Top 5 wants:

[Waxing_Kibbous]

3) Flush out the Experience system: This is another big one. Right now its really skeletal. I know a lot of people have had fun ideas about different abilities for the different classes, mainly though Id like to have a clear idea through the game UI what is possible and what I have to do to achieve it so I can make smart choices about who to send where. Big ones Id like to see are TWR and Delta-V readouts from engineers, and Aerobreak and landing site projections from pilots.

I agree with this, the experience system seems incomplete atm. Gaining some KER data when engineers level up is something I've been thinking of as well. Pilots could gain skills like auto executing maneuver nodes or even do really complex things like docking at higher levels. Scientists could get more points from experiments, or be able to store multiple EVA reports in the field. The Kerbals have a lot of potential still in terms of gameplay.

[Gaarst]

1. A stable and non-bugged game. So no memory crashes, no NaN, no Klaw Kraken, no service bays explosions, no random overheating...
   
2. KER readouts such as TWR, dV...
   
3. The Trajectories mod.
   
4. Visual enhancements (space, atmosphere, terrain...) and performance optimisations. Putting these together because one without the other would be pointless.
   
5. A RSS option in the game: I really love playing RSS, but this mod is so huge that every other mod you use needs to be adapted for it (parts, engines, visual mods, anything using the Kerbin system planets names...), not having half the mods supporting it is kind of sad honestly. Having it stock would make sure that mods are compatible with it. Plus it would add challenge to the game once you get bored of Kerbin and its 3k m/s dV to orbit and open the game towards better implementation of alternative systems. Keeping it an option would prevent the game from becoming too hard for new players.
   

[Robotengineer]

1. Stability.

2. Utility/generally helpful mods integrated into the game (KER, KAC, QuickScroll, RCS Build Aid, Trajectories).

3. Fuel switch on tanks, like the FireSpitter plugin module.

4. Visuals, Squad has no excuse know that 64bit for everyone is here. Clouds, DistantObject, Scatterer, PlanetShine.

5. More things to do generally. Add interesting things to do on planets, real science, real experience, etc.

6. I probably second everything else somebody has said in this thread or will say.

[klgraham1013]

1. Memory management and performance

2. A uniform art style

3. Life support

4. Planning mechanics (Alarm Clock, Transfer Planner, etc.)

5. Visual enhancements (Clouds, landmarks, points of interest)

64-bit shouldn't mean there's no need to worry about ram usage. Just because I might have 8 gigs doesn't mean 1 program needs to use it all.

[OmniscientQ]

My Top 5 wants for a future version? Hm...

1) Better automation of "routine" flights. Exactly how one would determine what is "routine" can be up for debate, but there are plenty of times I wish I could reduce the tedious parts of running a space agency. When I build an air-to-space launch vehicle (a rocket piggybacking on a conventional aircraft), I want the aircraft to return to KSC on its own while I fly the rocket. When I set up a mining and refueling depot on Minmus and prove to myself that the fuel hauler and orbital refinery and mining operation all work by doing a few fuel runs myself, I want to be able to turn that over to the crew. If I have a life support mod enabled (or if it gets added as a stock option later), I want to be able to automate the resupply missions, after I do it myself a few times.

2) Reworked science. Experiments, science labs, and all. I have a thread here about how I'd like to see the science system redone, but almost any change would be a welcome one. A science system that's friendlier to mods and more sciencey. The one we have was a nice, basic proof-of-concept for career mode, but it's time to put together the real deal.

3) Multiplayer. Yeah, I know. This is a seriously divisive issue. There's all kinds of arguments for and against, and competitive gameplay, and multiplayer balance, and all of that. I don't think KSP needs a competitive game mode in which players race each other to the Mun, or launch nuclear-tipped rockets at each others space centers. You don't need to worry about getting paired up with a troll by the match-making system. KSP has never been that kind of game. You can't just meet up with some random person from the internet and start playing in the VAB. If the person you play with tries to ruin your fun... why are you playing with them at all? In any kind of multiplayer experience, the mission specifics will probably have been hashed out in advance on IRC, parameters defined, and only after it's been decided does anyone actually launch KSP. Cooperative play. KSP has always been about the player vs the unforgiving laws of physics. I just want my buddy to come along for the ride.

