Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'suggestion'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • General
    • Announcements
    • The Daily Kerbal
  • General KSP
    • KSP Discussion
    • Suggestions & Development Discussion
    • Challenges & Mission ideas
    • The Spacecraft Exchange
    • KSP Fan Works
  • Gameplay and Technical Support
    • Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
    • Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)
    • Technical Support (PC, modded installs)
    • Technical Support (PlayStation 4, XBox One)
  • Add-ons
    • Add-on Discussions
    • Add-on Releases
    • Add-on Development
  • Community
    • Welcome Aboard
    • Science & Spaceflight
    • Kerbal Network
    • The Lounge
  • Making History Expansion
    • Making History Missions
    • Making History Discussion
    • Making History Support
  • International
    • International
  • KerbalEDU Forums
    • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU Website

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



Website URL





Found 100 results

  1. I’m not sure how this is handled on PC, but on PS4 (and presumably Xbox), trying to control slider values is difficult, at best. The most obvious concern is precisely adding/removing fuel from tanks. Not only matching liquid fuel and oxidizer, but precisely controlling them as needed. I’ve got in the habit of just fiddling until it “close enough”, but that isn’t really ideal. Today it’s an issue of fairing sides. I don’t want “5.15” sides (why is this not whole values anyway?). But in all of these sliders, you can’t even reliably force a max or min value. Clicking at the very ends don’t necessarily push the slider there, and dragging doesn’t guarantee it either (maybe positional polling on sliders is really, really slow?). You can hold L1 to gain finer control, but it really just slows down movement. I’ve cranked my cursor speed down to 20, and while the cursor itself moves more slowly, the accuracy of the value is no different. It would be nice if L1/R1 and maybe even L2/R2 were modifiers for values. While holding X on the slider, holding L1 and moving slows it down like it does today. Holding R1 and moving changes the value in whole number steps. L2 and move changes in 0.1 steps. R2 and move changes in 0.01 steps. Or something along those lines anyway. Lastly, tracking across the screen would be nice. Once you leave the confines of the slide area, even while holding X, control tracking ceases. For consoles, or controllers in general, this is poor UX. Once X is being held on the slider itself, horizontal tracking should continue across the screen.
  2. KSP Wishlist (Parts only) These are all the parts that I would love to be added into KSP at one point or another. Yes, I know there are mods that add these, but I simply like it better when these things are Stock so that they won't break with updates, I never have to worry about managing my mods everytime and that I don't have to worry about mods becoming outdated or discontinued. Please leave feedback or your own suggestions on what things you'd like to see. Parts: *Requires Making History DLC Engines: Paid: · Merlin 1-D equivalent with Vacuum variant · BE-4 equivalent · Raptor equivalent · Rutherford equivalent with Vacuum variant (0.3125 meter size) · RL10 equivalent · RS-68 equivalent (Maybe the Mainsail could be altered to fit this role) · RD-170 equivalent with 4, 2 and 1 nozzle variants · GEM equivalent with editable nozzles (change angle) · RS-88/SuperDraco equivalent with Launch Escape Mode (Full thrust regardless of throttle) · Turboprops and helicopter rotors. Free: · Rework of the ‘Thumper’ to equivalate with AJ-60A with editable nozzle · Variant of the ‘Puff’ with an inline-mount and higher thrust · 1.875m SRB with segmented variants (You can choose how many segments you want it to have)* Command: Paid: · Dragon 2 capsule equivalent · CST-100 Starliner/Apollo equivalent (Basically a flatter version of the Mk1-3 Command Pod) · New Shepard crew capsule varient · Passenger plane cockpit · New 0.3125 meter Probodobodyne probes for very small probes and landers Free: · Mk1-3 Command Pod with Silver/Shiny metal variant · Mk3 and both Mk2 cockpits with heat shielded bottoms Fuel tanks: Paid: · New 0.3125 meter size tanks with White, Black, Silver and Orange variants. Also with RCS versions · New 2.5 meter Liquid Fuel tanks for planes Free: · New 2.5 and 3.75 meter tank variants in full White, full Black and Gray/Orange (plus a higher quality 3.75 meter standard variant and Orange variant) · New 1.25 meter tank variant in full Black · New 1.875 meter tank variant in full White and full Black* · 0.625 meter tank redesign and more length variants. In full White, full Black and Silver/Grey variants · New Mk2 and Mk3 tanks with heat shielded bottoms · Redesigned smaller RCS tanks to match the larger ones Command and Control: Paid: · Low profile RCS blocks like the ones used on Falcon 9 · Larger RCS blocks · Larger place-anywhere RCS thrusters Free: · Redesigned reaction wheels Structural: Paid: · Strut-like adapters between sizes · Structural tube adapters between sizes. i.e. hollow adapters · 0.3125 to 0.625 meter adapter Free: · Redesigned