What's the secret feature?

[regex]

Ultimately though, I recognize that not all people who would want to play KSP are engineering-inclined. A lot won't have my level of patience, experiencing failure after failure. This is why I say that any extra barrier for entry into KSP is going to be detrimental. Keep it accessible, keep it fun, and add realism only as necessary.

According to the devs part of the "charm" of KSP is learning by failure. That's why there's no stock delta-V calculator and why they're so worried about making things "too easy". That really doesn't jive with your vision of how KSP works here.

A new, casual player who picks up KSP is going to learn under whatever systems it has. Whether the game has a stock or a FAR/NEAR drag model, the new, casual player will still have to learn how to fly/launch under that system. One of them provides a fairly realistic approach to aerodynamics and can be picked up by anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of basic flight, has a world of reference material backing it, and allows things to fly (and crash) as they should. The other allows brick walls to fly, makes stacking wings on top of another viable and useful, and makes an efficient launch essentially a game of "walk away for a minute or two". Both systems require trial-and-error learning but only one has any reference to what the player might already know. This is basically why better aerodynamics are not going to hurt new players in the slightest; rather, veteran players are the one's who need to adapt.

[Minarkhaios]

... rather, veteran players are the one's who need to adapt.

Who wouldn't want to feel again like a virgin at his/her/its first date ? That is the best argument to change.

Having the renewed experience to learn something new, and again accomplish something that is hard (by the majority standard).

I, personally, would love to unlearn docking. Just for the trill of feeling again this glorious moment when I did succeed it on my own (and more than once ! *No dirty joke intended).

[Curveball Anders]

Who wouldn't want to feel again like a virgin at his/her/its first date ?

Not me!

It was very awkward ...

[Sean Mirrsen]

According to the devs part of the "charm" of KSP is learning by failure. That's why there's no stock delta-V calculator and why they're so worried about making things "too easy". That really doesn't jive with your vision of how KSP works here.

A new, casual player who picks up KSP is going to learn under whatever systems it has. Whether the game has a stock or a FAR/NEAR drag model, the new, casual player will still have to learn how to fly/launch under that system. One of them provides a fairly realistic approach to aerodynamics and can be picked up by anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of basic flight, has a world of reference material backing it, and allows things to fly (and crash) as they should. The other allows brick walls to fly, makes stacking wings on top of another viable and useful, and makes an efficient launch essentially a game of "walk away for a minute or two". Both systems require trial-and-error learning but only one has any reference to what the player might already know. This is basically why better aerodynamics are not going to hurt new players in the slightest; rather, veteran players are the one's who need to adapt.

I'm not arguing against better aerodynamics, here. I'm arguing against hard realism, a-la what FAR provides, in stock. KSP as it is doesn't have an aerodynamics model per se, it's more of a soupodynamics model at best. I welcome an improvement to it, I just don't want that improvement to bother with shock cones, supersonic stalling, aerodynamic stress (except as natural), etc. Like I said, best case scenario is a fix for the stock drag, plus airflow shielding. There's no need to model anything else.

And, bear in mind, FAR is the one allowing brick walls to fly. Stock model has no lift stats for non-winglet parts, while FAR allows structural parts to act as lifting elements.

[Starwaster]

I'm not a B9 dev, but you're pretty wrong. B9 uses Firespitters fuel/mesh switch module to switch between the available 3D meshes and the resources contained in them. I don't think FS is capable of switching complete PartModules (yet), which is what you're asking for (switching between/(de)activating ModuleControlSurface and FARControllableSurface PartModules). Also, FAR deletes stock drag and lift values at start up so unless a smarter method of (re)loading the database is developed, what you're asking for is nigh on impossible.

I seriously doubt Ferram would ever implement something like that. His position would likely be along the lines of liking it or lumping it. "If you don't want FAR don't install it."

Or something like that.

[K77LostNSpace]

So maybe someone posting here will know. when KSP development speaks of releasing an update to the nav ball will it include a direction marker for docking? I installed the RPM and noticed my nav ball while IVA changed to have this useful red marker when docking that helps align to the correct direction while making 3D maneuver changes without the worry of pitch. Will this nav ball update include something like this?

Regarding buildings being destroyed. Any feature added is good, when they stop adding features then the depression starts. I for one look forward to destructible buildings. As just the other night I had an SSTO returning during the cover of night, and landed on the runway just fine, but the rear of the plane started fish tailing which caused a crash. Had the destructible runway been active this could have really set my career back some funds. (no Kerbals where killed in the crash)

I do not play with any aerodynamic modifications. Maybe i'm missing out but have yet to feel the over whelming need to change the stock mechanics when it comes to planes.

[regex]

I'm not arguing against better aerodynamics, here. I'm arguing against hard realism, a-la what FAR provides, in stock.

FAR doesn't offer "hard realism", just ask ferram4 what's missing from it. Aerodynamic failure is not a problem if you know how to handle it, which basically means moving the craft gently while at speed. As for shock cones and supersonic stalling, well, tbh I've never even noticed that kind of thing happening in FAR, I just fly and if it doesn't get me where I'm going I redesign, same as stock. I recently learned how to do a spaceplane reentry under FAR and it's not really that hard once you've done it a few times. I understand that FAR can be frustrating when you're used to the stock model where you can do some pretty unrealistic things, but it just takes practice (the same thing the stock model takes). I also agree that NEAR is good enough for stock, but FAR isn't anything like what the detractors make of it.

