shizophrenic

I think there is no one right way to play KSP. Mod it or don't Mod it the way you want. Before 0.25 i did all manover by hand and building by estimating and now i use Mods. I hope some of the concepts of mods make it into later versions of the game. The reasons can reduced mainly to: - better visuals/audio - more game depth (Scansat, Contract packs) - lazyness, because even if i can do it i don't want to waste my precious gaming time on calculating dV (KER) or eyeballing docking alignment (NavHud)

Since i have no really knowlegde of the internals of the contract system, I have maybe stupid idea for the problem with the interplanetar stations. How about a naming plaque part one the station core that defines the destination of the new station? When the plaque is in any orbit the following contracts like adding moduls getting available. That way its possible to add modules before the launch windows or at a seperate windows. The contracts are naturally only fulfilled when the destination is reached. The part only needs to have a selector for the destination. And a naming plate is usually lightweight, aerodynamic, cool looking (maybe) and wouldn't interfer with other mods. Maybe another purpose for this plaque could be with a hidden ID to distinguish seperate stations in around the same planet.

Regarding aktivating through stageing: If you toggle an engine via an action-group it doesn't count as staged yet. So you can lift off the launchpad by setting throttle and toggleing the engine on AND stage the same engine when contract conditions are met.

when your first manned mun craft actually lands, and can't do eva because you placed a parachute on the hatch

i like the idea of more animations. kerbals don't doing something ...uhmm.. errm silly i can't quite imagine ... i remember a video footage from the mun ... about repairing a wheel...

Just to make it beforehand clear. I am not against any other aerodynamics at all. I am just totally aganist the way a lot of ppl behave. You say You Hate building planes with stock aero. I really HATE how ppl DEMAND things (may it be Features or shedules), call The ppl who do the WORK in THEIR game incompetent, come up with arguments that are not per Definition are right (like more realism is always better), and never try to consider that others may have another view to that matter. Example: someone was complaining in a treat stock aero is flying like aganist a brick wall, to hard etc. I consider i more like a challenge, making a plane fly there. Why should it be just fun doing it the way reality works. if ppl want a game that represent their ideal game, then go ahead and make it yourself.

i agree to that Statement. And because we are not the devs, who do the work, all we should do make humble suggestions, and not go like "this has to be "

this was lost in copy/ paste I my personal opinion it is better to have a less realistic model for education. The students see something that works generally but they see that it doesn't work like the real world. with asking why they think it isn't like they expect they have to look into the underlying physic. They have to Analyse the physics come up with the improvements by themself. Giving them a premade solution that is quite accurate, there isn't any Need for them to think for themself. Best would it be if they could Experiment with the physics model in the game to test out their solutions

you bring that for educational purposes it is better to add realism. i disagree, you have to consider the audience you are teaching. if you take ppl that are study physics a great amount of realism might be good. if you take a class of 14 years old you want to get started physics it is different, since they probaly could easily overstrained and lose interest forever. even the early lessons in physics study start with simple Problems. more realism doesn't lead atuomactically to better educational value. and i never stated that i am against N-Body Solutions in game, just stated that it isn't as easy as it seem. One main Problem i see is that the planets/moon orbits are on the rails, and there is a discrepancy to rest of their data.

Actually it is mathematicaly proven that for N>3 Body there is no exact solution. for n=3 there is only for 2 Special cases a solution there (one is the Lagrange Points, the second is about three Bodys with the same mass on a Special trajetory). All other solutions use approximations and/or are solved numerical. even in case your post doesn't wasn't aimed at my post before. even if my post was exaggerated, it Points out that more realism doesn't equals better. the same applys to less realism. it isn't automatic better either. often it is argumented that more realism is better/more fun, that is just simply wrong.

i totally agree, my post before was intended to remind the ppl that even if we discuss how it could be implemented there is already a concept that the devs have realised (to a quite high percentage)

/sarcasm start sometimes i wish they go to a Company with Expertise making extremly accurate air flow and drag modells like Boeing, take those models and put them 1:1 into the game. Just to add realism. i think the FAR planes (never installed so only guess) would fly only like arrows... Well, probably but no one would ever see a plane flying anymore since calculating 10 sec of flying would take a loooooooonnnnnggg time. ... i don't have one of the supercomputer as ring with several 100 cpu and Terabyte of Memory. ah and while talking of realism, get rid of the time warp button, too, /sarcasm end

well this disscussion is in one Point really senseless. regardless want we are here say, Squad has already choosen a economic Modell. it is only not implemented yet. their testers made them realise that, only with Features they planned to implement in 0.25, the contracts would give the Players the Feeling to have a proper reward for fullfilling the contract.

if the economic Modell bases only on the parts you probably right. but if put in daily costs for maintance of buildings and salarys for the employes. it becomes different. even while the Craft flies your wallet shrinks and shrinks. then you would be happy for any extra way to increase the Overall Profit of a mission. the Voyager missions were started years ago the 'parts' already paid, but still they cost NASA about x Million Dollars each year

i agree with you and red iron crown. if it Comes i dont wan't it to be complicated. a single sourse System is more than sufficent. and since kerbals are Aliens, there is no Need to assume their biology works like ours. until a life Support will be implemented i belive that kerbals can eat anything. so they live of fuel and can breath oxidizer. (actally they fly their craft no so bad as we see, the missing fuel was just ... a midnight Snack)