Girders and I-beams · Structural tube variant in Black, Orange and Grey-Orange · Struts that snap on both ends Coupling: Paid: · Multiple size docking port, can dock both normal and Jr. ports · Strut-like decouplers for 1.25, 2.5 and 3.75 meter sizes Free: · Redesigned, animated docking ports like the ones used on real-life spacecraft · 1.25 meter engine plate · New engine plate variant in Black Payload: Paid: · 1.25, 2.5 and 3.75 meter cargo bays Free: · Mk3 and Mk2 Cargo sections with heat shielded bottoms · Redesigned Payload Fairings: Slimmer design that’s hollow. Think of it as a Structural Tube with Fairing capability Aerodynamics: Paid: · Grid fins · Slanted nosecone in the style of the Atlas V SRB’s · Large FAT-465 Aeroplane Main Wing for large planes Free: · 1.875 meter nosecones* · Wing pieces with heat shielded bottoms Ground: Paid: · Landing legs in 3 variants. Falcon 9, New Shepard and New Glenn styles · Sideways retracting landing gear with shallower bays · Large, open structure wheels like the ones seen on that Batman-style Mars rover concept Free: · RoveMax Model S3; basically a larger S2 like the Mars 2020 Rover wheels. Thermal: Free: · Tiny Radiator Panel · Black variant of heat shields Electrical: Paid: · Electric Servos. Can be used in 3 separate way. 1: Can be setup to work as a fin, wing sections can be connected that will act as wings/fins. 2: Can be rotated on command using the UI or Custom Actions and 3: Can be set to continually rotate at a given speed. Come in a variety of sizes. These will consume Electricity based on the amount and speed of rotation. · Electric hinges: Can be opened and closed on command either with the UI or Custom Actions. Come in a variety of sizes · Medium deployable solar panels in the style of Orion, Dragon and Soyuz · Round, deployable solar panels in the style of Orion · Round solar panels in the style of CST-100 Starliner · Massive solar panels like on the ISS Free: · Redesign of RTG · Redesign of deployable solar panels · Option to limit Solar Panel rotational range, Communication: - Science: Paid: · Camera; Can be placed onto any craft. It will photograph whatever it is aimed at and can send those images to the Tracking Station Can be used while in orbit around a body to record it’s geography and create a map that can be used to find a suitable landing spot. It will only record a small section of the surface at any time, so making a complete map requires a polar orbit and time. Maps can be uploaded to the Tracking Station from the craft Utility: Paid: · New 2.5 meter Crew Cabin for planes · More powerful Launch Escape System in the style of SLS/Soyuz Free: · Smaller radial parachutes · Redesigned Mk16, Mk16-XL and Mk25 parachutes so they look better New Mechanics: · Fairings are now solid and stuff can be attached to them. · Fairings can now partially be deployed from any chosen point upward. Players can now choose what part of the fairing separates and what part stays. It is also possible to have the top portion of a fairing stay attached to the craft, see the Launch Escape system of the Soyuz for an example.
  3. Don't you think it would be cool if you could repair your space station in first person? I really want to see first person while EVA'd.
  4. Here's what's wrong with the Thud: Its Isp is good for atmospheric, trash for vacuum (so it's an atmospheric engine) It has higher drag than a radially-mounted hammer with an aerodynamic cap, so it causes a lot of drag in atmosphere It's 0.9t...but you need at least 2, so it's more like 1.8t with double the thrust. That's as heavy as a Poodle, and much heavier than 1.25m engine options. With the Making History DLC, it is massively outclassed by the Cub (especially for landers), an engine with 5x lower mass, but only 3x lower thrust, and +5/+5 Isp, with the only downside of only one axis of gimbal. While you effectively need 4x Cub minimum...that's still less mass than 1 Thud (of which you need 2). Because of 1, and being radially-mounted, one of its niches is to be an early TWR booster...but the Spark outclasses it at this, and 2 means that it's probably better on drag to have radially-mounted tanks with caps and clustered Sparks on the bottom than to use Thuds. It's obvious intended asthetics, and one niche where its radial mounting and gimbaling should make it great, is as a shuttle OMS. The terrible vacuum Isp holds it back, however, and this clashes with its other main use being atmospheric. That drag needs to be fixed. Beyond that, I don't think it needs touching (and shouldn't be buffed much overall lest it become OP) for atmospheric use, since nobody really asked for that to begin with and not everyone even plays Career. The Cub also makes more asthetic/historical sense anyways. As for vacuum, I think the obvious thing to fix would be the OMS use case, to make it actually do what it looks like it should do. The two problems here are its mass and vacuum Isp. I think both should be about in line with 2 Thuds being only a bit worse than a Terrier. It also should be slightly worse than the Skiff, as that engine's pretty good and there should be a slight penalty for radial-mounting. Thus, the stats change I recommend is: 0.9t, 275/305s Isp -> 0.6t, 270/325s Isp.
  5. Texas Tim

