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
  • Kerbal Space Program 2
    • KSP 2 Discussion
  • 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
  • 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


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



Website URL





Found 129 results

  1. 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.
  2. now this is a great idea because the stock ksp game doesn't have life support, but it would be really cool if ksp2 had life support systems put into the stock game, i know it would be more of a challenge to maintain your craft by monitoring your food water and oxygen but the thing is that cramming kerbals with nothing to eat is pretty unhealthy for them but if they had self sustaining bases or motherships then it would be amazing to build but hey, its just a suggestion, hopefully take two sees this and considers putting this into the game. Now, this is not pressuring take two to put something into the game or a demand but merely a suggestion.
  3. There been a lot of talk about this with people ik irl and people saying similar to this idea but I feel like we are missing out if they don't add this mode. When it comes to me I had played ksp for years but was never really any good at it. But when the career mode was introduced it forced me to learn each step and vitalize the items I had on me. I made me feel like an engineer to face the problem of money restraint and vitalizing my designs so they do exactly what the need to do. All though if I had to add a system with it it be a rival space industry race me for contracts and we need to make co op missions to help each other out or don't. Make a space colony/dock to make money with other companies etc. I just dont want only exploration I want to be invested in each action I do. I want my mistakes to have value, I want were theirs limited food, water, and the air they breath. I want it so i need to worry about my kerbals mental health and physical health. I truly want to live in this solar system and the galaxy itself and face all the real complications of those ways to get there. I know this would make the game so much harder and complex but wouldn't you want to face all the obstacles of it to better understand what we need to face in real life and what we can do to solve these problems. I know some have the same opinion and some don't but it should be an option if we want to face it.
  4. Wouldn't it be great if the lights had an actual shader that changes its color based on whatever color you set for the light? For the next part revamp, maybe. In the stock game you can change the color of the light, but the texture always remains white. I added a bunch of colored textures to the lights via the MM patch, but it's a little bit clunky to use and I only have a certain amount of colors to work with. But it still looks great, or at least better than just a plain white light with the actual color being different.
  5. So today i stumbled upon recent PC Gamer article about KSP 2. I recommend to watch the videos, reviewing this article, before reading this post(or you can check out transcript somewhere on this forum). Videos can be found on ShadowZone and Matt Lowne YT channels. I'm not gonna talk about the whole article, but rather about the part, that states, that KSP 2 will have what is called "Adventure Mode". From my understanding of this article, there is planned to be no funds/contract system in the game, because dev team considers, that it was too grindy in the original game. I disagree with this position. In fact the Career Mode is my favorite game mode for a very long time now. The only time i'm not playing it, is when i feel an urge to tinker and have fun with airplanes in sandbox, which is one of my hobbies (BTW this is why i really expect KSP 2 to improve in this area as well, but that's the story for another time), but when it comes to playing a campaign of my own Space Program - Career Mode is my only choice. I've never been an active user on this forum, or on any forum tbh, but the threat of not having this, EXTREMELY important feature, in the sequel, made me sit and write this post anyway. I really hope, that sharing my thoughts here, will make players give it a seconds chance and KSP 2 devs reconsider their position about adding it to the game, because it really deserves it. And here is why. Firstly let's talk about why the Career Mode was called "too grindy" in the first place. The contract system in the original game pretty much consist of the list of the simple objectives and rewards with some RNG integrated, and feels like it was done in a hurry by someone, who had little idea about how to realize the feature in the first place and took completely wrong approach. As a result of that most of the contracts were about pressing certain button at certain speed/altitude for a minor payout. I'm not arguing, with the fact, that it was indeed very boring. It was. But it is important to note, that is an issue NOT with career mode itself, but rather with the way contracts were implemented, so it shouldn't be used as a reason to not include the career mode into the sequel. The thing that is also worth noting, is that a lot of people, who've tried career mode, abandoned it almost instantly, without investigating the game mode further. Because of that they've had no chance of understanding good and important concepts, that this mode introduced to the game, so the community opinion about career mode being garbage was born. But i am not one of those people. I am one of the few, that gave the Career Mode a chance to prove itself. And spoiler alert - i wasn't