Pthigrivi

*if you had a skill tree, any kerbal could elect to include this as a perk.

Well no man. I mean all the apollo missions were pretty limited in scope. They already had to do docking maneuvers. If we go back and have to pack laboratories and habitation and all that there's an economic logic to packing it linearly to counter drag and then flip it horizontal to distribute weight on landing. Or you can go the other way--stack things vertically for landing and include a small buggie with a very short wheel-base. Either way seeing and considering the standard in the VAB only helps understand that trade-offs. If opaqueness is what they are after, modular standards only aid that.

As a basic precept I think the big science multiplier should be on transmission value. Its not magic, it's just that they can do what you can do with a big lab on kerbin in-flight.

It's no big thing. Just package a big bus with a docking port on the roof at the COM. Once in orbit drag doesn't matter, flip that stuff around and crane it down.

I mean there's some basic physics to low-diameter>low-drag. I'm precise and smart and I can live with and work with that. I legitimately do think though there's an extra design constraint there which I've worked with in cargo-bays and KW fairings which is conforming to a standard. Its a preference and subjective but I happen to find it drives me to better design. I tend to keep landing gear and wheels and landing engines all within close tolerances and I have to think pretty deeply about mass symmetry and torque leverage and launch cost-efficiency. There's space which is visible to the designer to With procedural fairings there's just too much leeway, you can do whatever the bunk you want and zoop! its fine. It's actually worse than that its easier to make inefficient payloads, its that you can make inefficient payloads and not know it. Its an interesting question, but I think the fairest description is one of ease-of-use vs design transparency.

^That exactly. High five Abacus.

Yeah the skills system needs a big pass. There are a few threads on this, my favorite of which is here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/107243-Skill-Tree-for-Kerbals

I think you could have bases in 1.25, 2.5 and 3.75 inline, expanded, and interstage, each of which expand vertically. Thats 9 total. That doesn't sound insane to me.

Man we really really need this. Ion engines are usually used for probes because the tanks are so small, not the other way around. Right now I use batteries of ion tanks on docking ports to fuel 4 and 8 ion engine clusters for interplanetary shuttles and orbital science platforms mainly so I can dump them because refilling them is so tedious.

Yeah this is great and should definitely be there.

I'm not personally concerned with anything but gameplay. I like the challenge of constraining to a module. I also think it fits the lego-like spirit of the game. So if there's a way to start with just a few bases and snap to module diameters after that Im pretty cool.

Really with everything thats promised for 1.0 I think they're there in terms of features. I know this is planned, but what I'd really like to see are overhauls of the science and kerbal skills systems. The tech tree could use some work, but really its the experiments themselves that are lacking I think. There's a good thread on this here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/108153-Science-it-s-boring-how-can-it-be-made-more-fun And at present Kerbal training is really rudimentary and not actually functioning properly. Id personally like to see a skill-tree type system where experience can be spent on leveling up in multiple disciplines allowing us to choose a kerbals skills and development. There's a thread on this idea here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/107243-Skill-Tree-for-Kerbals ...Oh and just a bit more surface detail: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/107825-Surface-features

So it seems they will be going with a Karbonite-like system for stock ISRU. I haven't used it... what can I expect?

Im also curious about how the blow-away animation will look.. its so good with KW.

Man Id much rather they just change it to be a skill-tree so rolls are determined as you go. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/107243-Skill-Tree-for-Kerbals

Another idea: instead of having to bring kerbals all the way back to Kerbin to level-up, you can also launch a large training module part. While Kerbals are inside, accumulated experience can be spent on skill advancements as if they were back on Kerbin. As things like ISRU and maybe life-support and greenhouses pop up down the road this could really dovetail nicely into off-world colonization.

How about I just start suggesting some: Jool: Duna: Tylo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHMBoDoFwj0 Minmus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHyTXlejiEE Pol: Mun: Gilly: Laythe: - - - Updated - - - ^^I was sort of kidding, but some of these might not be? The copyright would be to Ligeti if it still applied, not to 2001.