4) Scale-able parts. I know it's been said before, but sometimes the girders are just a hair too big, or too small, or too round. Sometimes I want to cram a part inside of another part (The 2.5m utility bay is a godsend for me. I hated trying to fit the materials science bay into an otherwise large rocket because the damn thing can only be stack-mounted). Even better, it'd make it easier to balance the center of gravity on asymmetrical ship designs. I hate having exceedingly long rockets. I want big, fat ones. But since the science lab and ISRU and the Near-Future nuclear reactors aren't all the same weight, I can't radially mount one of each without throwing the CoG off-center. A scalable part would let me adjust the distance from center of each one based on its weight.

5) Kerbin monkeys. What kind of frikkin' space program doesn't shoot monkeys into outer-frikkin'-space? Don't give me any of that "Kerbals are kind of like monkeys" stuff. I want my space monkeys!

Edited October 6, 2015 by OmniscientQ

[Capt Snuggler]

It depresses me when people list "stability" or "less bugs" on wish lists. (no one should have to ask)

1) Better automation of "routine" flights.

I like that. once I was totally against any form of "mechjeb" in stock. Now after launching 1000+ rockets I would love to be able to make some kind of command queue or script. maybe with a drag and drop interface. as you progress through the tech tree you could unlock more complex commands.

there's something really satisfying about watching a complex craft tweaked to perfection perform a flawless automated launch.

your still building the rocket and doing the flight plan so mistakes still result in explosions and you can always switch to manual in a pinch.

[RidingTheFlow]

For routine flights (e.g. re-supply) it would be good to have something like Davon Supply Mod did - basically, you do first manual flight to "prove I can do this", then automated system just can "reproduce effect of repeated runs by just making them happen" without you having to manually launch/fly each one.

To think of it, maybe completion of specific contracts could be used to unlock "automated resupply destinations". This will add purpose to contracts besides just earning money/science/rep.

Edited October 6, 2015 by RidingTheFlow

[Wjolcz]

I like that. once I was totally against any form of "mechjeb" in stock. Now after launching 1000+ rockets I would love to be able to make some kind of command queue or script. maybe with a drag and drop interface. as you progress through the tech tree you could unlock more complex commands.

there's something really satisfying about watching a complex craft tweaked to perfection perform a flawless automated launch.

your still building the rocket and doing the flight plan so mistakes still result in explosions and you can always switch to manual in a pinch.

I like this suggestion. Maybe not something like MechJeb AKA "Do The Whole Mission, Because I'm Too Lazy", but simple commands for the rocket ascend profile. Just so you could get out of the atmosphere and do the rest yourself.

[KrazyKrl]

I like this suggestion. Maybe not something like MechJeb AKA "Do The Whole Mission, Because I'm Too Lazy", but simple commands for the rocket ascend profile. Just so you could get out of the atmosphere and do the rest yourself.

I'd say something like:

Requirements

• Requires max level administration building, at least level 2 tracking station, probe cores unlocked, antennas unlocked, and power generation unlocked.
  
• Craft must have a root node of a probe, have an antenna, and have a method of providing power.
  
• Craft cannot contain Kerbals, any crewed craft must be flown manually. (i.e. crew-able parts must not be crewed.)

Certification for KSC Subcontractors

• Before a craft is certified to be launched by KSC subcontractors, you must launch this craft to orbit 5 times.
  
• The craft is saved via certification, any modified craft must be re-certified with 5 launches before being automated.
  
• The craft needs a way to say "This is a certification flight" at launch; and "Save this certification flight's orbit" to denote when to save the orbital parameters of the flight.
  
• The craft's part count (and staging menu) must be identical to each previous certification launch. (Craft should be identical other than resources contained when saved.)
  
• The cert flight must not be at an altitude and inclination at which it would leave Kerbin's SoI. (i.e. Minmus'/Mun's SoI torus must not touch any portion of the final orbit.)

Automatic Flight creation of a certified craft

• The craft's orbital parameters of the automatically launched certified craft must be approximates between the top and bottom parameters of the 5 combined certification launches.
  
• The craft's part properties (power, fuel, orientation, etc.) must be approximates between the top and bottom parameters of the 5 combined certification launches.
  
• The craft appears in orbit after a delay of the MET times of each certification flight. (Simulates launch by another party)
  
• The craft's cost should be the cost of the base craft, plus a penalty to pay for the subcontract work. The craft should always be cheaper to fly yourself.

I may be leaving a few things out. But essentially, cert-ing a craft would save a cert file on the hard drive which contains the craft file, plus the min/max orbital (and part) parameters that the game can extrapolate an orbit from.