disappointed. The importance of the "Funds" concept. KSP is a game about building rockets from parts and launching them into space. Some parts are better, some are worse, and some might come in handy in a specific situation, while being completely useless in the other. A good half of the fun in this game comes from designing a unique vessel, that serves specific purpose and taking some trade-offs in the process. In the game like this, it is VERY important to keep the parts balanced, otherwise your're gonna end up with a same design being an answer to every question, which is obviously not good and will for a fact make the game boring. There is of course a lot of ways to balance parts, such as mass and size for all parts, and some unique parameters for a certain part category, like range and throughput for antennas, lift and drag coefficients for wing parts and thrust and ISP for engines, when sometimes you sacrifice some thrust, in order to squeeze more dV out of your vessel, that is to reaching your destination destination, and other times you don't get a luxury of having good ISP, because you need a lot of thrust to push your massive 1000t craft out of the atmosphere. And in Career Mode there is also a cost. Why is it so important you might ask? Answer is going to be complicated. Let's talk about RTG's. RTG's are great! They have almost no mass, they take almost no space and they generate electricity absolutely for free, regardless of any conditions. The only downside of them is the fact, that they generate electricity at really low speed, which can be countered with just using more of them. You can see where i'm going with this. Why would i ever use solar panels and huge batteries(not even mentioning the fuel cells), when i have RTG's unlocked? If i'm playing Science or Sandbox i can just put 20 RTG's on my craft without any trade-offs and completely forget about the electricity as a game concept. Not good. But in career mode i have a clear reason to not do so - COST. For the same money, it costs to put 2 RTG's on my vessel i can launch a rocket to the Mun that will land there and return safely to Kerbin with crew onboard. A bit more ridiculous example: Why wouldn't you use a Daedalus engine to propel your 500kg probe into the LKO? Same answer. COST. And that is where the Career mode absolutely shines. Not only it introduces a necessary balancing factor into the game, that prevents player from thoughtlessly spamming parts, that are OP in other game modes, but on top of that it also FUNDAMENTALLY changes the way you approach designing your spaceship, by introducing unique trade-offs, that are present in no other game mode. For example: * You want to launch a communication satellite to the LKO. Which command probe will you chose? Sandbox/Science: "The best one obviously!" Career: "Well since it is a just communication sat, that is not indented to dock with anything, intercept something or land at specific location there is no point in having expensive SAS so i might just use the cheap one and save some money for future missions." * You want to launch a communication satellite to the LKO. Which engines will you chose for the rocket? Sandbox: "Vectors." Science: "Look at that new and shiny Mainsail i just unlocked!" Career: "It's only LKO i'm going to and my payload is not that big. I might easily get away with Swivel." * You want to launch science mission to the Mun's surface. Where will you put science equipment? Sandbox: "What's science?" Science: "Descend stage obviously. I can just take all the data from them and not take extra weight back with me." Career: "Damn these GRAVMAX and Double-C Seismic Accelerometer are so expensive! I think it's worth trying to recover them! Let's see...I can try snapping all the science on top of the crew module right near the parachute and hope, that it won't overhear on reentry... OR... I can put my science module in the service bay between the heat shield and crew module! But is it really worth paying extra for the service bay? Hmm..." The Career Mode adds new and, most importantly, interesting challenges(or puzzles how the Devs are calling them) of getting to space, in the game that is ALL ABOUT the challenge of getting to space. I don't know about you guys, but for me it is VERY exciting and makes me enjoy the game SO MUCH MORE. But wait! There is more! Have you ever heard about the guy called Elon Musk? He once said “Six million dollars is falling through the sky. Would we try to catch it?” Well would we? No. Because guess what! There is no such thing as "dollars" in the game! You might still do it for fun or challenge, but the whole concept of making reusable rockets or even SSTO's becomes pretty much pointless! In conclusion: Pros of Career Mode: * Balance for the expensive late-game parts * More challenges for the player * Encouragement for a player to reuse rockets Cons of Career Mode: * Was too grindy in the original game (which, as i explained earlier, is not even an issue with Career Mode itself) I think it is clear now, that Career Mode brings so much to the gameplay. It makes the game even more in-depth and realistic (you have to remember, that rocket science IRL is not just about getting to space, but rather getting to space with the cheapest and easiest way possible, which is often forgotten by KSP community), it introduces A LOT of new opportunities and challenges to the player, that NASA, SpaceX, Blue Origin, Rocket Lab and every other rocket company IRL faces and has to deal with. And i not just absolutely love that. For me it is ESSENTIAL in the game like KSP. And taking all this good stuff out of the game, just because