    DLC Idea

    I had an idea and want to suggest it: a DLC similar to Making History, but instead of the past of spaceflight, the future of spaceflight. It would have parts themed after upcoming rockets in the future, and would add parts that also are in use today, such as proper landing legs for rockets.
  6. In my Kerbal Space Program game on Xbox, I am having an awesome time! But there is one big issue. After that I had played for a while, and made and saved a lot of ships, I went into the VAB and built a ship. I saved it and then launched it, and it got my payload into orbit. I wanted to make a few changes to the design and do a new mission with the old ship, but when I went to open the ship, it stopped loading the ships. I could not move down or up or press on any ship, so I exited out of the menu. I tried again and it did't work. I frustratingly rebuilt the old ship completely. There is no way I can delete old ships to get it to load faster because I can't do anything in the menu. I was wondering if there is a way to fix this, and if not, I would like to suggest that it would be patched. Also, there should be a way to select multiple quicksaves at a time and delete them all at once. It is quite frustrating to delete one, and it reloads, and delete another one, and it reloads. I love this game and if this was patched it would be even better.
  7. The_Cat_In_Space

    Automatically changing :) to emoji

    Hi! I've been on this forum for a long time, and I've recently found it annoying how whenever I type in : ) (I've put a space in there so it doesn't change), it automatically changes to . This is really annoying, as some times I just wanna express with the text, and not with the forum emojis. Maybe an option could be implemented like 'Automatically turn text to emojis' enable/disable or on/off. Have a happy holidays, TCIS : )
  8. Thelizard

