Mipe

No railings? I guess Jeb is a good swimmer, then?

Downloads broken?

Huh. I'll consider that as I design my next lifter. I've been having issues with flipping rockets, perhaps my line of thinking is faulty after all.

Indeed, it feels like little thought was given to the part placement in tech tree. Perhaps I should sit down and try to something up with something more practical... But then there already are alternative tech trees around.

I find the payload needs to be generally sleeker and lighter than the launch rocket. As rocket loses fuel, the center of mass creeps upward and if your payload is heavier than the dry mass of launch rocket, it'll topple over. If it is wider, the drag will make it topple faster (dart effect). You can counter this with some fins, but they reduce the efficiency at cost of increased stability. So, basically, the heavier the payload is, the heavier the launch stage needs to be (in order to keep payload pointing up when going dry). The launch stage also needs to be wider than the payload (i.e. have more drag).

I've given this a little more thought... what if prerequisites weren't binding, but instead boosting? Initially, tech nodes would have high cost, however performing practical tasks toward the node would reduce their cost significantly? This feels more in line with realistic R&D; the more experiments you do and the more practical experience you accumulate, the faster you advance. Or you could skip those altogether and science bomb the whole thing, but it'd be far less effective. Meanwhile, practical experiences still would provide invaluable guidance for the new and lost players. So, a compromise. What say you? P.S.: After re-reading the post, I realized I didn't specify what cost... obviously I meant science cost to unlock tech nodes, but what if this also applied to part costs? Prototypes tend to be expensive, after all, and only serial production and usage of parts would lower their cost. But that is another topic, I believe...

Why not just split storage based on what it stores? LN/O, LN, O, EC, KE4, Kerbal etc.

As in, it doesn't limit the players MORE than the current career mode. I really could have phrased that better. It just deals with the "science bomb" effect.

You are misunderstanding. This does not limit veteran players in any way - it just gives them a challenge: making do with a limited choice of parts. This is what makes career mode so attractive - it gives challenge. You just ruin the experience for yourself when you science bomb the career. The primary purpose of practical experience requirements for tech advancement is to provide guidance for players that are unsure of what to do next. Naturally, they want to reach space first, then land on Mun etc. But they don't consider in-between goals. Small goals are the best; this provides them. First step would be to test EVA on launchpad. The player receives that objective and executes it; he learns how he can EVA later in space and that he can collect science that way. Second step would be to launch into upper atmosphere or above. The player receives instructions and executes them, thus learning to throttle up during launch in order for LF engines to function. I personally was stumped at this step - only solid engines would ignite at launch but not liquid fuel engines. I only found the solution by googling it. Third step would be to actually make a safe landing. The player learns the importance of parachutes as he mourns the loss of Jebediah Kerman. Fourth step would be to establish a stable orbit. The player learns about apoapsis, periapsis and circularization. Then you'd have additional objectives, such as performing a flyby by a moon, orbiting it and finally landing. The player is given new objectives that he can complete at will. But a veteran? He can do all that in the first flight. He can launch to orbit, perform EVA there and then land safely precisely at KSC pad. He wouldn't be given those additional objectives to perform because he'd already completed them way ahead of schedule - the game would give him future objectives. He may choose to stick to those objectives or do his own thing. If he wants to unlock certain parts, such as station modules, he'll just dock once and be done with it. How is that limiting the player? If you want complete freedom, you have sandbox mode. Stick to it. If you enjoy career mode, consider WHY you enjoy it and why it becomes so bland after you've science-bombed it. Finally, consider the new players that feel at a loss at certain points in the game. Put your selfishness aside for now.

Kerbit. (10 letters)

"SHOTGUN!" "Damnit, Jeb, not again!"

Hm. Procedural cargo bays probably are out of the question, but what about solar panels and girders? Think those initial 1x6 or 2x3 solar panels and just add panels/segments to the Gigantor size and even beyond, scaling the power output with it. As for girders, you'd just need one long procedural girder for those RCS thrusters and panels for the space station - save on the part count and ensure less wobbliness! Just a thought. Those should be doable with current parts as base - just repeat them.

How strange... I loaded the same craft I had the issue with and this time there was no fuel feeding from top stage... so I can't reproduce the issue. I've re-tested with different setups, no krakens. Just a fluke then? I noticed I could place the procedural decouplers a little higher on the LV-909 (a little bit higher from where it should be), perhaps I did that and the engine was touching the next part? But then it doesn't allow placing any parts below that (tried it just now). Maybe it glitched out back then, allowing me to place the procedural fuel tank beneath the misplaced decoupler in a way it was still in contact with the engine? Well, anyway, that's that - I'll write it off to a fluke. Sorry about that. And since I have to break this pictureless post streak, a screenshot of Jeb during one of his favorite moments: Just a little bit past mach 1, did a little bit too forceful gravity turn. With stock parts, the same rocket would just do a flip and then carry on at lowered speed. Just a few procedural tanks stacked on top of each other here.