original game had not enough good ways to farm the money? It's just unacceptable in my opinion. So we have an essential, for this game, mechanics - money and a fact of grinding said money was boring in the original game. What do we do in the sequel? I would answer - instead of removing money from the sequel entirely, it is better to rethink the way player earns this money. And i have some ideas on how to do so, that i'd like to share. * Not all contracts in the original game were boring. Most of them yes, but not all of them. Tourism for example. Riding couple VIPs to the Mun and back is nowhere near a bad gameplay. It had it's issues of its own, like the required destinations would be a complete mess (for example land on Minmus+complete suborbital flight on dune on the same flight, which complicates the mission by a lot) if you visited a lot of celestial bodies, but that could be manipulated by the player. My strategy about it was: if you land on the Mun to unlock Mun contracts, but then won't go to Minmus or any other place, so the game gives you contracts, associated with only Kerbin (suborbital+orbit) and Mun(fly by+orbit+suborbital+land), and all of these objectives could be completed within nice and simple Mun landing mission. If you want to learn more about this method of farming you can check out thingy in the Steam Workshop, that i've posted a while ago. TL;DR: rocket with 16 VIP seats could make profit over 2 millions per flight if you get lucky with contracts. Again for a relatively simple Mun landing mission that will take 30-60 minutes that is not "too grindy" at all. My suggestion here - leave VIP contracts in the game, but limit the objectives in the way, so there will be one single destination for the whole contract, that is shared by all the VIPs in it. And maybe some multiplier for flying a lot of VIPs at the same time (single VIP - 50k, x2 - 55k each, x3 - 60k each and etc.), to reward player for taking time and effort in designing big and capacious spaceships. * Another example of good contracts are Rescue contracts. You get free Kerbal in your Space Program(just a reminder that in Career Mode you have to purchase Kerbonauts for those who haven't played it) and you also get paid for it on top of that. Pretty good stuff. * Contracts for putting 3rd party satellites on the required orbit are welcome as well. Also in my opinion it would be better if the game had some pre-build sub-assemblies instead of telling player to build the satellite himself(ex. "Hey here is my satellite. Put it in LKO with 350km apogee, 400km perigee and 10deg inclination." Player accepts the contract and gets a sub-assembly of this satellite and only required to send it to the desired orbit) * Contracts for resupplying satellites/space stations. Player accepts the contract, pre-made craft spawns in orbit, and player has to dock with it and transfer certain amount of resource to complete the contract. * Pretty much advanced and combined previous 2. Client gives contract to get sub-assembly to orbit, some time after player completes it the same client gives another contract to send new sub-assembly to the old one and dock them together. Repeat until the whole space station will be finished. Some time time after that player will start to get resupply contracts from same client. All these contracts will NOT be "boring" just by their nature, but can become boring IF the pay is bad, so the player has to focus on them too much. On the other hand, if player would get paid well for completing them, they WILL be VERY much welcome in the game. I would happily complete as many of them as needed, to fund my Space Program, considering again, that the paycheck is reasonable. * Concept of funding researches with money would never hurt * Idea of KSP 2 is to explore new horizons and find a new home for Kerbal kind. But that's a long term goal. To achieve that goal player has to get through a number of simpler objectives. And that Way could be similar to something like this, if the Career Mode will make it to the sequel: All starts with a cheap prototype rocket launch, continues with couple of commercial satellites being put in orbit and some tourists being send suborbital, to fund the research and construction of new and better rockets. With new tech comes the Mun landing, that unlocks Mun tourism and funds more research. After that player starts thinking about building colonies, to expand his reach, so the great exploration begins. From Duna to Eve, to Jool and Laythe and anywhere within the Kerbol System, until the Great Interstellar Ship has been constructed, while ALL of that being funded by commercial flights i described above. Colonies start to become independent and will use on-the-spot resources to build rockets. So at this point the money will start to lose its value for exploration and after Kerbals arrive to new star system they will have no use for it there at all. All that of course while on Kerbin player can still continue to expand the commercial side of his Space Program. And one more important thing to note here, that the "Cost" concept should still be present for colonies, that mine resources, in order to build a rocket. This can be implemented through a lot of multiple ways, i'm sure everyone can think of one. Here is the first thing, that came to my mind first(don't take this one too seriously): * Add to the game basic resources like Copper and Iron, that will be good for most of the stuff and can be found almost everywhere and some rare ones, like Uranium or Titanium, that will be required for high-tech stuff. Each part in the game will it's cost in the resources. When player attempts to launch build a craft in the colony game calculates total cost of the craft in resources and checks, if the colony has enough of these resources in its storage. Simple. Should work perfectly. This process can also be complicated by adding more different resources/making some resources to not be mineable directly, but rather craftable from other resources (like plastic from oil, or microschemes from copper and iron, etc.)