    New Channel

    Considering creating a new KSP channel and would like suggestions for a first mission Thanks!
  9. I'm sure this has been said quite a few times, but I just wanted to share some features I think would greatly improve fairings and their use-cases in the game. I've listed all the changes I'd like for them to make. 1. The most obvious one. Reduce the size of the part and make it look better. Right now it just looks ugly and out of place on pretty much every rocket. A much better look would be something like a decoupler only taller and without the markings. Another feature would be to make it hollow, like the structural tubes. That way there's way more flexibility with them. 2. Change the colours of the variants. I find that the variants look quite ugly because of the very repetitive and textureless surface. 3. Make fairings be solid so other parts can be attached to them. This would add a toggle in the VAB/SPH that would make the fairing solid. You can then attach the parts you like. If you then make it see-through again the attached parts become part of the fairing itself and will remain with it even after being deployed. 4. This is the most complicated one. Make it so fairings can be split up into multiple parts than can be deployed seperatly or not at all. This would work while making the fairing. An extra option would make the rest of what's build independent from the bottom of the fairing. Each section can then be staged seperatly or be disabled from staging. To visualize this just think of the fairing seperation on an Atlas V, where the top part of the fairing deployes while the bottom half stays attached. This feature would vastly improve the usability of fairings to beyond just protection from the air and streamlining. Thoughts or suggestion?
  10. FellowBob


    Hello, I haven't been playing ksp for long, but I've noticed a distinct lack of any cameras in the game (I mean as parts, obviously there is "the camera"). This seems a little strange, seeing as space travel in real life often involves cameras in some form. Whether on rovers, attached to rockets or in telescopes, they're everywhere, but the only "camera" in ksp is a huge infrared telescope. As well as adding realism, cameras could be used as a science tool, and potentially even be used to boost popularity and funds like photos do in actual space programs. Maybe camera views could be switched between by using "C" to change which camera you're seeing through, and "photos" from the cameras could be saved like screenshots. Here are a few ideas for different camera types, any of which I think would be a great addition to the game: A rocket-side camera- Maybe a gopro sized thing which you could stick on the side of rockets to film as they launch A moveable mastcam or camera system- Would be great for rovers, like the ones on opportunity or curiosity A tiny, hull-mounted camera for probes or rovers- like the navigation cameras on on Curiosity, could maybe make lower quality photos A large fixed camera- maybe for higher quality photos A space telescope part- yes, there's the SENTINEL, but it would be nice if there was something else, maybe to look at stars or very distant planets and take photos, like the Hubble space telescope.
  11. It annoys that a "simple" part upgrade needs a part config that refers to a model which refers to a texture to have an icon inside R&D for a tech unlock (like a Module)...
  12. Kroslev Kerman