And, bear in mind, FAR is the one allowing brick walls to fly. Stock model has no lift stats for non-winglet parts, while FAR allows structural parts to act as lifting elements.

So lifting bodies aerodynamics == flat brick wall flying through the air? News to me.

Edited September 30, 2014 by regex

[TavishThomas]

my 2 cents is that he said "toughness is too high" so I figure that will be a new feature on a lot of parts. I can imagine the challenge of building a structurally stable enough orion project to actually handle the explosive force of each bomb used for propulsion. that and repair missions may become a necessity for the clumsier fliers among us.

[Franklin]

The one and only learning curve (if you can call it that) that I had to get used to with transitioning over to FAR from stock was that I can't just slam my plane 90 degrees going 700mph like an a-hole, which is fair I figure.

[Franklin]

But I find a surprising number of anti-FAR players have never even used it. Or used it once, watched their plane come apart trying to crank 90 degrees off the launch and immediately removed it because god forbid you be punished for doing something stupid.

[Endersmens]

But I find a surprising number of anti-FAR players have never even used it. Or used it once, watched their plane come apart trying to crank 90 degrees off the launch and immediately removed it because god forbid you be punished for doing something stupid.

So much yes.

[montyben101]

So lifting bodies aerodynamics == flat brick wall flying through the air? News to me.

Hmm Space Shuttle

[TMS]

And, bear in mind, FAR is the one allowing brick walls to fly. Stock model has no lift stats for non-winglet parts, while FAR allows structural parts to act as lifting elements.

Hai!

[frizzank]

Being a jerk to get a reaction out of someone is stupid. It might work at first, but after a while the person will start ignoring you, and that's exactly what's happening. It's also what's happening with RealChute, I've stopped reacting to jerks, and listening to the rare, but nice users who come and ask questions or propose things, and that don't throw a tamper tantrum when I say no.

Yes, and RealChute is awesome by the way....

[Vanamonde]

Okay, we get that a lot of you wish the secret feature had been something else. But it's destructible KSC buildings, so let's please keep the discussion here on-topic.

[Nemrav]

Okay, we get that a lot of you wish the secret feature had been something else. But it's destructible KSC buildings, so let's please keep the discussion here on-topic.

Sorry Vanamonde but the Hype Train does not simply lose its hype, even after it reaches its destination, we may very well be still at 90% throttle.

On flight topic, I remember suggesting in one of the "plz ferram aerospace stock" threads a difficulty option, it got shot down and slammed down real fast and hard....

on the feature topic, Hope in future we get building deformations based on location of impact for each --health effect.

[stupid_chris]

Sorry Vanamonde but the Hype Train does not simply lose its hype, even after it reaches its destination, we may very well be still at 90% throttle.

On flight topic, I remember suggesting in one of the "plz ferram aerospace stock" threads a difficulty option, it got shot down and slammed down real fast and hard....

on the feature topic, Hope in future we get building deformations based on location of impact for each --health effect.

Sorry to announce you that we very well do hold the brakes to the hype train On topic means on topic please.

[K77LostNSpace]

Thanks for the secret feature of destructible buildings. Will be entertaining to avoid crashing in career mode, and great stress release in sandbox. Looking forward to the new admin building features, the flexible difficulty and additional space plane parts.

After hearing the additional SP+ parts are becoming stock i downloaded the mod and love them. Can not picture myself playing without them now. Addicted.

If exploding buildings is only a "minor" feature, i gasp to think what the .26 project could be.

Thanks for all the effort so far.

[Minarkhaios]

I'm still a bit sad that there is no banana in the explosion effects ...

[DudewHorns]

Since the buildings are destructible, wonder if there will be future upgrades to reinforce them as you go into the upper tech tree?

[colin_in_space]

All I can say is I bloody love ksp, best 25$ I ever spent. I don't see what people are upset about with the minor cost of a great unique product under development. I am more than happy.

One of my favourite features is the mods. I can customise as I wish. Now it is kW rocketry and kolonization. Next time, hard mode with remote tech and deadly reentry. Each time a new experience and I am still learning.

Happy to hear about the sp+ parts, and the exploding building is cool. It is a small feature which will be part of the larger game. So far I really like squads approach to the game. Bringing popular sp+ into the game. So they can't get every feature everyone wants right away. Still a great game, very replayable and one if my all time favorite's.

[StanE]

The fire / explosion effects from page 7 look better than the one from http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/content/306-BOOM!. But maybe it's just another perspective view?

[tgruetzm]

There seem to be quite a few who were hoping for something other than destructible buildings. I was a bit skeptical too as to their value to the game, how often have you accidentialy crashed on the runway? Now it actually destroys it, well hopefully a plane will cause enough damage too.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Testing the upcoming release of KSP and it turns out that the runway is just not suitable for asteroid bowling. <a href="http://t.co/P2GIILbvCO">pic.twitter.com/P2GIILbvCO</a></p>— Scott Manley (@DJSnM) <a href="

Testing the upcoming release of KSP and it turns out that the runway is just not suitable for asteroid bowling. pic.twitter.com/P2GIILbvCO

— Scott Manley (@DJSnM)

September 29, 2014

">September 29, 2014</a></blockquote>

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[Guest]

Why is there fire on the concrete runway, though? OK, it makes sense if a fueled plane crashes onto it, but for an asteroid, it makes little sense.

[Wanderfound]

Actually, an asteroid that makes it to ground level at that size should probably be producing mushroom-cloud levels of compression and impact heating.