(Factorio vibes yes ). This "cost in resources" thingy can also be applied to Kerbin, so that instead of paying for the rocket directly, player will pay for the resources, necessary for the rocket. * The thing above can easily be a limiting factor for why player can't build a Daedalus engine on Kerbin. It would simply cost to much. So instead of buying it player will be forced to go and get resources, necessary to construct it. * And if that seems too complicated it is still a solution to make VAB's on colonies require funds for rockets, just like the VAB on Kerbin, in order to simplify things. (although i'm not a fan of this approach) * Also great addition to this would be an ability to disassemble landed vessels into resources, for the sake of reusability. I've been typing this for couple hours already, so i'm tired and starting to lose track of my thoughts. This is it for now, but i might add something later. In the end i want to say: Fellow Kerbals, give another chance to the Career Mode. It really deserves it. And, of course, please help me with spreading this word to the devs. KSP 2 devs, i hope that this post makes you re-think your position about Career Mode in KSP 2 and helps you make the sequel as good as possible! And of course feel free to share any ideas on this topic! -------------------------------------------------------------------- EDIT 25.06.2020 A new video on KSP YT channel came out(link) I want to draw your attention on a short glimpse of VAB UI at 4:28. As you can see Protective Rocket Nose Cone Mk7 has a cost of 111 Ore and 11.1 Uranium, which confirms that "cost in resources" i suggested earlier is in fact implemented in KSP 2. Now i can live in peace. Huge thanks to devs! <3
  6. I'm sure this is a an oft-beaten path, but it would really be nice to have something like alexmoon's launch window planner implemented into the KSC. It would make the Mission Control building a lot more useful outside of career contracts if you could go in there, punch in some numbers for a planned mission, and get a general idea of when you should launch, how much Delta-V will be required, etc. Mission planning in the stock game is anemic, at best, and I feel that the lack of something like this in-game detracts from the immersion of running your own space program.
  7. I'll get straight to the point. I haven't seen anything that can make a Kerbal talk. Sure, there's Chatterer and all, but you can't exactly control what the kerbals speak. So here's my request: a in-game Plugin that makes Kerbals talk (In Kerbalese, of course). Preferably connected to animations. How I think it might work: Also, I found this:
  8. Having destroyed the engines on my landable launch-stages in Career one too many times because there is no landing leg in the game large enough to land a Mainsail (or in my case, a cluster of Mainsails) without either heavy part-clipping of the engines or putting the legs on the ends of wings (which is draggy, structurally-weak, and makes it harder to maintain aerodynamic stability during an engines-first re-entry), and had even more launch stages tip over after landing, I am BEGGING for some larger stock landing-legs. Nothing too fancy. Just BIG. Maybe a 400 kg mass leg part? (this should put it in the right size/strength-range for landing heavy launch stages with Mainsail clusters, or crewed round-trip missions on Eve...) To avoid this being a problem again in the future, as players move towards ever-heavier designs, I suggest 3 new sizes of legs: - a 400 kg landing leg part, for landing Mainsail stages - a 200 kg part, more for when you just need a wider base: such as landing tall stacks with small Reliant/Skiff engine clusters on the bottom. - An 800 kg part, for truly insane designs: like heavy Eve landers. Additionally, if there were more aerodynamic-looking versions of some of these legs (like the ones in Kerbal Reusability Expansion) that would be amazing! I'll take any/all of those, as long as there is a leg in the 400 kg size range. But the 3 options I listed above really would make things easier (and more realistic: the stock legs are far too small for the forces they can repeatedly withstand) and less frustrating for players... And once again, for those who feel the need to make such comments: "LOL, just add mods!" is NOT an acceptable answer. Having been playing this game for 6+ years, I have seen countless mods come and go: but Stock parts stick around, are available on Console, and are official content- giving more players the chance to use these parts and become familiar with them. KSP has given me great diversion, frustration, and (sometimes) joy over the years- but it could be so much more. Expanding the range of stock parts available is a move in this direction: and I, like many players, would even be willing to pay for another expansion with a sufficiently-large selection of such new Stock parts... (although honestly, given where player base opinion is right now on DLC, how basic this functionality is of having larger legs, and how many people have been fiscally harmed by Covid-19: now is probably NOT the time for this to be another DLC: it would be better to add this "free" and sell other new parts/features later...)