    it would be nice if the DLC Actually added the Descent module from the Soyuz because am annoyed that there is no soyuz style descent module
  13. Hello fellow kerbals. Let's talk about science mode ! I - The Issue I might be some kind of a masochistic player but I can't help to think that even with a 10 % science rewards settings, unlocking the tech tree feels wrong. In my experience, for a 10 % setting, it's : 1) Unnecessarily grindy at the very beginning 2) Somewhat normal around moon and minmus if you travel a bit through biomes with like 2 moon missions and 2 minmus missions 3) Still way to fast to unlock once you can get into other planets orbits 4) Rendered completely pointless by science lab, which stays OP even at 10 %. I mean, even if I just put science stations here and there and don't speed up time directly, any trip to Jool while they are running in the background will speed up that time anyway and grind hard. I won't say much about career mode as I feel it's quite the same issue, science and money feeling like two separates things even with strategies running, plus I tend to prefer science mode at the moment. My computer lags with too much pieces, so I actually build low-price rockets anyway :$ II - The Idea As I came across a simple achievement mod found on CKAN (this one, here) I thought "hey, it would be pretty cool if instead of science, tech tree was unlocked through objectives / missions / achievements of some kind !" It could look like this for instance : Launch a Vessel --> Land a Vessel / Splash-land a Vessel --> Get Over Kerbin Atmosphere --> Land at North / South Pole --> Get to Orbit --> SOI Moon or Minmus --> Orbit M or Mm --> SOI Sun --> Land M or Mm --> SOI Duna or Eve --> etc... That would require some kind of thinking as for the order, but it would be fun to play in my opinion. Plus, as tech tree columns grow in size, your possibilities tends to inscrease as well : orbiting Duna or Jool makes little difference, so the same mission in multiple planets could fill up tech branches (same for Moon or Minmus actually). As science parts would be rendered useless, some missions could call for them, i.e. "do an atmospheric scan landed of EVE" or something. What do you think, is that cool and doable as a mod ? (Or does it exist already, making me look very dumb ?) I know that one could challenge himself and not rely on a game mechanic, but I feel like a progressive mode like science is pointless if you have to moderate yourself playing it. I mean, you might as well go for the sandbox mode if you have to make your own challenges anyway. It would also be newbie-freindly I think, as it would give the player objectives that are assured to be doable, which is very good for motivation and understanding (i.e. seeing Minmus before Moon or at the same level could bring some kind of questions, leading to an illumination when player understands why / do the mission).
  14. Sometimes, mostly when service bays are in horizontal possition, the ship does a big jump because all the doors opening, but I only need to open the upper doors Am I the only one?
  15. We need jet engines to have suction force, for example, if a kerbal comes within 5m of the center of a Goliath engine facing fowards, they will get sucked in and be killed if the engine is on idle. If the engine is full power, suction force starts 15m away from the center of the engine and increases the closer you get, until a kerbal gets within 7m of the center of the engine, which is when they will get sucked in. If parts are light enough they will get sucked in as well. I think that parts 0.25 tons or lighter should get sucked in or be pulled towards the engine. I think this should only apply to single-part turbofans. If the part sucked in has fuel or is too large, the engine will get damaged and it should get a new, damaged-looking model and start trailing black smoke instead of the normal white exhaust, and if it's not shut off, it will "catch fire" by which I mean it will start trailing yellow smoke that gradually turns orange, then red, then black, to simulate fire. If it still isn't shut off, it can explode, causing the tank it's attached to to leak fuel. And it should leave behind a damaged, bent pylon. There should be an option to disable engine damage, too, as well as an option to disable suction. I feel this should be included in the game to make people stop trying to throw their kerbals in jet engines. If suction effects are too hard or take too long, at least do the second option, with the damage simulation.
  16. I really like the idea of havin a red circel on the map with a radius of 250km arround the KSC. Outside that circle the "Recover Vessel" option (both in flight and trackingstation) is disabled. The circle marks the 0% funds for recovery mark and the ksc is 100% with a let's say 20km radius as a bonus to compensate the lack of recovery outside of 250km. Would make the game interresting at least and stil be fair because of the better payment close to the KSC. Just an idea I had. Cheers.
  17. As I understand it, the new Mission Builder in Making History allows for making missions that require mods. I suggest making a sub-forum to the Making History Missions forum dedicated to missions that require mods. This way it would be easier to find missions suited for a vanilla game or a modded game to suit your install.
  18. When you are plotting manuever nodes, the readout on the side of the navball shows how much D/V the burn shall take, and how much you have done. This works fine when you have one node active, but if you have multiple, it only shows the closest, which can be annoying when you’re planning a transit to Jool, but you can’t see how much D/V you’ll need to capture because you have a correction burn of 2m/s active as well. I suggest a way to cycle through which manuever node is active on the navball.
  19. After several hours of gameplay on sandbox and testing my creativity, I decided to get more serious and start a new career mode. As an airplane lover I really felt a lack of utility on creating atmospheric aircrafts despite being useful on running short distances to gather surface samples on the very beggining of your career. I really saw no need on building those gigantic and awesome airplanes. It would be even more awesome building those on career mode, where you would to plan and desing a even more efficient and better airplane then your casual "sandbox jumbo". As a simple solution, I came up with the following idea: Main idea: Add "Airports" around the surface of Kerbin capable of picking up or delivering Kerbals. It doesnt have to be too complex, just a runway and a "terminal".Beyond the missons you receive form the Space center, you would have some "passanger kerbals"(as a new type of kerbal, like the Pilots, Engineers and Scientists, and now, Passanger) on standby. Each kerbal would have a unique destination, and taking him to the "airport" that he wants to go, would reward you with money. Further away the airport, more money you get. Purpouse: That would encourage the player to build a better, saffer, more efficient airplane and as a whole, creating an extra purpouse for atmospheric aircrafts. Canon(?): To make the Kerbal passanger transport make sense as a whole, it would be a cool thing if we added something more beyond taking those random kerbals around Kerbin. It would make more sense if those airport were added next to a cluster of KerbNet Antennas in order to, in theory, keep the maintaince of those antennas. Also, there would have some bigger airports, which those, would be larger and contain a science only building in it, so having more kerbals in it, would increase the income of science. Taking scientists to an airport, would increase the amount of science income, and taking engineers, would increase the efficiency of the antennas. Conclusion to "Canon(?)": Beyond transporting Kerbal passangers that would give you money for that, you would have the option to take Scientists and Engineers too. Taking scientists to an airport, would increase the amount of science income, and taking engineers, would increase the efficiency of the antennas near that airport.
  20. kevnuke

