Kerbin Infrastructure and Improvements

[MiffedStarfish]

That’d make it too like career for me. Sandbox is great right now, as it is completely sandbox. Airports railways and factories don’t add anything beyond more visual stuff in sandbox, so it’s still development time spent.

[Cheif Operations Director]

Just now, MiffedStarfish said:

That’d make it too like career for me. Sandbox is great right now, as it is completely sandbox. Airports railways and factories don’t add anything beyond more visual stuff in sandbox, so it’s still development time spent.

A airport can be used to refuel as suggested

[MiffedStarfish]

The coding for that would need to completely new, as there is nothing like that in game. It would probably take a while to implement, when a fuel tank with a klaw on it can do that job.

[Cheif Operations Director]

Just now, MiffedStarfish said:

The coding for that would need to completely new, as there is nothing like that in game. It would probably take a while to implement, when a fuel tank with a klaw on it can do that job.

Ok, ok he is a scienario. I want to set up a base without a rocket on the other side of Kerbin... I don't want to use a space shuttle x10 to get it their so I say let's move it in stages, now I used a Standard Cargo Plane. This (Standard) Moves at 323 m/S and has enough fuel to get 1/5 around Kerbin. But I want to go 1/2! So I land at an airport location I choose and refuel and then carry on to my location. This way I don't need a SSTO Pretty Much to bring a few modules around the planet. In KSP Right now, heavy modules like a lab can't be moved that well at all. Unless by space craft. The logic! Why would do launch a plane to the middle of no where with a claw on it and then launch another craft when you could just bring the TANK WITH YOU and add another engine. Refueling across the planet requires you to mine for hours to refuel a big jet or make a 200 or more part SSTO. 

Thoughts?

[Piatzin]

A lot of these are good, decent ideas for the game, but I suggest you stop trying to get them implemented. Being pushy won't do much, and regardless of whether SQUAD decides to put them in the stock game, it won't happen for some years. There are mods that do similar things.

Wait

I'm kind of confused - are these things you want SQUAD to put in the game, or things you want to make yourself?

[Cheif Operations Director]

3 minutes ago, Earthlinger said:

A lot of these are good, decent ideas for the game, but I suggest you stop trying to get them implemented. Being pushy won't do much, and regardless of whether SQUAD decides to put them in the stock game, it won't happen for some years. There are mods that do similar things.

Wait

I'm kind of confused - are these things you want SQUAD to put in the game, or things you want to make yourself?

I want squad to implement them but the RESEARCH LAB lets you build your own parts for the game so Squad can focus on new planets and big fixes. Also If squad want to implement new parts later they would be who new catogories

For example I want a planet like Saturn 

[Piatzin]

15 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

For example I want a planet like Saturn 

I believe there are mods for that...

16 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

but the RESEARCH LAB lets you build your own parts for the game

Okay, but how would that work? A lot of people are going to end up building overpowered, unrealistic parts. Wouldn't a part editor be better, in contrast to making something from scratch? For example, I'd like a stock paint editor for parts, and in the future, something akin to Tweakscale would be nice - especially for wing parts.

A part maker/builder would be cool because one would be able to edit the internal working of engines, etc, and come up with unique designs, but like I said previously, that's a long way off.

[Cheif Operations Director]

Just now, Earthlinger said:

I believe there are mods for that...

Okay, but how would that work? A lot of people are going to end up building overpowered, unrealistic parts. Wouldn't a part editor be better, in contrast to making something from scratch? For example, I'd like a stock paint editor for parts, and in the future, something akin to Tweakscale would be nice - especially for wing parts.

A part maker/builder would be cool because one would be able to edit the internal working of engines, etc, and come up with unique designs, but like I said previously, that's a long way off.

What your suggesting is exactly what I suggested in my post! The "Calculate" Tool would let you get the realistic specifications for maximum and minimum performance, from their you set "nominal numbers, for example I have a KS-25 Vector I scale it up 2 times bigger than normal The calculator tells me my weight is 2 times bigger but my thrust is two times more let's just say for simplicity 2000 . I can adjust it so it is 1500 and that is 100% thrust but it's potential is still 2,000 its minimum let's say is 250 I can set that to 100% too. It's like a thrust limiter. This allows a thrust limiter inside a thrust limiter. As useless as this seems it is helpful when dealing with glitches and when other engines need to be at full throttle. The one rules is that it can't exceed its potential or go below its minimum because then it's just pretty much dead weight. So I can't make the engine exceed 2000 thrust and I not below 250 thrust in my scenario. In flight I can throttle it down and adjust the limiters in flight but the PART LIMITERS can't go above 200 or below 250 In this scenario. If it's a dawn engine and scaled up 2 times it can't go below maby 10 thrust and not not more than 50 perhaps. 

But the editor isn't so much a make to times bigger kind of thing, they don't need to be whole numbers it's just a example. The part calculator sets maximum and minimum. 

[Piatzin]

8 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

What your suggesting is exactly what I suggested in my post!