  9. In my opinion, one of the biggest shortcomings of KSP one was that there were no IVA activities, and the science was just pressing a button and running a series of trite experiments repeatedly, that didn't make sense, and had very little basis in reality. What would be interesting would be a series of hundreds of randomly generated science experiments that could be assigned on missions and use supplies to do things that are more realistic, like experiments on animals or with plants, or physical tests of components in appropriate situations, not like the "tEsT lAnDiNg gEaR oN aN eScApE tRaJeCtOrY oF mInMuS", which makes no sense given the context. Considering the fact that the devs have an opportunity to not only overhaul game mechanics, but the actual core loop of play, more interesting science could alleviate the boredom caused by landing on a planet and not having anything to do there. The game could have another layer of depth that goes beyond just landing and managing fuel, but could be partially automated by well-designed UI and planners, that would also pair well with Kerbalism-style life-support or a KAC tool. This could compliment a realistic IVA system, so that one could actually use the ship interiors. This was just an idea I thought of a couple of hours ago, I'm curious to know your thoughts.
  10. 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:
  11. With several colonies throughout the systems, some degree of traffic is... expected? Desired? Required? Sure, KSP doesn't simulate all of Kerbin's cities, populations and industry, but those aren't space assets. KSP 2 is going for space colonies and industry, and if you have those, you've gotta have space traffic. I don't see how it could be fun for the player to run every material and passenger demand in two or more systems, between potentially a dozen colonies. To have no traffic at all seems... sad. The reasonable solution, then, is somewhat obvious, and appears surprisingly simple. The player could design and launch ships with either cargo, material or passenger capacity and enough DV to make the journey between the two or more desired location. If A and B have refueling facilities, then the ship only has to have the DV to get from A to B at worst system disposition, and vice versa. The ship would be deposited into storage at either A or B, and launched to make the journey by the colony AI. It would automatically cross the distance, refuel, deposit/pick up goods and passengers, and travel back. What this gives the game is 3 things. First, it gives a sense of life in the system, like you are not the only thing moving out there. Second, it lets you design various ships for the mission, and demonstrates how real life interplanetary traffic would look and function. Third, it gives some sense and reason to colony growth. In any reasonable scenario, early colonies would need shipments from more developed locations (unless the colonization effort is truly huge). The player could do that themselves, but we have Elite Dangerous and Eve Online for when we want to play space truck driver. The big issues I can see: - Not easy to make: You'd have to make pilot AI that can set up paths between A and B without being insane. - Atmospheric entry would have to be handled with two ships and an orbital station. The space freighter would deliver to the station, then the station would use shuttles and lifters to move the cargo to and from the surface colony. Lots of mechanics there. - Resource demanding. If done wrong, a dozen ships moving across the system could be hard on the simulation.