    Console sub-forum

    I was thinking with all of the PC versions and the outdated advice associated with the older versions that may not be accurate for console version 1.00 there should be a sub-forum just for console Q&A. I search for info about some topics and all I can find are threads that are years old from several major versions previous to what the console edition is based on. Console players wouldn't have to wonder if the advice they're receiving is current or not.
  21. Holy sciencey title Batman! Basically what I'm suggesting is for SAS to be a module on command pods/probe cores that's automatically assigned to the SAS action group but can be removed and set on other action groups, just like the brakes on wheels and lights in lights and crew parts. What this would do is open up an entirely new action group with new properties. I know you can already set things to the SAS action group, but it's basically suicide to disable SAS mid-flight, especially in some aircraft. As for the "new properties" I mentioned a sentence or two ago, the SAS action group can be on or off, and can have the state temporarily reversed by holding the F key. This would be useful for things such as Space X-style booster landings or SSTO re-entries where briefly deploying all your airbrakes or retracting them to keep them from blowing up from the re-entry heat or to fine-tune your trajectory would be extremely useful. TL;DR - Make SAS an action group like brakes or lights to free it up for other things where temporarily inverting the state of a part would be required/useful.
  22. [First time I've made a thread so please let me know if I need to do anything differently or post somewhere else ] So here's a suggestion - functional simulated Space Elevators and Skyhooks not as vessels but as KSC pseudo-Structures that can be upgraded like any other. I don't know if I'll ever get around to making this myself so I want to put the concept out there for feedback and for anyone with more modding experience than me. I'll start with Space Elevators since they're simpler to use and implement. Using one would go something like clicking on the structure in the KSC, seeing the same menu you get when you click on the Launchpad and Runway, selecting a vessel to "launch", and then loading to a floating "structure" in geostationary orbit above the KSC. We basically render the station at the top of the space elevator, not the elevator itself, so it just floats there acting as a launchpad. There could be multiple such structures at different altitudes up the length of the elevator, from LKO up to GEO, although you'd only find yourself in a circular orbit if you set off from the GEO point since you wouldn't be starting with enough orbital velocity. From your chosen launch point you detach and off you go. You can use this method to put entire spaceships (subject to mass limits determined by structure upgrade level) into orbit, or put individual modules of a ship or station into orbit one at a time and then dock them. You could even bring canisters of material kits or rocket parts up if you're using Extraplanetary Launchpads, up to a waiting shipyard, enabling you to construct HUGE ships very easily for some seriously cool late-game stuff. This is my reason for wanting this mod, I'm tired of launching from the KSC or from EL bases on the moon and I want ways to streamline the process while remaining grounded in realistic futurism. For balance we can use the stock building upgrade system to incrementally increase how much mass the elevator can accommodate in one "launch" - you'd start with a few tons, and work your way up to tens or maybe hundreds. I don't think it should ever be unlimited as with the fully upgraded Launchpad and Runway. That would be too easy, you may as well just use Hyperedit at that point. For optimal functionality with EL, we'd need some way to have at least one vessel "docked" to the orbital launch point, otherwise we'd have to manually ferry cargo to a nearby station every time we brought it up, largely negating the whole point of the mod. I'm not sure how achievable this is in KSP. If it can be done, I'd like any vessel docked to the elevator to be able to receive unlimited resources from the surface, for a price of Resource Amount * Resource Cost * Operating Cost per Unit