Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'suggestions'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • 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

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Website URL


Skype


Twitter


Location


Interests

Found 15 results

  1. The idea behind throttle locking is simple: a button in the right click menu that, when clicked, keeps a liquid fueled engine from increasing or decreasing it's thrust from whatever it's preset to ( you can still turn it on/off). This could be useful for keeping crafts balanced, such as space shuttle's with LFB's.
  2. I know this topic has been brought up, but I wanted to expand and say some things that I would like to see in a KSP Toy. It's probably going to be pretty long, so I'll ad a TL;DR at the end. Recently I came up with an idea for Rocket Figures that weren't launchable, but you could take them apart and build your own with the different parts from different sets that you buy. The rockets would be based on the Stock Rockets. The rocket building sets would include little Kerbal figures, like Jebediah Kerman (the quantity of the Kerbals would be based off of how many Kerbals can fit in the Rocket's capsule) that you could bring our of the rocket as well as place them back in the Capsule. Certain sets could have movable parts, such as a Munar-based rocket could have a capsule with extendable/retractable landing struts, a spaceplane with extendable/retractable landing gear, etc. Probably one of the Figures would be the Kerbal 1 rocket, which has two boosters and an Mk1 capsule, which would be the cheapest rocket in the rocket set series because it would be the simplest. Although the prices may vary in different countries/states or different stores, the price would depend on the size and how many parts are in the rocket. All parts on the rocket that are attached to decouplers (along with the decoupler itself) would be removable from the rocket to build your own rocket. An idea for the final, most expensive rocket would be the Kerbal X Stock Rocket, which has six boosters and an Mk2 capsule. This rocket would be larger than the Kerbal 1 Model and much more expensive due to the size and the amount of parts. Other Ideas for sets would be Space Shuttle kits, like the Learstar A1 or the Dynawing rocket. There could also be smaller sets that would be just a Mun Rover or a small Spaceplane, which would only cost $4 to $7. TL;DR Sell toy model rockets that are based on Stock rockets that the user could disassemble and reassemble into their own rocket.
  3. Common Suggestions. Delta V Display Multiplayer Aliens Axial Tilt Clouds Bug Fixes (These happen with every update) Career Improvements KSP 2.0 Lagrange Points Life Support Mod (insert name here) added to stock Multi-threaded Physics (Done, Unity5 and PhysX supports this) Music! New Parts New Planets N-Body Physics Realism (And Kerbalism) Science Improvements Steam Workshop Two Kerbal, 1.25 metre command pod UI Improvements Suggestions Implemented by Modders. Advanced Technology Autopilot Bug Fixes Clouds Combat and Weapons Improved Graphics Life Support Loading on Demand More Parts New Planets N-Body Physics (lagrange points) Procedural Wings Procedural Other Parts Realistic Fuel Realistic Overhaul Realistic Progression Real Sized Solar System Robotics Tech Tree Changes Two Kerbal 1.25 metre command pod Erm, No. Changing Game Engine (Unreal4 etc) Nightly Builds Old Already suggested thread, old WNTS thread.
  4. Hello, I'm going to try a BDB themed career, but I'm just looking for mods that can spice it up. Stuff like emulating tech/real world designs up to (reasonable) near future tech, and minor base-building/colonising efforts with a nicely-orangised progression. so far, this is what I've got listed: entire Near Future suite (Mid-late game doodads for fun and profit) BDB (The bread/butter of the pack itself, with about a bajillion different parts for launcher variety) ProbesPlus (Probes became interesting to design with this ^_^) RSS @ 2.5x stock scale. (I mean, we gotta launch Saturns from the Cape, right? ) Tweakscale & Procedural Parts/Fairings (Sometimes, you gotta design that tank/SRB/fairing yourself.) BARIS (Having Apollo 13-esque issues in flight spices up routine missions) What do you recommend? I'd love to hear em
  5. Cpt Kerbalkrunch

    OPM or GPP?