  12. This is one of those issues that has recurred periodically- but KSP could REALLY use a button that you press that will simply shift Kerbals into a "walk" or run state, rather than having to hold "W" until you fingers go numb to walk long distances... And while we're at it, rivers really need a control rework. It's sad and disappointing that such an integral part of the game STILL needs players to do things like switch to Docking Mode to properly control their rovers. I saw an Action Group labeled "Wheel Throttle" in the SPH recently, while editing some Action Groups. But this doesn't seem to do anything currently. What there SHOULD be is a "throttle" for Kerbal walking/running and rover wheels- even if there only end up being 2 speeds (for now) for Kerbals. Really it's just one of those basic quality-of-life issues I'm amazed the game has gone without this far..m
  13. Ok, I cant take this anymore, I wanted to build a shuttle, with mostly stock parts, but there is no Glass in the game, resulting in: I can not build this! Thats Why I wrote this, there arleady is a mod for it, but its Dead , And Glass panels are easy to make! Just grab a normal metallic Panel and make its transparency or the like 0.5, alteast more or less. I want a mod for this, but please it should get updated, Or more better, Stock Glass Panes! That would be good for a lot of players, including me. Thats it, I just had to say this, Share your opinions with me. -JordanLOL (a Space nerd)
  14. As a speedrunner, I find it slow and cumbersome to click around so much. Instead, I'd like to select an option in a pop-up window using a keystroke. A simple example is the messages at the start of a fresh career mode telling you about each building the first time you use it. I would like the "Enter" key to select the "Okay" option and close the pop-up. This could be extended to the window that opens after collecting science. "Enter" could select "Keep Experiment", "Delete" could select "Reset Experiment", and something else could be "Transmit Experiment". This is nitpicky, but I think it would be worth adding. An alternative could be using the arrow keys and Enter to navigate the options. This might help with long menus like when right-clicking a command pod. It might be a problem that multiple windows can currently be active at once. I feel this change would be minor, but I think players notice that this is not a feature.
  15. would it be possible to build a mod that allows you to maneuver around your space craft and press the switches as you wish?
  16. I created a feedback report explaining the situation in detail.
  17. .jfif is the same as .jpg (.jpeg) and should be supported.
  18. I hope I won't be accidentally double posting this, but I do not remember sharing my idea for a more involved Career/Science System I made half a year ago. The following could potentially be handled as a mod, but I am hoping with some feedback and refinement, it could be worthy of a future update since Career Mode and Science desperately need changes. The following Science Manifesto tackles that, along with changes to the Admin Building and Tech Tree. Copied from a PDF I wrote: THE SCIENCE MANIFESTO: CAREER OVERHAUL SCIENCE TYPES Instead of a generic “Science”, it would be split into 3 science types or “currencies”: Biology, Chemistry, and Material. Different science experiments can provide a varying degree of each. Generic instruments could provide all three, while more specialized would only provide one or two. The purpose of the different science currencies would still be used to unlock tech nodes, which now cost different amounts of each. It could also be used for contracts or for events (more on those later) Biology, Chemistry, and Material Science CHANGES TO EXPERIMENT RESULTS Experiment results are no longer abstracted. You no longer receive a ScienceDef result immediately after running an experiment. Instead, you receive one of two new result types: Data or Sample Data: Functions very similar to how science results are treated now. Experiments that generate number values (Thermometer, Barometer, etc.) will create a “Data” result. Data results can be transmitted via the CommNet system Samples: Experiments that collect a physical substance (Drills, soil scoops, gas chromatographs, etc) generate a “Sample.” Samples cannot be transmitted via CommNet, but you can run a second experiment on a Sample to convert it into Data, which you can then transmit. Converting a Sample into Data destroys the sample, leaving only the Data result. One sample could be run through different experiments and be converted into different kinds of data. Here could be some Sample Types: Atmospheric: Air or gaseous substances collected anywhere on a planetary body Soil: Ground sample collected anywhere on a body while “landed” Rock: Geologic sample collected from either specific biomes or from terrain scatters Liquid: Collected while “Splashed Down” Particle: A more complex sample that could be collected anywhere in the solar system. Such as solar wind plasma, Neutrinos, comet tail particles, etc. Samples can be collected and stored or moved. I am thinking is a KIS-style manner, where each takes up space and has mass. Different storage parts could be made to storage different kinds of and/or amounts of samples. Parts could be configured to spawn with a sample already in its inventory, such as to ship experiments to orbital labs (Plant growth, Material bay, etc.) Upon either transmitting, or returning the sample you will receive a science notification. The menu for this can be set very similarly to how contracts are now. An icon on the GUI can be added for science result logs and