of Mass. If we can't dock with the structure in any traditional way, perhaps we can treat the shipyard as being in an unlaunched state on one of several staging points. Ideally that would mean there's a main "Launchpad" from which vessels brought up by the elevator are deployed, surrounded by one or more dummy launchpads where vessels can be placed, used and recovered but are unable to launch. This could get buggy though. Still trying to think of an ideal solution. Finally, if we wanted to make this REALLY awesome, it would be pretty great to place such pseudo-structures on any body in the Kerbin System and beyond. This could be used with out EL but it would be much more useful if you were using it as part of some serious extraplanetary shipbuilding or resource-moving infrastructure. This would entail a special part which, in the case of the Space Elevator, acts as a sort of "setup kit" which can be deployed on, say, the Mun to create a Space Elevator endpoint. It would need to be placed at the equator of a body to work and would take time and resources to complete setup. Upgrades to the new elevator would be managed through the right click part menu, but I think the best solution would be a dedicated menu at the KSC and Tracking Station where we can manage all our launch structures throughout the system in one list, without having to load in and visit them. We could also create skyhooks in the same way. The idea with skyhooks is they're cheaper to operate and in many ways simpler to build than space elevators. These would require you to fly a spaceplane to a specific speed and altitude eastwards over the equator. A toolbar menu would then enable you to "attach" to the skyhook, which would teleport the craft to a specific orbit depending on the skyhook.It would be fun to make even more narrow criteria and try and intercept the skyhook at exactly the right time and place, but it wouldn't be much use if you wanted to use the thing regularly. It would be nice to attach only the cargo somehow, but I don't know how realistic that is or how we'd achieve that in the mod since KSP only sees one craft irrespective of what's considered "cargo". Conceivably this would work offworld as well. Alright, that's it. I think what I've outlined here would be quite achievable, if I or anyone else gets around to making such a thing, and it would be tremendously useful and immersive for builds like mine where I'm spending most of my time in the late game playing with mods like Interstellar Extended and USI Colonization. I'd love to hear what the rest of you guys think
  23. A few days ago I built a glider in KSP. Pretty awesome at fist, but it got boring after 3 flights or so because there was no way of staying in the air without descending. So I started thinking: "What if weather, wind, turbulences and thermics was added into the game?" This is basically what this suggestion is. Weather, wind and thermics. This would give gliders a sence and make the game more chalenging, for example when you want to land on Duna or Eve, but there's a storm underneath you or if you want to launch a rocket. Would you like to see a feature like this in the game? (And yes, I know that there is a mod that adds wind, but it's pretty Basic.)
  24. Hi, this is my first post here, so please tell me kindly, if I should do anything in any other way. I would like to post a suggestion: prevent draining of probe's core (okto, hecs) battery by any other module. Situation: some other module is draining all the juice but I cannot switch it off, because okto/heces does not have enough power to do so. No power for core to disable what is disabling it. Dead core, even with solar panels and sun shine, that just happen to not provide enough charge for whatever is draining the power. Alternative: enable switching off anything even if the core does not have power (including hibernation). Alternative 2: Is there a mod capable of doing so? Thx. P.S.: I am a programmer and could possibly create such mod, but I am afraind that the rules do not permit this, because I am not allowed to use ILSpy to examine those DLL's in KSP_Data/KSP_x64_Data althogh they are clearly marked as DATA and should therefore not be considered SOFTWARE to apply the ridiculous EULA, but I saw a post about "Legal Boundary", which I do not want to cross.