Other than the backend for creating the cert system save feature, there are already "in-flight" orbital contracts that stick stuff like stranded kerbals in orbit anyhow. And requiring 5 launches of an identical craft just to automate it, should be a large enough hurdle to prevent other abuses (and have the benefit of orbit variability.)

Edited October 7, 2015 by KrazyKrl

[Capt Snuggler]

I'd say something like:

Requirements

• Requires max level administration building, at least level 2 tracking station, probe cores unlocked, antennas unlocked, and power generation unlocked.
  
• Craft must have a root node of a probe, have an antenna, and have a method of providing power.
  
• Craft cannot contain Kerbals, any crewed craft must be flown manually. (i.e. crew-able parts must not be crewed.)

Certification for KSC Subcontractors

• [*]Before a craft is certified to be launched by KSC subcontractors, you must launch this craft to orbit 5 times.

[*]The craft is saved via certification, any modified craft must be re-certified with 5 launches before being automated.

*snip*

this seems needlessly complicated. why not just make the player write the launch plan (script/program/thingy) with a drag and drop interface?

get ready from some not-real-programming

>set SAS hold.

>set SAS pitch 90°

>set throttle 100%.

>stage.

>@ flame out = stage.

>@ alt 1000m = set SAS pitch 70°.

>@ alt 5000m = set SAS pitch 45°.

>@ alt 20000m = set SAS pitch 15°.

>@ alt 30000m = set SAS pitch 0°.

>@ alt 40000m = set SAS pro-grade.

>@ alt 50000m = toggle Action Group 1.

>@ Ap 100000m = set throttle 0%.

>@ Alt 99000m = set throttle 100%.

>@ Pe 99000m = set throttle 0%.

>Stop.

if there is an error it will show "program error" and go to manual control or explode if you really screw up.

more advanced probe cores could handle longer scripts and more advanced functions like controlling acceleration or variable thrust avionics.

same system could be used for landing too.

maybe an engineer kerbal would be needed to edit after launch?

the most important part is the PLAYER needs to have a hand in controlling/crashing the craft.

Edited October 7, 2015 by Capt Snuggler

[KrazyKrl]

this seems needlessly complicated. why not just make the player write the launch plan (script/program/thingy) with a drag and drop interface?

get ready from some not-real-programming

>set SAS hold.

>set SAS pitch 90°

>set throttle 100%.

>stage.

>@ flame out = stage.

>@ alt 1000m = set SAS pitch 70°.

>@ alt 5000m = set SAS pitch 45°.

>@ alt 20000m = set SAS pitch 15°.

>@ alt 30000m = set SAS pitch 0°.

>@ alt 40000m = set SAS pro-grade.

>@ alt 50000m = toggle Action Group 1.

>@ Ap 100000m = set throttle 0%.

>@ Alt 99000m = set throttle 100%.

>@ Pe 99000m = set throttle 0%.

>Stop.

if there is an error it will show "program error" and go to manual control or explode if you really screw up.

more advanced probe cores could handle longer scripts and more advanced functions like controlling acceleration or variable thrust avionics.

same system could be used for landing too.

maybe an engineer kerbal would be needed to edit after launch?

the most important part is the PLAYER needs to have a hand in controlling/crashing the craft.

It's overly verbose because I'm getting into specifics about the system itself. But it'll essentially be "save this craft in this orbit", and "I'll pay extra for a copy to be put in that orbit. But I'll need to prove I can do it manually first."

Needing to program it via some sort of autopilot scripting language seems much more complex than extending something which contracts do anyhow (add flights to the map).

Edited October 7, 2015 by KrazyKrl

[Capt Snuggler]

It's overly verbose because I'm getting into specifics about the system itself. But it'll essentially be "save this craft in this orbit", and "I'll pay extra for a copy to be put in that orbit. But I'll need to prove I can do it manually first."

Needing to program it via some sort of autopilot scripting language seems much more complex than extending something which contracts do anyhow (add flights to the map).

ok true, I see what your saying, where by contracts do magic launches already. those contracts have always bothered me though, but that's another thing. I'm sorry I didn't mean to say your idea was bad, I just prefer my flight script idea, for the following reasons.

• it can be used in other situations not just launches. (landings, transfers maybe even docking)
  
• it can be used on the first, untested launch of the vehicle. (though failure is likely)
  
• it rewards the player for planning.
  
• it still allows the player to fail.
  

either way, giving the player a way of skipping routine launch number 1321+ is sorely needed and we have demonstrated there are multiple ways to solve this.

on with the show.