would flash once a new result is obtained from either a transmitted Data result, or a completed research project (See: R&D Building, Science Teams). It is from the new menu that you will obtain ScienceDef results, instead of when the experiment is first run. SCIENCE PART TYPES Science parts can now be more specialized. Parts could even be used only to collect samples, without providing any data, or to do both: Collector: These parts could run and generate a sample depending on the condition and biome of the craft. The Sample is added to an internal inventory where it can be moved to be worked on. Film Camera: Takes images and generates a “sample” film that must be returned Digital Camera: More advanced Camera that can develop or take digital pictures which are created as “Data” instead Instruments: These science parts take measurements of the environment or craft conditions, which are created as “Data” Labs: Lab parts take an input Sample, examine it (destroying it in the process) and converts it into “Data” that can then be transmitted R&D BUILDING The R&D Building now has four sections instead of the current two: Archives: Functions as it does now (Or can be removed) Warehouse: Stores samples collected during missions that return to Kerbin. Samples can be discarded sold, or moved to the Research Lab for analysis. The Warehouse Inventory can be accessed from the VAB/SPH or nearby in the world (Like KIS) to transfer returned samples back to a craft, if needed. Research Lab: Science teams in the research lab can analyze samples from the Warehouse for a much greater science return than in-situ experiments. You can run an in-depth analysis for each of the Science types (Bio, Chem, and Mat). Each analysis destroys the sample as part of the research, and subsequent runs of the same analysis on samples from the same biome yield vastly diminishing returns and/or take longer. In addition to increased science returns, sample research/analysis from a Research Lab has a chance to trigger an event. Events can be beneficial, detrimental, or preferably provide a number of player choices. For example, a sample from Duna could be found to potentially have micro-organisms. You could have the choice of exposing them to radiation or some other substance. Each choice would have an associated cost and either a randomized result, or a specific one depending on the sample and the Event. Events can be wildly different with different choices, and the percentage of each could be adjusted as to be less randomized. Development Lab: The development lab is the Tech Tree/Technology tab as it is in stock today. A couple of changes are that, like sample analysis, each node takes time to research. The cost of each node will now be one or more of the three new science types; depending on what it unlocks. Nodes for structural parts can cost more Material than other sciences, electrical or propulsion can cost more Chemistry, while manned or life support parts could cost more Biology. Other desirable changes to the Tech Tree system could be implemented here as well. One such change is using nodes to unlocked upgrade technologies and not necessarily “parts” alone. Nodes could even research KSC building upgrades, or Kerbal abilities. A tech node can unlock a part such as a manned capsule. The capsule has built-in RCS and auto-pilot but both are locked. Two nodes later on the tech tree could then “unlock” the ability for new crafts with that capsule to use each the built-in RCS, or its probe core. SCIENCE TEAMS Both sample research and tech node research now take time and funds. Each active research takes a certain amount of funds per day to maintain research. Providing Additional or reduced funding will affect the time it takes to complete each project. Funding would be managed from the Admin Building, along with any other R&D Policies. Research Projects are done by Science Teams. KSC has one Science Team by default, plus one per level of the R&D Building for a total of four teams at the highest level. A science team can be assigned to either research a sample, or a tech tree node. Starting out, you may have both teams analyzing samples for early science gain, and then switch both to research tech nodes once enough is obtained. MOBILE PROCESSING LABS The MPL and other parts like it will function very similarly to the R&D Building in that it provides you with the same three sample analysis options. Instead of requiring funds, MPLs need to be crewed and provided with power (and maybe eventually life support). Each MPL will provide a new science team. The efficiency of the MPL will be based on the Kerbals’ experience, and the results based on the location similar to stock now. Perhaps MPLs could also research tech tree nodes, especially if the tech tree is expanded. EXPERIMENT RESULT FLOWCHARTS The following are flowcharts to show the process for running experiments and obtaining science. INSTRUMENT EXAMPLE In this example, a simple instrument part is run. This generates a “Data” result, which can then be transmitted via an antenna, or returned for the same science gain. COLLECTOR AND LAB EXAMPLE This example shows a part used to collect a sample which is optionally returned to KSC, ran through and X-ray “lab” experiment, or a centrifuge. You would need to gather three samples with the soil collector in order to do all three options. MULTI-SITE AND MPL EXAMPLE This more complex example shows the many options from collecting a sample physically with a Kerbal and then processing it through multiple different experiments. It also shows a possible Event triggered by running a sample analysis in the MPL. I know it is a lot, but any thoughts or feedback?