    Hey, guys. Been killing time waiting for the expansion (constantly stalking the Challenges subforum; lookin' for good ones), and I feel like I need some new horizons; so to speak. It's been about 2,500 hours with the stock game (and nothing really left to accomplish accept a proper Grand Tour), and I'd like to see what else is out there. I've heard the names of other planets and moons enough times that I'm definitely interested. So I was curious which route you guys would go, OPM or GPP? At this point, I'm leaning towards OPM. It looks like it can just be added on top of an existing game; which appeals to me. However, GPP sounds pretty awesome as well. I know I might need a mod or 2 (like better timewarp for the outer planets), but I'd like to keep my game as stock as possible. Speaking of which, I play without info mods or doing any calculations, so I'm wondering if that would still be possible. Basically, guesstimating my rocket based on distance and size of body, payload, etc (part of the reason I've been reluctant to add planets: I know the stock worlds pretty well by now, and adding new ones will sort of put me back to square one). Anyway, curious to hear what you guys think. Any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks.
  6. Jesusthebird

    Additional Content Suggestions

    I'm not sure if I just suck at googling as of late..but if I'm the first so be it. I've been trying to figure out how to give suggestions to the mod community. I don't have many and I started this thread only thinking about one in particular. But if there isn't any other place, id like this to be a place where players can give their ideas, some may be extravagant, some small and practical. but I've always wondered how all these mods get created without some central brainstorming type area. I could plead to ksp devs themselves, but this seems more promising. If I'm in the wrong place, please kindly point me in the right direction and ill repost there, or a mod can just move this..to there, thanks. Anyways lets get it started. Suggestion: (Asparagus style?) [3/4/6/8]Multipoint Struts Reason: structural integrity/rigidity Practicality: (-)part count, stockalike? Balancing: scale weight based on number of connection points (3 point= 1.5x weight, 4 point= 2x weight, etc, etc) Idea Summary: a few extra stock alike strut parts. placing large amounts of aerodynamic wings or engines in symmetry, requires many struts sometimes. this will help ease the part count, and prevent your wings from doing the "dragonfly wing effect" as id like to call it when trying to fly without ship rigidity. googling dragon fly slo mo videos will help you understand my analogy if you dont already. . Cheers!
  7. For a civilization, there isn't any visible signs of it on Kerbin except the two KSCs, the Island Airstrip, and the Ancient Ruins My suggestion: Add multiple [5? 10? 20?] Cities into the game, each with their own airport Possibly have contracts for ferrying passengers between cities? Airshows? There are really many possibilities
  8. I myself am HORRIBLE at this game, I haven't even made it to the Mun! But, I honestly think that this is a amazing game so I have some suggestions, you can vote for which suggestion you like the most. 1-Detailing the planets more 2-Being able to create bases which you can walk into and decorate on other planets/moons AND being able to make launchpads on other planets (suggestion from panzer1b) 3-Expanding the campaign If you have more suggestions, please feel free to comment!
  9. I have a whole big thing I wrote but lost to a cookie bug, so I'll summarize: Suggestion #1: Please rework the contract weighting algorithm to be a matrix of contract types on one axis, and contract locations on the other with the weighting in the cells (not simply contract types as I believe it is now). It would make the game a lot more enjoyably playable if I could keep cancelling "build a station orbiting the Sun" contracts and have fewer of them show up, but still get the same number of "build a station orbiting the Mun" contracts (I also like shuttling passengers back and forth to Kerbin orbit and the Mun, even though they pay less than, say, Duna passenger missions, and I don't like that where I send my passengers at best totally random, and at worst determined semi-randomly by my reputation requiring that I sacrifice reputation to get contract locations I want). Suggestion #1.5: An alternative to #1, or perhaps in addition to it, would be giving players the ability to write their own contracts, but then have a random chance (depending on reputation and/or number of successfully completed missions there already) that a company will offer to fund the job. Either way both ideas #1 and #1.5 are so players