COM and Thrust markers should be more useful.

[Rocket In My Pocket]

52 minutes ago, OHara said:

-snip-

Nice, I was thinking something like this for on a per engine/per axis basis with each axis getting it's own shade of color:

Edited November 25, 2017 by Rocket In My Pocket

[regex]

1 hour ago, Boris-Barboris said:

I wouldn't even appear in this thread, if that was the exact thing proposed. The idea being discussed, however, is adding features of CoT on premise of giving additional information: " to help plan for controllability due to shifts in mass".

This was the general idea, the usefulness being imagined in terms of building a shuttle or something like the single-booster Atlas but as you correctly pointed out this does not cover aerodynamics nor does it cover edge cases I had not accounted for, and since I am a big proponent of covering edge cases in KSP because of the possibilities the editor allows, the idea has less usefulness than originally thought. However, extending the CoT lines would still be quite useful, IMO, for better planning in terms of thrust direction.

[Cassel]

Ok, will be more descriptive...

when I said cone, I meant 3D cone like this

Small cones for each engines are needed (imho) to show in what direction that engine is going to push your craft. They can have information about how much thrust is set on each engine. For example from above image height could illustrate 100% thrust, while height/2 would illustrate 50% thrust, just fill cone with other color to show this information in easy way.

 

[Rocket In My Pocket]

4 hours ago, Cassel said:

-snip-

Giant cones seem a little obstructive. Part of this entire idea is letting us toggle the colored semi-transparent spheres off because they get in the way.

If we draw the line's for each axis it's easy enough to "imagine" the cones shape.

I'm not against full on cones though so long as I can toggle them on/off.

[klgraham1013]

On 11/26/2017 at 7:24 AM, Rocket In My Pocket said:

Giant cones seem a little obstructive.

Giant balls are a bit obstructive as well.  I'm all for the CoM, CoL, and CoT being displayed in more defined detail.  The more info the game can give me, the better.

On 11/25/2017 at 1:13 PM, Rocket In My Pocket said:

More than likely someone will mod it in before they get around to it.

I've been living by these words for years now.

Edited December 16, 2017 by klgraham1013

[John FX]

I like this idea. As with all good ideas there are edge cases where it does not make as much sense but you will always have those in a game where you can place parts anywhere you like.

This is no reason to not implement this idea. It's never a good reason in a game like KSP.

Like with the Dv readout, there will always be cases that confuse the algorithm. People obsessing over these edge cases have, to the detriment of the game IMHO, stopped us getting that feature.

This is not a good thing.

So, if we could all avoid excessively criticising suggested features purely because they do not deal with particular edge cases, then we will all have a much better game moving forward. And that would be great.

This game NEEDS more information given to the player both during construction and also during flight.

It is all the poorer for not having it.

Sometimes, I think they are storing up all the best ideas to put into KSP 2...