After briefly browsing the pictures here... *slams the download link furiously*

In the FAR 0.13.2 release, ferram added this feature: And, well, procedural parts don't seem to have much of stiffness compared to stock parts. Then again I am using Kerbal Joint Reinforcement as well, could it be missing those procedural parts? In any case, they feel really fragile. If I build a rocket out of stock parts, it feels more stable when doing slight gravity turn adjustments. Do the same with procedural parts, it falls apart. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something...?

Laytherian? Heavens forbid. Make that Laythian.

That is where the Kraken sat down for a breather.

And that's what sandbox is for: the complete freedom. Career implies progression. What is the point of career if you just unlock everything with a couple trips to Minmus?

Then how do you explain first stage deltaV doubling when I add another procedural fuel tank below procedural decoupler? I'm using the experimental KER release. When I launched, I noticed the bottom stage was drawing fuel from first stage. I had to manually disable first stage fuel and fill it back up mid-ascent. This doesn't happen with stock decouplers.

Hm, it seems that procedural decouplers allow fuel crossfeed - or at least appear to. KER shows increased DV for first stage after I add procedural fuel on bottom stages... Another observation: the latest FAR release feels rather unkind to the procedural parts. If you put any strain on those procedural tanks (too high TWR or angling too fast during ascent), they fall apart like a house of cards.

Yup. It gives reports for high orbit in each body in the Kerbol system.

I don't think it is all that limiting. Those practical experiences would be retroactive - if you are good, then you can meet quite a few requirements in ONE mission. For example, you would first launch into space, orbit Kerbin some time and then fly onward to Mun. When you return, you'd already have met quite objectives. This practical progression is here to guide players. As it stands right now, new players have to go through a tutorial or google stuff, because the game doesn't tell them what to do next.

They can. Nothing is stopping them from it; they just don't need the parts they would otherwise have to unlock. If they want to unlock those parts, well, there's something to do, then! They can skip straight to the next tier afterwards, though, having already completed that one mission.

The career mode is a major gameplay feature that gives most players what the sandbox mode lacks - a sense of purpose that comes with progression. However, I feel the current R&D implementation is ... well, suffice to say that it could be a little, no, a whole lot better. As it stands, you can do a simple Mun or Minmus flyby with Tech 1 rocket and thus unlock quite a few nodes with one flight. Well, that's quite a feat in itself that deserves rewards, but it kind of... dilutes the experience. Therefore, I believe the "progression" itself should somehow be worked into the tech advancement other than with science points. For example, limit tech tiers or nodes by assigning certain requirements that have to be met prior to unlocking and researching further. What would those requirements be? Why, it is practical experience! What do I mean by practical experience? Simply achievements of the KSP and its people, that is you: the player. You start with several stock parts and delusions of grandeur. The first command pod, engine, fuel pod. R&D eggheads have ideas, however to flesh them out, they need hard, stone cold facts. That is the practical experience: the data about performance of engine, airtightness of the capsule, conditions in the upper atmosphere and so on. At this point, nearly the whole tech tree is greyed out but the first node. What is that node's requirement? Why, nothing but the first flight: reaching a certain altitude that makes the egghead nod in approval and parachute engineer sweat profusely. Once you successfully launch the rocket, reach certain altitude and successfully bring it down (that is, by not squashing the contents of the command pod), the eggheads scurry back to their tables with newly-acquired and still warm facts: the practical experience. The effect on the player? The first tech tier is unlocked and he can proceed with research! Next tiers could have similar conditions for progressions. For the science branch, for example, you would have to collect samples and perform various Kerbin-based experiments. Say, collecting surface sample from a certain biome would unlock the Goo container. Collecting samples and reports form, say, three or four different biomes would unlock the Science Jr. And so on. Other tech branches could be done in similar manner; to unlock docking ports and stuff, you'd first have to achieve an orbit and maintain it for a certain period. Then eggheads would start throwing ideas of more permanent orbital presence and present the space rendezvous and station ideas... Space planes? You'd need practical experience from both aerial and space flight (unlocking jet engines et cetera by performing various flight tasks, such as landing on the island strip, reaching certain altitude and maintaining it for certain time period, maintaining mach 2+ speed for a couple minutes and so on). Practical experiences tend to come from failures, as well. Rocket crashed? How about those radial parachutes? Ran out of fuel in space? Try this fuel-efficient engine! Ran out of electric juice? Just point this refurbished mirror at the su- er, Kerbol! Well, you get the idea. Limit the tech progression by certain conditions, such as crashing probes on certain bodies, achieving orbits, performing experiments et cetera. I feel this would be much more satisfying than simply min-maxing a rocket to grab the SciencePointCarePackage at Mun/Minmus before doing anything else. Sure, it's a nice challenge, but it kind of trivializes everything up to that point. Of course you can try and reach Mun with lowest tech possible, but you'd still have to do those mundane orbital experiments back at home before you can advance on the tech tree. The space program is like a ladder made of smaller challenges that lead up to the bigger. Let's not skip the rungs. After all, that's what the career mode is for, is it not?

@Umlüx, see the post by Green Skull above mine, that's a hotfix for this issue.