability could change the well known gameplay a lot as not only (just somewhat!) random incidents & misfunctions are introduced as also the way you will build & use rockets will change. No longer will you be operating a just recently constructed rocket with 100% reliability as you first need to gather some science data of the vehicle and its components itself to increase the reliability of all the different parts and the rocket itself. Starting with things like engine tests, rocket static fire tests are now always (maybe a science option to remove that?) required. Propellant tanks need to be pressure tested before you know the exact data. All of that requires money, space, the right equipment & scientists. With that, the research system also changes: No longer will you see the whole tech tree and know what you need to research to get part X. Now you have to have the right scientists & engineers specialized in the genre you want to advance in. You want a new sea level rocket engine? Get your team to work & research and they will develop a prototype. You don't have scientists trained in your desired components technology? Buy components from other companies for an increased amount of money. I think you get the idea: New rocket stuff needs science, testing & also construction time (also a whole new gameplay mechanic as your parts have a limited stock) but that costs money & more so you get a whole nother level of ways to play the game. You got a mission from a rich guy living alone in the woods and he wants you to launch a satellite into LEO and gives you a hard deadline? Maybe quickly develop a prototype & launch the rocket without much testing? Or should we just buy some engines from another company and attach them to our tanks? When you decided which way you wanna go, you will create your rocket concept and announce the plans to the "media" (Well, in reality you just click "submit"). The rocket is now officially known by the space fascinated kerbals around kerbin. Now it is your time to shine as the rocket is now able to gather reputation (which directly incorporates reliability in a way). More about that in the second part of my post. In case it isn't clear: These are just all my ideas stuffed into a quite simple concept so of course you could and should change things. I just think these mechanics could add a LOT more replayability and gameplay depth to the career mode which is my favourite way to play anyway and could really need some more managing aspects. The concept of rocket reputation Your rocket got a name now! Yay! Be aware of people annoying you on social media with strange WENHOP questions. Now with your rocket known around the world, you could start creating a wikipedia article with pictures & flight data of your fancy rocket (not a gameplay feature). But wait? Didn't your last mission (the one where you should deploy a satellite for some rich unknown guy) fail on stage separation, as you did not test the decouplers nor the second stage engines? Please don't forget to add that to the article! Oh, some random internet dudes already did that. Your customers won't like that! Enough roleplay, I hope it still introduced you well to the second part of my concept. Rocket reputation is a stat that is bound to a rocket you created and "submitted". That means, if you change too much (how much is too much requires a lot more thinking) on the rocket itself, the rocket will lose all it's reputation as it is technically a (almost) completely new one (maybe keep some reputation if it still has a lot in common?). Of course you could replace an engine with an upgraded version of the same one, as your newly trained engineers continued to work day & night on improving the already existing concept to increase it's stats (btw this is again a whole new game mechanic on it's own) but you cannot simply replace the whole upper stage or switch your engines with a completely new one without losing (some?) reputation. Now, some time later, your rocket has earned some good reputation, higher level contracts are available as the global trust in your abilities to build rockets and especially in the rocket you just proved to be working has increased. It is finally time for the rocket to become a global contender and not just a simple toy for random rich people or small satellites nobody will talk about. You want to transport THE BIG & IMPORTANT STUFF and, ofcourse, our beloved kerbals. To get the most rewarding contracts, you need to earn specific certificates. Certificates work like "achievements" but are (mostly?) bound to your rocket. Prove your ability to deploy stuff into LEO and your rocket get's certified in that task which would not only offer your higher star contracts but could also allow you (if you want to enable that mechanic in your career) to let your star engineers prepare & launch contracts by themself, working in the background while you create new concepts or try to improve the existing one. The same is required to launch kerbals: Do some demo missions and prove that you CAN do it. If you can show the reliability of your rocket and your skill in achieving a specific task your rocket will get huma....i mean kerbal-certified and the big companies will ask YOU to launch their future kerbonauts. Yay! Also, your star engineers do your daily business to secure consequent funding. Finally, you are not only a rocket engineer but a real space company manager. The end At first, thank you for reading my suggestion for Kerbal Space Program 2. I am happy to discuss my ideas with you all and would really like some feedback. Ofcourse nothing is written in stone as this was just something I thought about an evening while talking with friends & watching a spacex mission. Again, keep in mind that all the introduced mechanics should be as customizeable as possible and just be some optional gameplay elements people CAN choose to enable. If you really like my concept, feel free to share it whereever you want. See you next launch! EDIT: Please read my answers to some concerns about the reliability part. I got a bit carried away by my interest in solving unexpected things so it would be nice If you would focus future answers on the reputation part and not so much on the reliability part, as I already realized that there shouldn't be such a rng factor in the game.
