What stock features are not fully developed?

[Tweeker]

10 hours ago, RealKerbal3x said:

 

  Fantastic,

     guess I missed it, busy lurking.

[SlinkyMcman]

Reputation.

[Capt. Hunt]

9 hours ago, Daveroski said:

They gave us all these worlds to go to but no means of deciding when to go.

One either has to go straight to Kerbol orbit and then plot a course from there or use external means or a mod to get a launch window.

Once other planets were included in the game transfer widow data should have been available.

We even have an info screen on the various planets. When I look at the info on a planet, I should be able to see the next transfer window.

 

D.

 

Honestly, that's probably a remnant of the same old "trial and error" teaching mentality that kept them from adding the delta-vee counter for so long.  That's not to say it can't be done, even the tutorial covers dead-reckoning launch windows by estimating phase angles.

I don't expect them to add a porkjet style heatmap anytime soon though, that could be seen as too much of a crutch.

[Tweeker]

10 minutes ago, Capt. Hunt said:

Honestly, that's probably a remnant of the same old "trial and error" teaching mentality that kept them from adding the delta-vee counter for so long.  That's not to say it can't be done, even the tutorial covers dead-reckoning launch windows by estimating phase angles.

I don't expect them to add a porkjet style heatmap anytime soon though, that could be seen as too much of a crutch.

    Yes,  but, they could very easily add a calendar in the tracking station,

or better yet a  launch planner where you choose the starting body, target and  time index for the launch. 

then you get an delta/v cost at that particular time. By experimenting with this you can find the best launch window. 

This would let you plan you launches, by trial and error, but not give you a best case lookup. 

[Superfluous J]

Really all they need is a planning node that works just like a maneuver node but is on planet and moon orbits instead of craft orbits.

And some kind of rudimentary alarm clock functionality so you can warp to that time.

[Tweeker]

39 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

Really all they need is a planning node that works just like a maneuver node but is on planet and moon orbits instead of craft orbits.

And some kind of rudimentary alarm clock functionality so you can warp to that time.

That would work just as well, and would be very simple to add. 

[evileye.x]

Terrain scatters - no coliders, but still in some cases (with zero logical explanation) they just murder FPS, even if set to 10%

G blackout system . You can't kill kerbal with excessive G

[Kerbinchaser]

Oooh this is a really nice question.

I think that the current 3.75m system isn't fully developed, as @KSK mentioned above. With only two engines and some fuel tanks, there isn't much you can do to create a large interplanetary spacecraft. I would love to see some pods and landing legs without having to go download a mod. 

[Tweeker]

4 hours ago, Lo Var Lachland said:

Oooh this is a really nice question.

I think that the current 3.75m system isn't fully developed, as @KSK mentioned above. With only two engines and some fuel tanks, there isn't much you can do to create a large interplanetary spacecraft. I would love to see some pods and landing legs without having to go download a mod. 

They should really ditch the 3.75m engines, and replace them with engine adapters. The mammoth is OP and broken,  and the Rhino is wrongly scaled too. 

KSP  seems to have about a 1 : 1.4 scale.  The largest real life engine is the F-1 at ~3.75m  in KSP it's analog is the Mainsail, or the Mammoth in making history,  that is 1.5 to 1 t

The shuttle is ~5.2 meters wide, in KSP it is 3.75,  a ratio of  1.38 to 1, 

So there is really no call for any engines in the 3.75m range. 

I could totally get behind a 3.75m command module, lander and  set of jumbo landing legs,  and monster wheels.