One for approaching anomalies:

Hmm.. there could be some weird stuff with using parts while inside the fairing. Like what if you want to run science experiments in flight or change the control module?

I mean if they're going to do this pass they should really do it right and make a system for unique kerbals, with several different hairstyles randomized with a few different colors. There are some weedier issues about gender norms but I actually don't mind the rounded head idea. That way you could have some hairstyles that are unique to males, (beards and male pattern baldness), hairstyles that are unique to females (a few girlyish hair styles) and then a swath in the middle that could be used for either. I think they could throw in a few different styles of glasses but skip jewelry. Names too could end up being either on the girl side of the spectrum or the male side. I don't know how the coding effects this, basically just mechanism that won't give a mustache to Hermanina Kerman. Having a swath of gender ambiguous names and hairstyles I think softens things nicely. Also... just sayin, KSC is gonna need some female staff

I like it Parkaboy. Id be totally cool with that. Keeping the parts number down sounds great. It's fitting within a module that makes it a challenge. I'd still love interstage fairings though. Also I'm in total agreement on foldable things for packing. Most of the parts do a good job of this already but Id love to see the M1 wheels deflate and fold up. It would be a great balance element over the M2s.

I do love the KW sizes. I wonder how/if they will handle inline fairings. Rather than even being procedural you could have 6 cone fairing bases and 3 inline bases, and right click and drag them up to the height you wanted (with a cap).

I actually think the key to making stations useful is the science lab. At present there isn't much that it does. The fundamental question is strategically what is the value of having a hub? My thinking is the science lab needs to be heavier and more expensive, but do something vital. A few ideas for that: 1) Collectable/loadable materials for the materials bay - Surface samples as well as atmospheric samples, ground scatter core samples etc can be brought back to a science lab, processed, and then distributed to materials bays. When the materials bay is activated, different samples give higher and lower bonuses, meaning amassing a collection of the best samples is a huge asset. Samples can also be brought back to Kerbin, but if you're, say, on a Jool mission it might make more sense to fill materials bays with what you find there than shipping it all the way back to Kerbin for processing. This could be a big step toward end-game living-off-the-land type strategies. 2) Major upgradable ability of scientists is to improve science processing results for transmission back to Kerbin. I think you could even go in 20% increments, with level 1 scientists processing results to 20% and level 5 scientists processing to 100%. This would mean results and samples could be brought back to a science lab with a level 5 scientist for the same value as returning them to Kerbin. From a balance standpoint, science labs will be very heavy and expensive, meaning you aren't going to put them on every lander you send down, and getting a scientist to level 5 will be difficult enough that you wont have a large supply of them. 3) Soil testing necessary before determining a good drill site - When prospecting, orbital imaging will only tell you the general region in which harvestable resources can be found. Once there, the only way to tell if you've struck gold is to process a surface sample either at Kerbin or a science lab. Id love the idea that you could run longitudinal studies, but its too exploitable if you can just put these experiments on and press the period key for infinite science. I already use orbital labs a great deal. Its a great system to put a station around kerbin with a lab on it and run 6 or 8 mun and minimus missions with a lander. Same for Jool and Eve missions. You leave your return fuel and a science lab in orbit. This kind of thing would be even more profitable if there were more compelling mechanics behind it. Another idea Ive had is a big heavy "training module" part added. As Kerbals gain experience, they must return either to kerbin or a training module in order to level up. This way instead of having to return home after every mission, kerbals could instead level up on the fly by returning to a training module. This part should be big, 3.75m maybe, be expensive, heavy, and power-hungry meaning sending one down on every lander makes little sense.

Yeah I hope the width is fixed at least. Give us fairing bases in increments and they just expand vertically.

Yeah I really hope they are not procedural. The whole packing challenge is great. Constraints! The KW setup is great and they should do something similar.