aren't railroaded into doing missions they don't necessarily want (in particular because of where they are) or else forced to lose reputation by cancelling contracts left-and-right until the random generator happens upon the rare one they actually want. I love contracts, and I do like some randomness, but I still want a little more input into the contract selection/generation process than I'm currently allowed, and I think changing the weighting type-list into a weighted type-location-matrix would be a huge improvement to me and other players. Suggestion #2: Please add more filters to the Tracking Station, specifically celestial body filters (I assume this would be relatively easy to implement since most of the code presumably already exists for filtering and adding new filters, the new celestial body ones though would just use a "getSOI()" method instead of a "getVesselType()" method to make their selections). I love the filters that are already there, I think their functionality and what they do is absolutely perfect, I just want the additional ability to filter out missions I have idling on/around, say for example, the Mun so they're not cluttering up my Vessel list when I'm in the middle of doing a bunch of maneuvering for a colonization flotilla during Jool-orbit insertion. Thank you Squad and Devs for all your awesome work to make Kerbal, quite possibly my favorite game, a reality and your continued dedication, effort, and community engagement. I think these suggestions would hopefully be easy to implement, and that they would definitely have a large and positive impact on the player experience. Keep up the phenomenal work and I'll keep my fingers crossed that these suggestions are both easy enough to make and good enough for players that I might see them in a future version.
  10. What would be atleast 20 times cooler then building a ship on Kerbin? THAT'S RIGHT! BUILDING IT IN ORBIT! There should be certain (EXTREMELY LARGE) parts that can be launched into space, and then, when there is enough electricity, ore and other possible recourses, the parts are capable of creating saved ships, or maybe it even has a special construction meny, simmilar to the VAB or the SPH, but with less features. It would be awesome. Imagine having a giant structure in space, that just prints out an entire space station! Any containers would be empty, however, and have to be fueled in space. And there also would of course not be any astronauts onboard of the ship. A fun thing to add to one of the construction bays description would be "Warranty void if [NAME OF CONSTRUCTION BAY] rebuilds itself and causes robot uprising"
  11. Ok. If this turns out to be useless I'll delete. I'll be erasing the already fixed bugs from the list (Feel free to add more). Edit: I've only found about about the Bug Reporter now, didn't know I do anything there but to see which bugs have already been addressed. So I'll be reporting these bugs from the list there as well. -Unable to target a survey/observation mission marker from the Map View mode. When I click over the marker a small blank window pops up (also dropping my frames down to somewhat close to 5FPS until I close the window). This same window should have a button called "Activate Navigation" so I could see the survey place from the NavBall -Cannot change Damper and Spring values of landing gears like in the PC version - It doesn't show up when I open the landing gear settings window in the editor (Bug?) -When I build crafts with the landing gears connected to an aerodynamic part or a girder strut and try launching it, as soon as the game loads on the runway the landing gear wheels are kind of stuck into the ground and start jumping in place (the wheel stress bar also keeps jumping as if it was hitting the ground constantly). The same thing happens when these same wheel get in contact with the terrain (I tried dropping the craft from a small height with the Launch Stability Enhancer, but as soon as the wheels touch the ground this glitch happens) -Cannot see the "Gear blocked Yes/No" indicator when opening the context menu on the landing gears. -Sometimes I cannot close a opened context menu nor can open others, forcing me to reload the game. This happened yesterday, I opened the context menu from the air intake from my craft and couldn't close it by pressing B, nor could I open other's parts context menus. -FPS drop with Dynawing Final Approach Scenario and Dynawing Reentry Scenario (Seriously needs a fix on these FPS drops - I've bought KSP on console because my PC wouldn't run it very well. And then I have FPS drops (Noticeable Drops!) on the Xbox as well...). -Tutorial mission popup's always take me off the craft controls. This is a problem in tutorials which involves orbiting maneuvers. As I'm trying to cut throttle to stop a burn the bloody menu pops up, forcing me to have to switch back to ship controls first so I can then cut the burn (it normally makes my burns go past the line, forcing me to burn retrograde (or the opposite) to fix it). -Crafts falling into the ground and exploding when loading a quicksave on the runway -Unable to switch steerable landing gear control to trigger button. I wish you could set the steer axis to the trigger as you can do with Yaw controls when activating Advanced Flight Mode (<Modifier> + <Y>)