  11. What it says in the title. If you attach a docking port to a crewed part, it'd be cool to be able to use said docking port as a crew hatch to access said part. Could also open possibilites for more 'airlock' style parts that you can use to disembark your crew in style.
  12. Hello. I'm @Dr. Kerbal. The weird with the weird profile pic. I went a bit overboard. A little bit. But I have a suggestion to improve the game. The oceans in Kerbal Space Program are kind of still. Without mods the oceans look dead. The liquids in them just sits still. Kind of creepy if you ask me. So I suggest that in an upcoming update the oceans should be revamps and improved. Even though this is Kerbal Space program and the focus is mainly on space, I think the oceans are important too. Visiting Laythe or Eve would be really boring. It makes no sense for Laythe oceans to be still. I mean it orbits a giant green gas giant (otherwise known as Jool). Shouldn't some waves come up? Or on Kerbin, the Mun's should cause some waves right? And the texture in the ocean make the ocean kind of boring. So I suggest that @SQUAD and the KSP Team should put an ocean revamp.
  13. A simple part idea. feel free to use! -SCC-00P Fuel Scoop The "Specialized Cargo Collection mk00 Part" Is an odd, net-like structure, that, when extended, captures gasses like Hydrogen or small solids such as ice particles and stores them to later turn into liquid fuel and oxidizer. Despite critics making outrageous claims such as "This part's acronym is forced and stupid", it seems to work as intended. Fuel Refinery sold separately. This part will slowly produce Ore when exposed to Jool's atmosphere, which can then be processed into fuel. The deeper the part is, the more Ore it makes.
  14. Now, this has been suggested before. Yes, it can cause problems on lower-end computers. maybe it's better off as a mod, so for any modders out there, maybe you can make something like this? Now, Weather is a major part of spaceflight. Dust Storms, Strong Winds, and more can cause problems for all sorts of craft. Here are some weather concepts, both Extreme, and not: Sun Near-sun spacecraft may be hit with solar flares, shutting down electronics temporarily (I think something else causes this, but Solar Flares is all I can remember atm) Moho Moho is close to the sun, where asteroids tend to break up. This causes dangerous meteor showers that can damage or destroy buildings. Eve Eve's atmosphere creates wind storms. "Wind" is represented by a random small force pushing on a part of a vessel. This force increases the further up you are, so while rovers may not be toppled aircraft will struggle. This also obscures visibility. Gilly gilly doesn't get effects Kerbin Kerbin has a variety of environments, which should have their own conditions Grasslands, Mountains Rain and Snowstorms can both occur here, with the exception that only snowstorms appear on Mountains. These storms don't affect craft in any way other then visibility In rare cases, Lightning will also be present in these storms. Lightning can disable electronics for 1-3 seconds. Islands Tropical Storms around islands can happen, causing rain and lightning. Wind is also present, also interfering with aircraft. Increased chance of regular rain. Desert Dust storms that obscure vision and block out solar panels. Mun The mun doesn't have any special effects Minmus Still nothing Duna Days-long dust storms block solar panels and obscure vision Ike random spacecraft trying to get to Duna constantly crash into the surface Ike gets nothing Dres Dres gets random meteor strikes that damage or destroy parts Jool Jool has strong winds, possibly strong enough to destroy weaker craft. Laythe Laythe has tropical storms, causing rain, wind, and lightning, as well as regular storms. Fog can also appear, obscuring vision. I can't think of anything else for the remaining planets or moons. PARTS A variety of parts would be added: -Laser Turret A small turret that uses Energy. It shoots down incoming meteors, protecting craft -Lightning Rod A simple, low-cost solution to storms. Putting this on the highest section of a craft protects it from lightning strikes -Weather Prediction Camera: A small satellite dish with a built-in camera. Craft with this part in orbit of a planet can predict incoming weather effects up a day before they happen, and where exactly they will happen -Storm Analyzer A device that, when within a rain cloud, snow cloud, lightning cloud, tropical storm, or even simply the atmosphere of jool, produces science related to the weather effects -Dust Net A device that catches blown-around dust from dust storms for further analysis of soil composition. provides small amounts of science.
  15. What do you think about some Spectators who could watch a launch?
  16. In ksp 2 we could have space tourism? As a way to raise funds or something like this, we could use rockets, airplanes, balloons and other means to do this tourism, we could also add hotels in space for the same purpose to raise funds.