  19. I have a hard time deciding which time warp option to use in a given situation. If I need to wait until the next orbit, and the period is about 1 hour, is that "1000x" or "10000x"? I know a transfer to Mun takes around 1.5 days (Apollo 11 took 3 days), and from experience I happen to know "10000x" is okay but "100000x" would zip you right past it. With counting zeroes and the altered time system (6 hours per day, 425 days per year), these kinds of estimates are non-intuitive. I recommend new labels for each time warp option based on how much in-game time would elapse in 1 real-time second. To make them comparable to current options, these options would be: 1s, 5s, 10s, 1m, 2m, 15m, 2h (or 1/2 d), 5d Then you'd instantly know "2h" (10000x) would be suitable for a 2-day journey to Mun, but "5d" (100000x) would be too much. The new maneuver node editor uses this type of labeling in the sensitivity slider. For a game that introduces people to the time and space scales of space travel, time warp should effectively convey the passage of time. (P.S. I also think the time warp options should be re-balanced, but that's a different suggestion.)
  20. One thing BetterBurnTime / Basic ΔV / KER / MechJeb / et al are missing: a way to 'reserve' x amount of ΔV to 'burnback'/deorbit/land a stage. So what I am asking is an addon with a small footprint that adjusts the active stages ΔV to reserve a set amount of ΔV to deorbit that stage - that 'reserve' amount would not show up in ΔV burn time / available ΔV for that stage. (In a way , like landertrons are not included) so active stage has 1000 m/s ΔV burnback ΔV is set to 100 m/s ΔV active stage only shows 900 m/s ΔV and any autostage will see only 900 m/s ΔV and stage after 900 m/s ΔV is consumed. stretch would be actually compute required m/s ΔV for destructive deorbit/controlled deorbit/landing deorbit anywhere/
  21. Pease make the previews larger. They are currently small and pixelated,. Why not make a a hover over option with a larger thumbnail?
  22. Pretty much this: I'm sure that I'm not the only one experiencing this, you can pretty much see this on every stream on twitch from time to time. I'm not the expert in Unity, but is there really no way this can be done? I highly doubt that.
  23. I would love to have the reflective stainless steel look of the SpaceX starship in the game. Implementing that would be quite easy, as the "textures unlimited" package shows, simply set all surfaces except windows to full reflection. It looks cool and would add a completely new look to parts without any additional design work. Here is a look at a plane of mine in stainless steel:
  24. I put it in here (instead of the general suggestions forum), because it is an expansion specific suggestion. I think it is not only useful, but absolutely necessary, to implement some kind of slider where you can adjust the time intervbals in which you get notification messages about new science points that are generated by your ground experiments. At the moment I have 3 ground experimental setups running on Mun (in order to fulfill a Goo Experiment Contract) and get spammed with messages informing me that the experiment added around 0.033 - 0.007 science points to my science point pool, especially when using time acceleration and IMHO this problem could get solved via 4 ways: Add in a global time interval slider (or buttons) where you can adjust the global time interval for messages by ground experiments (say 10 minutes to 24 hours) Add in a local time interval slider to each experiment control station, in order to adjust the time interval to all experiments controlled by this station Add in a point threshold, so that messages from ground experiments are either sent out when 10 minutes have passed, or when at least 1 full science point has been generated by the experiments ... whetever comes later (At least) Add in a "Delete all Messages"-Option to the Message box, so that you can clear the message box of all messages with one click and don't have (after an interval of time acceleration) to manually delete 100-200 messages one by one I for my part would definitely favor solution 1 ... but actually, the nature of the 4 solutions would also allow them, to be intermixed with each other
  25. So I was thinking about this today, partially because I had an abort situation earlier and I've been messing with the Robotics. Action Group delays to create sequences. I personally don't like spamming the Spacebar after an abort. Say a slider to add time to certain actions such as: Action Group Timer+0, Escape tower fires/ Capsule Decouples, AGT+5 Escape tower ejects, AGT+10 Drogue Chutes deploy, AGT+15 Main Chutes Deploy. Also with the new robotics, say you want to deploy a solar panel, however you have a delay between the hinge and piston deploying it, you would be able to bind it to a delay.