Oh, sorry. I didn't read all of it

[Cheif Operations Director]

Just now, Earthlinger said:

Oh, sorry. I didn't read all of it

It's fine

[Piatzin]

3 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

It's fine

Ok

What would be the purpose of a vacuum chamber?

Edited December 16, 2017 by Earthlinger

[Cheif Operations Director]

Just now, Earthlinger said:

Ok

What would be the purpose of a vacuum chamber?

Let me give you another example...

When I was building my shuttle I was trying to find the right places for my RCS thrusters. This required me to launch the shuttle and achieve orbit each time over minuscule amounts of space because I'm on console and can't just edit into space.

It would pretty much give us space just with no graphics, no planets ,no glitches just the effects of space

[Piatzin]

9 hours ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

It would pretty much give us space just with no graphics, no planets ,no glitches just the effects of space

But.......F12 menu....

A wind tunnel would be interesting. Especially for career with no reverts...

[MiffedStarfish]

12 hours ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

RESEARCH LAB lets you build your own parts for the game so Squad can focus on new planets and big fixes

That would probably take longer to implement than a load of new parts, which match current parts and all look finished professionally.

Quote

It would pretty much give us space just with no graphics, no planets ,no glitches just the effects of space

But how useful would that be? All you really need to know about your rocket is delta-V, there would be no way of testing what missions you could flew from a big bubble, limiting its use.

Quote

no glitches

You have absolutely no way of guaranteeing that. Everything has glitches.

Edited December 17, 2017 by MiffedStarfish

[Cheif Operations Director]

3 hours ago, MiffedStarfish said:

That would probably take longer to implement than a load of new parts, which match current parts and all look finished professionally.

But how useful would that be? All you really need to know about your rocket is delta-V, there would be no way of testing what missions you could flew from a big bubble, limiting its use.

You have absolutely no way of guaranteeing that. Everything has glitches.

It's would be useful when testing EVA PACKS (Not the default packs) and RCS Also when testing engine placements, fairings and Thing triggered in space. You can't test RCS On the ground now

[Rocket In My Pocket]

7 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

It's would be useful when testing EVA PACKS (Not the default packs) and RCS Also when testing engine placements, fairings and Thing triggered in space. You can't test RCS On the ground now

You can test all that if you have the debug menu. Which console is getting from what I hear.

Should solve a lot of your problems.

[MiffedStarfish]

I think its getting it in a month. There is no way Squad is going to drop everything and implement things like this in a month anyway, so its probably best to just wait.

[Cheif Operations Director]

7 hours ago, MiffedStarfish said:

I think its getting it in a month. There is no way Squad is going to drop everything and implement things like this in a month anyway, so its probably best to just wait.

Yes but again sometimes it's just better to do it on Kerbin. I don't think they are going to "drop everything" If everything I suggested were implemented I would expect it to be in over the course of a year and a half.

Just now, Cheif Operations Director said:

Yes but again sometimes it's just better to do it on Kerbin. I don't think they are going to "drop everything" If everything I suggested were implemented I would expect it to be in over the course of a year and a half.

This suggestion thread is only to show what people like, and don't like. I personally like everything otherwise I wouldnt suggest it. But  I understand if anything I suggest is implemented other parts won't be HENCE THE POLL. The debug menu isn't always the answer. Maby I Vacuum Chamber isn't implemented, These are just a long list of suggestions that that may or may not be implemented in any order. 

I do what us to constructively converse on all the topics but I don't have all the answers and also don't know all the things about PC That console doesn't have... The idea of the vacuum Chamber may not be a good idea I accept that what about the railroad and airports.

[Cheif Operations Director]

14 hours ago, Earthlinger said:

But.......F12 menu....

A wind tunnel would be interesting. Especially for career with no reverts...

A wind tunnel? I like that

I'll add it

[Vanamonde]

Some posts have been removed from this thread. "Bumping" is considered bad internet manners, so please do not post simply to move the thread to the top of the page. 

[Cheif Operations Director]

3 minutes ago, Vanamonde said:

Some posts have been removed from this thread. "Bumping" is considered bad internet manners, so please do not post simply to move the thread to the top of the page. 

I wasn't bumping, I was genuinely asking if anyone had anything else to say about that topic

[Vanamonde]

1 minute ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

I wasn't bumping, I was genuinely asking if anyone had anything else to say about that topic

Yes, that is considered bumping. If people do have anything to say, they will say it without prompting. 

[Cheif Operations Director]

On 12/19/2017 at 5:17 PM, Vanamonde said:

Yes, that is considered bumping. If people do have anything to say, they will say it without prompting. 

Ok 

How about a Barracks, or housing building for KSC.

Maby it could reduce Kerbals Cost? 

I'm Undecided on this just a thought what are yours.

[MiffedStarfish]

39 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

How about a Barracks, or housing building for KSC.

Maby it could reduce Kerbals Cost? 

I'm Undecided on this just a thought what are yours.

The astronaut complex is housing for kerbals.

[Cheif Operations Director]

1 minute ago, MiffedStarfish said:

The astronaut complex is housing for kerbals.

Again just a idea Thoughts on the idea

Maby It housing for Kerbals in Training