  17. I was playing KSP and it hit me that something would be an amazing QoL feature would be draggable patched conics! I don't mean draggable handles on the little maneuver node like you can do in KSP, I mean dragging the actual patched conic line itself into the position you want around the moon/planet. How many times have you wanted to enter a polar orbit, and had to mess with all 3 to 6 of the maneuver node handles until you finally were able to get the patched conic line into the position you wanted? How many times have you moved those handles only to have it fly off into interstellar space causing you to have to fiddle to find your way back or to simply start over and try again? How awesome would it be to be able to click on that patched conics line and simple drag it around the sphere of the moon/planet until it is in the position you want, with the ability to swap the direction of the path as well? While dragging it around I think the altitude would have to be locked and adjusted separately, and it could also do a transparent sphere overlay that would show you were it is possible and impossible to drag the path to.
  18. seriously, ksp has added loads of features to make my space stations look cool but there is one thing missing, we could have spherical fuel tanks added into the next major update to make daedelus or Ares IV replicas, im surprised take two hasn't considered this yet but ill probably be the first to voice my opinion on this, what do you think you would do if take two would add spherical fuel tanks into the stock game
  19. I understand that the details of Kerbal biology are left mostly ambiguous, but as a pillar of Kerbal is teaching people about real human spaceflight I would suggest that there be some quips about bugs or bug-like creatures being farmed on Kerbal colonies in KSP2. Bugs are a valuable source of food for humans in space and (as a university student conducting research on the topic) I think that we should be eating a lot more insects in the future. It would be wonderful if KSP2 would show Kerbals to have not just a completely vegan diet, but an insectitarian diet too. Also, in real life insects are major pollinators of plants and they are great decomposers of soil, their byproducts act as an amazing fertilizer and the indigestible chitin from their exoskeletons can be extracted and processed into chitosan, a building material. I think that Kerbals should have similar bug-like creatures to accompany them on their space adventures, so that KSP players can learn what insects can provide us in real life space exploration!
  20. Weight is a force: f = ma & gravity is an acceleration, so weight = mass * acceleration but this should be a ratio: weight = mass * environment_gravity / 9.81 m/s. For convenience, orbit should be weightless. A 200kg mass weighs 200kg on Earth/Kerbin but 33.2 kg on the Mun. In a low g vacuum, the mass is mostly weightless. So you can more easily displace the mass in orbit and on the Mun, than on Kerbin, because your kerbals are able to do more work (displacement of mass) with the same effort (energy). Hence, the mass carrying capacity should change relative to the kerbal's environment: weight carrying capacity = mass * environment_gravity / 9.81 m/s. The only catch is that the more mass a kerbal carries, the more energy (eva rcs) the kerbal expends regardless of environment. I want my kerbals to carry two jet packs in orbit and on the Mun, but not on Eve, Kerbin, Tylo, etc. Please fix.
  21. In the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey, Monoliths are found on the Earth, buried in the Moon, and in orbit around Jupiter. We've already had monoliths on planetary surfaces, but we haven't had them buried underneath the surface or in orbit around planets. For KSP 2, the monolith hunt could be expanded by adding interstellar Monoliths that aliens would have placed to tell when the Kerbals had gotten advanced enough to go into different star systems. A monolith would be required to increase the Kerbals technology further and further, the first letting them get off Kerbin after a plane flight from the KSC. The second would give Kerbals the technology to get them from Kerbin to the Kerbol system using chemical rockets. The third monolith would give them efficient rockets and interstellar tech. And finally, the fourth, if returned from an alien world back to Kerbin, would count as beating the game. Not only is this a great way to add a 'Campaign' to the game, it also allows speedrunning that isn't based on just a tech tree or a Eve mission.
  22. Title says most of it. Currently when your engine is burning and you are in map mode, rotating the camera changes where the engine noises come from. Personally I find this annoying, especially with headphones while I'm not listening to anything else and all of the sound is coming out of one ear. Do you find this similarly annoying or is it just me?
  23. I tried downloading bdarmory fps but my kerbal does not equip the guns so is ther a similiar mod to that. mod link for informations about the mod:https://spacedock.info/mod/284/BD%20-%20FPS
  24. In KSP 1 aside from the initial launch, docking and landing you spend most of your time flying the craft in map view. It would be a shame for the developers to beautifully shade, light and texture the spacecraft parts just so we can spend 90% of our time not looking at them. This is a difficult problem to solve as it objectively is easier to fly the craft in map view. Maybe you could add a small orthographic top down view of your orbit around the planet, you could use this for simple stuff such as circularizing your orbit, and you can use the map view for setting up more complex maneuvers such as rendezvous. It would also be cool to have a cinematic camera that automatically chooses good camera angles so that both your spacecraft and the planetary body you're orbiting are in view. It would also be cool to be able to plot the whole course and maneuvers for the spacecraft before the launch so you don't have to fiddle with maneuver nodes mid flight, you just fly the spacecraft according to premade maneuver nodes.
×
×
  • Create New...