klgraham1013

I think there were two of us who thought KSP RPG might be an interesting idea. I do wonder if the same outrage would have come from "-%10" as opposed to "%10". Many claimed magic when a pilot could achieve %10 higher isp from an engine. I wonder if Squad had claimed a fledgling pilot could only achieve 90% of the maximum isp, if that would have been seen as equally magical. Anyway, that's water under the bridge now.

You walked into the viper's nest.

Yes. ...but I believe these contracts should be initiated by an actual break in your own craft. I highly dislike the idea of contracts placing objects in your game. Contracts should detect you have classified something as a station and give you contracts to that station. Randomly placing a stranded Kerbal or broken satellite breaks immersion for me.

So, Max just tweeted about the upcoming update. Aero and resources. Still no mention of the tech tree. Have they once mentioned the tech tree since it's release?

Can this just be a general rule of everything?

So, your critique, MKI, is that it would be work, so the devs shouldn't do it? Personally, I think all windows should light up, similar to SP+ and B9. Why not? It adds a nice visual flair, much as clouds would, and from what I gather, most people want clouds.

If you can easily turn them off in the tracking station, why aren't they off by default? This seems an easy fix. Have the devs not found this annoying while playing? If it wasn't for RemoteTech, I'd most certainly have more flags than actual active vessels.

I don't believe random failures should be stock, but performance degradation with use/over time would be nice. Spare parts should be added as a means for engineers to fix said parts. As far as which; nearly all besides structural in my opinion: tanks, engines, batteries. You name it.

There nothing wrong with DLC if done correctly. Take X-Com for example. Though I enjoyed Enemy Unknown, Enemy Within launched it into my top 10 of all time. I think it really added and improved on the original. What about Brood War for the original Starcraft? I could name a number of examples of great expansion packs. What about Red Dead Redemption: Undead Nightmare? I see nothing wrong with a developer continuing to work on a game post release. I do have a problem if the content was developed in tandem with the base game.

I'd love to see a wind tunnel in KSP. Your craft could float with inand 3D aeros could show forces being applied. The aero size and animation could differ due to the amount of force. Sliders would allow the player to adjust speed, atmospheric pressure, and angle of attack, among other things. Something a bit more visual than FAR's analysis tools. Just a thought. I'm no aerospace engineer but I try!

You are a demanding fellow. I feel less of a man only working 40 hours a week.

So here are my picks for stock integration: Kerbal Engineer Redux Kerbal Alarm Clock Transfer Window Planner Atmospheric Trajectories Neophyte's Elementary Aerodynamics Replacement The fairings from KW Rocketry Snacks! SCANsat Navball docking alignment indicator Action Group Manager Kerbal Attachment System

This thread is hilarious. +1 rep for comic timing. no rep actually given

Can we dislike both? Anyway, I don't think the causation you claim is in anyway fact. Complaining about the barn did not bring about generic office buildings.

I would much rather Squad move onto KSP2 than DLC. I actually wouldn't even mind if the business model was more traditional.

Yeah. I don't think there's any need for Squad to make any of the doors surface attachable. As the OP said, A hollow fuselage would suffice for surface attachments.

Everything that comes after the game is finished, you will have to pay for. Whether that be KSP2 or KSP DLC. I've seen this before. Minecraft entitlement. Mojang should update Minecraft forever and ever because I paid for it once upon a time. Let's not be those people.

Depends if you think "indie" actually means anything.

The tech tree is a much easier fix. We've nearly done all the work for them. No complicated mathematics involved. Just rearrange the nodes and the parts within. I understand there's still work involved, but it can't be nearly as complex as redoing the aerodynamics of the game.

Did you see that control room during the Orion launch? NASA wimps using computers and stuff. I don't need none of that!

I was thinking it would just work like the cargo bay doors, but with a tweakable range. I don't see how this immediately leads to Infernal Robotics.

So good... Not really a post, but...yeah. I'll be going now.

Sure, you can unlock nodes. If that's your definition of working well, then, yes, it does that. If your definition is adding to the game experience, I'd suggest it does the opposite of working well.

It's a good idea, GusTurbo. I got a little overzealous at the mention of tutorials, since I feel the solution is starring Squad in the face.

edit: Ok. A knowledge base for reference is a good idea, but... The best tutorials flow within the game itself. I've said before that contracts are the perfect means to teach players. A simple question when starting career mode (whether you're new to the game) would lead you down a structured path of contracts. You would learn about TWR, delta v, gravity turns, orbital mechanics. All in a linear fashion meant to slowly introduce players to the game's mechanics. Info dumps are never good and are usually skipped over. This is a game. We should rely on in game mechanisms to teach the player.