  12. Kluster is still in its baby stages, so @Galacticvoyager and I need some suggestions and ideas for the mod. Right now, the system we're most focused on right now is Poait. We would like some suggestions for the system, like maybe another planets or moons for Savaos. Suggestions for other stars and other things in the mod (easter eggs, extra features, etc.) are welcome too. WANT TO SEE THIS MOD'S DEVELOPMENT? Kluster Development Thread
  13. Here is a list of what I would really like implemented into KSP: 1. Better contracts. Let's be honest, contracts in career mode are really bad. They are extremely repetitive and (mostly) boring (i.e. "Take a temperature reading at 'X'" or "Test part 'Y'"). Some missions can be exciting (saving kerbals from orbit, or landing on the moon, etc) but many are boring. Please improve with more variation. Also, they're reward system is unbalanced as heck. Some may require you to fly a rusty plane half way around the world to make an EVA report for about 5000 funds (okay, maybe that's a slight exaggeration, but you get my point). 2. Better goals. Most goals in KSP are kinda pointless. You put a satellite into orbit, and you collect science. But after that point, whoopdy doo. I only ever send satellites up to collect science once, and then that's it. After that point, they're space debris. I feel that more uses should come from satellites and space stations etc. rather than "one time" things (such as long term science experiments or GPS, or other things that could actually help your space program). The mobile processing lab is the only one I can think of that fits into that category currently, and even that's huge, clumsy and something you don't get until much later into the game. 3. Wheels. The plane wheels in KSP are, all things being considered, horrible. They only extend one way (down) and you can only place them on the wings or on a long body (which is okay, until you make planes with different wing or body structure. Then after that point, you have to fine tune the wheel position so it doesn't crash and burn off the runway, which is quite tedious). I would like wheels like the LY-01 Fixed Landing Gear, but mechanical. Or adjustable height/length. That would be great. 4. Better rover wheels. For rover wheels, they are extremely delicate, and they're breaking mechanism is frustrating and awful. For some reason, when you go to fast or break a wheel, the wheel stops so hard and suddenly that it flips your vehicle over. Broken wheels have never done this. They should just bust up and make your rover lean and tend to stray left/right (depending on which wheel is broken) when it busts a wheel, or even increase a bit of drag. Not have a spastic tizzy fit. 5. Communication and exploration. Currently, there is little reason to explore other planets. If you want the full Eve experience, take a snapshot of Kerbin and apply a purple filter. That's it. The only mildly interesting planet is Jool, and you cant even land on it. Furthermore, there is no reason to explore anything ever. You see and know each planet from the start. You get no surprises at all when you actually get there. Furthermore, there is nothing to do on the planets either (you run into the same problem as point 2). 6. Engineers. Engineers are almost completely useless. Who has ever used an engineer's abilities more than twice? Me neither.
  14. Welcome to Galactic`s Suggestion Thread! welcome to my suggestion thread, here i make all of my suggestions and wait for you guys to comment and think on how good (or bad) it is! thank you for coming and taking a look at these suggestions, because I cant make and perfect them all by my own! Current Suggestions: N/A Warning: This Thread is for the suggestions made by me for KSP. If you put in a suggestion of your own, then remove that suggestion and make your own thread for it...
  15. I would like to suggest that Squad take a genuine look at the efficacy and practicality, both on their end as programmers and our end as users, of integrating voice activation in the future. I know that's by no means easy. Limitations are obvious, not the least of which being how many languages are enough. Thoughts?