RenevB

I've seen the "asteroid captured by the Mun's gravity" at least once. But to the picture above me: isn't the issue there that elliptic orbits with apoapsis outside the sphere of influence (yes, those exist) don't show the SoI exit point? (Or maybe it's that that point only shows up when you're inside the sphere of influence?)

My general idea: I am of the that it would be a bit silly to have the biomes hidden under Alt+F12 only. Now that you can (relatively) easily see the biome map ingame, I think it would be a good idea to make this information available to the player through normal gameplay. By that I mean that it would have to be unlocked in some way. This idea would work, I like it. On the other hand, JumpsterG's idea is a good one too.

I am happy. Additionally, I am tired. Will try tomorrow.

Drivers? We don't need no stinking drivers.

I feel like I haven't been on this train for very long, but it's been about twenty pages (as I type). So before it's too late, it's been an honour to ride with you once again.

My Steam claims I have an update required for KSP. However, I'm still on 0.24 and have yet to switch it out of the "previous stable release" setting. Are they removing 0.24? Update Soon ?

I am hopping on the hope hype train as well. Not too long ago, I finished my 0.24 (that is no typo) career game, so it's about time to start playing again.

I'm taking a sort of third option: earlier today, I've just finished my 0.24 career save. I probably won't start playing again till 0.90 is here.

And a couple of weeks later I can finally change my answer: yes, I've landed on Tylo (and made it back safely).

This dev article by HarvesteR pretty much explains it.

I have given this some thought and think comets would be a good addition to the game, if they can be done 'right'. I could be doing a hasty generalization, but you could use the code for spawning asteroids, with some changes: different orbital parameters, different textures and maybe even shapes, different mass distribution over the size classes (different sizes even?). And then, the more difficult bit, to do it 'right' comets would indeed need some kind of tails and comas, because that is what people will expect from comets. I think they would be a good addition, if you can do this, and keep the feel of a comet different than the feel of an asteroid (I would assume by picking the right orbital parameters, so that a comet mission will be more challenging than a mission to an asteroid).

Update: I have not landed on Tylo yet. I blame my flying and lack of planning ahead (ohh, a Vall flyby, let's do this) for now not having the fuel to land and take off again. Time for a refuel mission, I think?

I am about to try my first Tylo landing (and return).

I use Munar and Joolian often, Dunar slightly less so. I haven't really thought about or used adjectives for other planets or moons. I would join such a Dres Appreciation Society immediately.

I am quoting the following because it's basically what I did with 0.23 and 0.24 and it worked perfectly. Right now, set Steam to "Only update when I launch" under "updates", then when 0.25 is available set it to "previous stable release" under "betas".

That effect is even stronger on Mars, as it has a greater eccentricity than Earth. Which is why I presume it comes up in a game set on Mars. On this wikipedia page, in that section there's a table that compares the lengths of seasons on Earth (not more than five days difference) to those of the seasons on Mars (slightly more than fifty Martian days difference).

Just like Scotius and the two people above me, I do feel loneliness in space. But now, let me adress the original questions. Besides Kerbin, there are 16 other celestial bodies to visit. All are different, some subtly, some radically different. I sort of agree with you here, as besides the rocket flying part of the game, there's a lot of room for improvement. On the other hand, KSP is a rocket flying game, so a question back at you: What did you expect? 1) How? Note that I am not a fan of multiplayer, so I may be biased as to what MP would add. 2) I like the current science system, understand some of the criticisms about it, but can you explain what you mean with your criticism here? 3) Anomalies are nice to have but far from necessary for the game. 4) "What not to suggest" meaning that it's been suggested and discussed enough times. 5) Contracts. They're in the game. 6) You make your own.

On top of that, it will force a subset of players to do something they don't like, and do it repeatedly. (There have been some complaints about the test contracts.)

Fully agree. Any n-body physics, even limited as in this suggestion, would make it impossible for the average gamer to know if he's in a stable orbit. Patched conics is a simplification, but in my opinion a necessary one for KSP to be considered a game, not a simulation.

There have been several discussions about this. Someone made a mod to do exactly what you expect KSP to do and it's called Debrefund. And in a way you did not intend, there is already full recoverability in the game. The refund percentage for the runway is 100%.

Never in any way? None. Never orbited? Tylo. Never landed? Above plus the sun (duh), and Jool if you don't count crashing into it. No manned landings? Above plus Eve, Vall, Bop, Pol and Eeloo. All manned landings have resulted in safe returns, although occasionally with a rescue mission.

I just landed on Ike, aiming for a relatively flat place where you could see Duna. I ended up at about 79 23 west and Duna appears quite close to being straight overhead. The law of round numbers (not sure if such a law actually exists) makes me guess Duna is straight overhead for Ike longitude 80 west, but is there anyone who has the exact numbers for this? The wiki does say that Ike is on average overhead at Duna longitude 3 east, but doesn't seem to have anything for the reverse. I'm also aware this might not technically be a gameplay question, but I'm still curious.

This most closely represents my opinion. Like Solusphere, I don't particularly like the test contracts. On the other hand, like Wanderfound quoted above, I think that the contract system needs more variety. Removing this one type of contract will detract from that variety, so in my opinion would be a bad thing.

At first I thought I was looking at this topic, except moved. It has some good points, but I would like to add one. I think that the question should actually be "Why does Laythe have an atmosphere?". In the real solar system, very little moons have atmospheres, and none of the Jovian moons, although a lot of them seem to have exospheres. I think the only moon with an actual atmosphere is Titan. (This brings me to an aside that Laythe may actually be the equivalent of Titan in KSP.) So moons without atmospheres seem to be the norm and moons with atmospheres the exception.

This thread made me look up when I got KSP. One year and five days ago... Though I'm sure I played the demo a couple days before that. In addition to that I've been everywhere (not everywhere with Kerbals), but have not landed on Tylo yet... The whole progress you describe sounds awfully familiar as well.