Edited October 7, 2015 by Capt Snuggler
formatting

[RidingTheFlow]

Personally I'd prefer agency launch just to "appear" here (with spent money & time) to the "autopilot". I don't really fancy watching same mundane tanker launch over and over again just for the sake of it. If you made 5 launches without a hitch, you will make 100 of them without any changes - there are no much randomness in stock KSP launch physics (e.g. no random failure, no part spec divergences, no varying weather, etc).

Edited October 7, 2015 by RidingTheFlow

[Pthigrivi]

I dont know, I'm constantly tweaking and adjusting launches, devising new and more efficient launch systems, trying to get the maximum payload fraction while keeping costs down.. basically every launch is at least a little unique. I wouldn't personally need something along these lines, but I do wonder if Squad would be open to some Mech-jebby kinds of abilities for 4 and 5 star pilots. I know the whole fly-it-yourself thing is a sticky one for them, but if you can get a pilot with that much experience you've really played the game enough to earn some convenience.

Are people really resupplying that often? Ive had decent luck loading a jumbo MK3 tank with ISRU at minmus and aerobreaking it into LKO. I load up all my interplanetary missions from that.

[OmniscientQ]

I dont know, I'm constantly tweaking and adjusting launches, devising new and more efficient launch systems, trying to get the maximum payload fraction while keeping costs down.. basically every launch is at least a little unique. I wouldn't personally need something along these lines, but I do wonder if Squad would be open to some Mech-jebby kinds of abilities for 4 and 5 star pilots. I know the whole fly-it-yourself thing is a sticky one for them, but if you can get a pilot with that much experience you've really played the game enough to earn some convenience.

Are people really resupplying that often? Ive had decent luck loading a jumbo MK3 tank with ISRU at minmus and aerobreaking it into LKO. I load up all my interplanetary missions from that.

People who run life support mods certainly are. I can see a kind of sticking point, in which you establish your "routine" resupply mission when Kerbin and Duna are at a minimum-delta-v position, and then somehow continue that supply run without modification when they're on opposite sides of Kerbol. I would definitely be willing to concede that "routine" missions can only occur in Kerbin's SOI. But since all missions originate from Kerbin (barring even more mods that let you build and launch from other bodies), it'd still be a useful feature. If you have a non-self-sustaining base on Duna, then you should build it to go a year without resupply, regardless of convenient automation features.

[manaiaK]

3: WACK-ier contracts

My very first post on these forums was titled "more whimsy please", so add my vote to that.

Also, performance. Welding would be a big help with that. (Make ten parts into one.)

And a way to integrate snapshots into the game - my idea was a mission museum in the upgraded Administration building. Generally making the interiors of the buildings more lively - Gregroxmun's idea. His other idea of training games for recruits inside the Astronaut Complex would integrate the training scenarios into the game a lot better (but perhaps it'd be a lot of work for Squad).

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

-Modular fueltanks, so you can have an orange tank full of liquid fuel only.

-more reasonable contracts.

-a true campaign that lead you from one achievement to the next.

Edited October 8, 2015 by MalfunctionM1Ke

[Frozen_Heart]

1: Overhauled older parts to match the new quality and style. It looks odd seeing Nova's cartoony style and portjet's/roverdude's realistic style right next to each other. Throw in a 2.5m NERVA with that.

2: Very basic life support. Just a single resource. Keeping astronauts alive is one of the most important aspects of spaceflight so its always struck me as odd that its not in KSP.

3: Station/base parts. This part of the game is very old and lacking, having not really been updated since it was introduced. Maybe simply add Porkjet's station parts mod as it matches stock. Spacecraft of both sizes could do with Soyuz style orbital modules as well.

4: Expanded 3.75m line. Reaction wheels, batteries, command pod, lander can, orbital module, habitat, LV-N, docking port, etc. Would be very good for increasing the size of our ships while keeping part count down.

5: SRB thrust curves. Allow us to make the SRBs thrust to fall of to keep acceleration under control. Almost essential for space shuttles as well.

[Rocketfeline]

1:PARACHUTESS!

2:Tethers.

3:Animations for kerbals.(EVA related and IVA related)

4:Diverse kerbals(Kerbals with different stuff, Like glasses,hair,ETC)

5:Competing space agencies(Could be AI or player controlled)

[spaceagefox]

1: stock orbital ship construction and launching (build big ships with less launches in late-game)

2: some streamlined lights to light up space planes

3: better hatches (why do kerbals exit planes on the roof when there's a ladder on the cockpit hatch?)

4: triangular structural plates (please?)

5: better ion engines