Alshain

Ok, but if they do a few each patch, you will have a few versions where they don't fit together followed by an eternity of absolutely beautiful game. We don't yet know what the plan for the revamp is, but I would think it would include engines, tanks, and pods at the least. I hope some of the little things like parachutes and docking ports also get included. That would cover most of the parts that don't match. In the few times they mentioned it, they have always referred to it as a rocket part update, not a rocket engine update. Granted, that is vague, but I don't think they would just stop here.

Every single part asset except those that have been recently done since the inclusion of Mk2 please. No need to get hostile about it.

Fair enough I guess. Though I would prefer them at least a different color on the boat tails, because those will often be used to help blend the design on SSTO planes (aside from the aerodynamic function), and the yellow doesn't match. If they made them black or grey, it wouldn't stick out as much. I don't care about the yellow on the engines, because that is set on the silver, so it's not intended to blend with anything

I don't think PorkJet has done any other rocket parts to be stock alike. The revamp would be defining a new stock alike. In fact, his Mk2 parts defined stock alike for the planes. All the existing plane parts were re-done to match.

I think we did need an improvement for these engines. I agree the others do too, but in the end I don't really care what order as long as they all get done. I agree the numbers look... unnecessary. We never needed them to be identified with paint schemes before, I don't know of any real world rockets that identify model numbers with paint schemes. I think I would prefer those removed in both locations. I like the 909 I disagree the LV-T45 was supposed to be a modified 30, it's just a series of models. I'm not sure what the spheres are either, but I don't know all these things. I know they found a spherical object near where I live during the Texas drought a few years ago that ended up being part of Columbia. It was a " power reactant storage and distribution system" and it had landed in a local lake and sunk, unknown until the water lowered. http://www.dallasnews.com/news/state/headlines/20110802-drought-reveals-space-shuttle-columbia-debris-in-east-texas-lake.ece

@Red Iron Crown Yeah I guess you could say a KSPedia is a visualization, I just think of a visualization as much more than static numbers on a page though.

1. I originally learned them from here. 2. Yes (or no, not a bad thing), that's why I said that an hour ago.

I can for most of them, I haven't fully educated myself on Dres or Eeloo, but Moho is about 110 degrees in front of Kerbin, Eve is 55 degrees behind, Duna is 45 degrees in front, Jool is 115 degrees in front. I have those memorized, I used no tools.

I disagree. Transfer window planners are for planning Delta-V. An approximate window when it will be more efficient in general is easy to identify using the map mode if you know what you are doing, and like much of the gameplay that is simply a matter of educating yourself. If that was all they wanted to do, they could simply add KSPedia pages denoting the phase angle for each planet.

The idea would be that this is the just first set of revamped parts. Over the course of time, all the old looking parts would be revamped and eventually match.

I agree, however "transfer windows" employ a time vs delta V approach and since KSP doesn't show you Delta V it is a moot point. I also think KSP should show you Delta V, but until they do there is not much point in a transfer window.

You mean making new planets in game? It's a good idea, but sadly a bit of an unrealistic one. That would be a massive undertaking and in all likelihood would be an entirely new game.

They aren't as small as you might think. They seem small because they are being compared to the rocket and plane parts. The rover body is probably closer to Spirit and Opportunity, which you can see here is quite large (upper left). The upper size fuselages (2.5m+) can certainly carry something as big as the Curiosity (upper right) in Kerbal relative terms. Bear in mind the Mk3 cargo bay is intended to replicate the Shuttle bay, which carried the Hubble which was compared to the size of a of a school bus, just to give you a size comparison.

This is the ONLY case where I would say auto-pilot. Piloting rockets and planes is fun, driving rovers is boring as watching sand sit on a beach. The fact that you have to drive them great distances to be of any relevance, and that takes so much time, kills rovers. Having special terrain features is great, but ultimately we need to be able to plot a course and have the rover follow that course while we aren't sitting there holding the W key. @Corona688 Cruise control already exists in the game, sort of. It's just not bound to anything by default and you have to have an axis controller to use it (i.e. flight stick throttle). Using it helps some, but it's still kinda boring. Unfortunately if you have only a keyboard, there is no incremental throttle control for wheels, like with rockets and planes. There should be.

If it doesn't look good it doesn't leave the ground. It may explode 10 seconds after launch but at least it looked good going into that massive fireball.

It still wouldn't likely change much.

It shouldn't need updating. Just update Firespitter and I bet it would work.

That is a great idea.

You sure can. If you didn't have a lack of evidence you wouldn't need a probability.

It seems like any argument that you don't agree with is a non-argument. My points are valid, you not agreeing with them doesn't make them a 'non-argument'.

Really? Because RoverDude implemented the resource system and when he did it took a significant effort, despite having Karbonite fully developed at the time. Given the three options at the time aerodynamics would fall even higher statistically. The current aero package is very close to what FAR was at the time it was implemented (though not current versions of FAR). So there you have two options, the Soup-o-sphere and FAR, that was a 50% split. I never admitted anything of the sort. You have no evidence whatsoever that it is not true. I have probabilities. I can make a completely unanimous selection of people that say LS should never be added, that doesn't mean it is an accurate representation.

Except what you want is not the last option what you want is "The game comes with an LS implementation that a small fraction of players want, if it isn't what you want turn it of and download a mod." In most cases, that option is almost synonymous with the first option and yet it will undoubtedly take up a lot of development time that could be used elsewhere.

Yes, installing remote tech mid game will in fact render all probes without connection unusable. There is a method built in to optionally allow deployment of antennas without connection, but you still need to have connection.

It's not worthless, it's just not enough for statistical analysis.

I usually configure my abort action group so that backspace is all I need. Though if it's a problem in the first 30 seconds of launch I just revert.