Technical Ben

Yep, as Sirrobert said, to make it simple, instead of "modes" we could have a selection of starting conditions: Money on/off [Career/Sandbox] Missions on/off [sandbox missions/Career science goal only] Science on/off [science points needed to progress/all science unlocked on start] Oh, and for "hardcore" Reset/quicksave/retries on/off [For when those mission dollars INCLUDE test flights and failures and replacement rockets!]

Off topic... but what mod allows you to see the craft in the Hud? More bulding games (KSP and Space Engineers) need that kind of display for construction and power/systems management. Wow.

This is a great idea along with the above post too. A simple "fix" for both realism, gameplay and simplicity (easy implementation of the engine and low CPU use).

Thanks. In the time it took me to download (ok, I was browsing the net too and got distracted) the latest update, you updated the mod. Wow, really, you work really hard on this. Thanks.

We all thought it, it was just a race through the tech tree.

It would be nice to be able to identify bioms with a satellite/scanner of some sort, then land to get the real science points.

Well, I'm now making a SpaceX Style recovery craft for my first KSP Career mode play for a launch of a Duna orbital probe. I've made the first stage 4000k+ to hope at getting the second stage into orbit. As doing a real SpaceX would end up with one of the stages being despawned/atmospherically locked/killed by the game engine. The second stage should boost the probe to a higher orbit, then return. With the probe (3rd stage/payload stage) taking it's self to Duna. PS, I'm doing this with half the tech tree too. PPS, nope, unable to copy Scott, as swapping between craft just does not give me enough time to fly both. STTO seems the only way

Testing should possibly grant access to the part <i>once unlocked on the tech tree</i>. Without such a mission, when you unlock the tech tree, you would get only the tech you have been granted from the missions. Those you fail, you loose the option to use those new rockets. This would give ground testing a method of use to some extent... though more "testing" parameters are needed, such as "test to overheat" or "test to destruction" or more boring "test at different throttle settings".

Why does the player need to be in control? None of Space X or Nasa/other countries use manned flight for landing... so why can the game not have automatic landing with some restrictions? Such as the restriction for aircraft autolanding requiring a Kerbal pilot? For rocket, a probe/parachute? Granted, not all designs can land. But we can design proven landers. So some way to confirm they can land, or some way to go back and land them by hand later?

Why is it fantasy? They are already testing the first stage and the crew capsule. It's just the middle stage they have not yet tested... so why is it still fantasy when they have such resources and flights already? AFAIK it does use more fuel, but they've taken that into account with a larger tank/engine in the first stage and it turns out it's not much more than a normal crew capsule launch, as the recovered parts more than enough make up for the cost of a few ton of fuel.

Off loading the work. You don't run a rocket program single handed. But in KSP we do. Yey people argue "for realism it should all be done by the player". Even the first few rockets in real life had autopilots... yet people say "for realism autopilot should be kept out". Hmmmm... Same with stats. If in real life 10s or 100s of scientists help you with calculations and stats, why ask the player to do it all themselves? I like an in-between option. Add flight plans to the mission control, and have the option to automatically activate and action all manuvour points (including a launch window/setting). Yet in this mode remove the option for manual tweeks... or require the power and transmission costs of the antennas... that way you get a type of autopilot, but still require the player to plan and calculate the mission.

Practically real life then. With the new mechanics, it seems we jump to either cheap rockets, or reusable so as to recoup costs or limit losses.

Love the little thing, it looks so cute. I had some tiny planes pre-0.24, now I could go even smaller... though I have no STTO as I always crash/flip/loose it when trying to fly at high altitude.

Not really. Most rocket teams are made of hundreds of people. This is a game, offloading that to some computer stats is understandable... and what the Mission Control and hired Kerbals are for, no?

Powered landings are very successful... With the new vernor rockets, this is more possible: http://youtu.be/sSF81yjVbJE Currently KSP will destroy both those reusable stages if you attempt it in game... [edit] WAIT... What? I just tested it... KSP now lets you fire ships out on ballistic trajectories in the atmosphere, and keep them alive?! I'm SOOOO making that grasshopper reusable rocket now... Although I still need to get perfect timing between craft, as it's going to drift quite some way without power (as it's outside sim range).

I think it appears in green too (or blue) so it's a different colour to normal parts.

Currently the game punishes you HARD for a mid air launch (airplane assisted etc) for anything not creative mode. See the recent rocket launch designs too. They are looking to add re-usability in just this way, except it has no parachutes (it's a powered landing). As I don't know how KSP could sim both (other than timewarp backwards for multiple instances, and yes, that can be done. ), parachutes seem at least a partial solution and a partial goal for those wanting to save the first stage. Of cause secondary or additional stages would burn up on re-entry or need full flight control for return.

Oh yes, it's an "or" option. It's just that mechanically it makes little sense to favour just one option. Even re-activating an engine in multiple locations (say one on kerbin, one on the mun) would still give real data, so a "only one use allowed" restriction of the staging option is not really worth it, even for the "challenge".

I can vouch for 4. I've just spent 10 mins trying to figure out why my mission keeps failing, and I was right clicking to activate, instead of staging.

Search is not the most helpful, so can I ask. What is the difference (if any) of experimental rockets (in full career mode)? Are they only available with specific missions (so advance availability)? Or do they have additional/different stats?

I accept there are differences of opinion. So to help understand what people consider helpful and what is not, can I ask? Would a "tested lander" or "tested recovery" option be helpful? So only if you have a 100% success with a recovery/lander design could it become automatically recovered (and only if landed near KSC)? This would require the player to generate a "mission/objective" and test their recovery/landers before deploying. Then it would be marked as "recoverable" and only if it separates/activates in the same mode as the tested version?

It bypasses the reasons to even have any stages. Every ship will become a SSTO? Really, automatic recovery (of some sort) is required now. It's just how to do it that is up for discussion. It could be entirely automatic, it could be entirely simulated. And it could be anywhere in between.

Thanks. Why can I not just explain it away by saying both measured the same particle (I throw out locality, and say they made the reading of the same particle, thus have to get the correct readings)? Why can they not just have an additional dimensionality within this universe, or for just that particle, for the collapse/reading/observation? Why does it need to branch out into additional universes? For the dice, I'm assuming quantum dice. "Dice" used just to be simple with the terminology (the same way "up" is not a direction with QM). I have 1 quantum particle. I can know for a certainty the probabilities are "50% up and 50% down". I cannot know if it will be up or down. "The dynamics, in contrast, is still entirely deterministic." AFAIK the calculations are deterministic only in their probabilities, not in their results. I can say it will give a result, with 100% certainty, up or down. I cannot say it will be down. AFAIK this is proven scientifically, mathematically and through observations. Thus, how is it "deterministic" if there is no actual determined result? Basically, I can assume all dice rolls result in alternate realities which spawn additional dice, so they all appear with each side facing up. This is not possible and not considered correct, because it's classical and we accept no such universe exists. Do we suggest such universes exist for quantum particles? If so, why?

No, but maths is maths. If you use the same gen (there are lots of default ones around) then you get the same result. That's what procedural is all about. PS, thus probably not copyrighted, it's just the default noise map in a lot of things.

You can have procedural and the same seed on every PC. SpaceEngine does this IIRC. It seeds the entire known universe, and each PC is able to visit every star (though you'd need a LOT of time to do so. ). It's just each PC has the same seed, so they generate the same universe. But it's a loooong way away before Squad do alternative solar systems (if ever). At which point they decide on a few hand made ones, or limitless (though the same on each pc/game) seeded/procedural ones.