prophet_01

I disagree. I just did some test flights with a new SSTO of mine. It uses 2 jet- and a rocket engine. I'm using FAR, B9 and DRE. The result is a flood of data (intake air, climb rate, temperature, angle of attack, apoapsis) that I have to keep an eye on while keeping the plane stable (the stock SAS has some issues with FAR; it wobbles and changes course). I already burned up twice and ripped my plane to shreds due to stalls like 5 times. A second player helping me with the readings while I keep the thing in the air or vice versa would be awesome. Also, think of mission profiles similar to the white knight/space ship combo from virgin galactics or the russian mig 105 spiral program. Those need 2 pilots as they involve a transport plane to carry a rocket propelled space plane. I would definetly try that kind of things.

Use the difficulty settings and disable quicksaves. That makes stuff a lot more interesting. I also recommend tac life support. That way you can't reach the mun before you unlock electricity. I am also using deadly reentry and ferram aerospace to make recoveries a lot more balanced. Still, those test contracts for the big engines are srsly imbalanced and should be avoided if you want to keep your game balanced. Comitting to some roleplay aspects is also quite nive, although I guess that's not everyones cup of tea. I am not yet convinced that the devs will be able to get the balancing perfectly right and solve every exploit. Not that they are bad at what they are doing, but it's a complex challenge with the complexity of a physics driven semi-simulation. But it will get better for sure. It's not broken, it's unfinished

i just bought a joystick, cause I was tired of they way the SAS works with FAR. I was actually very happy with all the settings I could select and tweak (the only thing I couldn't do was using the thrust input properly). But the control settings in main menu are rly nice. And most other stuff can be done via tweakables and action groups (although those can be a little tricky). Some mods go further with the amount of tweakable options (B9, tweakable landing gear, FAR for example) but i expect at least a few of those to be in 1.0. I kinda agree on the camera thing although I just use auto-camer for this instead, so I don't consider this as an urgent problem. Can't wait to see the new editor. The new hold-alt function for nodes only will help a lot

Yep the shadow works pretty decently (I hate landings during the night though ). Height info is nice for landers, especially in places without atmosphere. For spaceplanes and shuttles it does more harm than use for me. It distracts me and I screw up my approach or velocity. It takes a little practice to eyeball the height but it's actually safer without numbers as you can focus on other stuff. And for approaching KSC the stock height display and navball are enough to get me close and in the right angle. My nemesis is laythe. I admit defeat for now as I'm just not able to land fully fueled SSTO's horizontal on those dunes It took me literally about 50 very explosive failures to accept that I am simply not able to do that, regardless of altitude info offered by mods...

Using most of your pitch and roll authority for airbreaking might be tricky. Even if you keep the plane balanced and stable you will still affect your speed/breaking capability when roling or pitching. If you have to do some last minute corrections you aren't rly better of with that kind of airbreake since any control input will reduce the effectiveness of your breking attempts. I consider this as being not predictable enough for the majority of my missions. When landing 50t+ shuttles/spaceplanes I usually don't have enough room for error. If I don't have constant and reliable airbreaks and controls during those delicate maneuvers I am srsly screwed

Yep it's a great mod. I use it for almost all of my shuttle missions, which is roughly 60% of my launches in late game. It makes safe reentries directly to the KSC possible. Eyeballing this with FAR and DRE on a shuttle is nearly impossible and I wouldn't use shuttles in hard career mode otherwise, as the risk of losing my crew is way too high (planes have a lower heat resistance than heetshields from pods). To be clear I usually don't have more than 200 dv left and have to do that stuff unproppelled (with airbreaks to alter my velocity of course). Efficient shuttles and SSTO's usually don't have enough fuel left to deal with errors which at least I can't avoid with the little info the stock game offers :/ I would like the implementation of that stuff in a part ("aerodynamics package" or something similar) which needs to be unlocked and attached to a craft. I agree that it should be a late game part.

There are quite a lot stories about simple stuff like wheels, pencils etc. that had to be redeveloped completely from scratch because the regular way of doing things did not work in space. High presure wheels in vacuum are onviously a bad idea but I've read of an incident caused by a tiny piece from a pencil that led to a fire in the electronics. I don't think it's that unrealistic. We just don't have normal plane parts. The wings and fuselages we have are mostly for spaceplanes as they are heavier, more stable and at least look like they are partly heat resistant (they have to be if heat would be a thing). However I would still like to have planes earlier in the tech tree. I know that planes are too complicated for new players as it's necessary to understand a lot more basic principles to build one. But I would still like to start a career with planes (or rocket propelled planes like the x-15). The tech tree as it is seems to be a gameplay mechanic that exists to guide new players. So why not have a seperate tech tree for the people who are interested in a more realistic progression. I think that this could be rly cool

That sounds pretty awesome from an amateurs point of view it also looks like a reasonably small amount of work, considering that the asteroid mechanic is already there. I wonder if cloud/coma/dust particle effects will ever be a part of stock ksp But I bet that modders would find a way to add a coma even if the devs decide they don't want it for some reason

Airbreaks are indeed something that would help a lot with bigger aircrafts or shuttles. But with the current aerodynamics it's not that usefull, since gliding is somewhat limited. I use airbreaks from b9 for most of my winged crafts. It is rly nice to have the capability of unpowered landings, which is one of the reasons I have FAR, b9 and the trajectories mod installed. However, I rly support that suggestion as I consider airbreaks as a must have with the improved aerodynamics that will hopefully be implemented rather sooner than later

Would be nice to make stations and transit points with friends. People are creative and since I usually stick to a relatively small number of vessels that I use, it would be cool to see different approaches. I am hoping for new inspirations

Thx for sharing the info from squad cast. That's not good news... I don't think a dirt runway (similar to the one on the Island) is too much to ask for

Yeah sry. My bad -___-

damn that's cool finally a mod that includes every niche. ty very much

I'm just not happy with the current layout of the tech tree. Aside from that I'm fine with it. The part unlocking feature added the depth I wanted. What I would like is a seperate tech tree for advanced players. Parts could be spread more on a biger number of nodes, which increases the total amount of points for the tech tree and forces you to build up strength and weakneses for specific technologies. I would also like to have the basic plane parts and the battery pack (for life support mods) unlocked a lot earlyer. It would support a more historic progression, but that's more of a personal preference The contracts just need some polishing. But since we don't even have upgradable buildings and aerodynamics yet the final balancing would be rather pointless atm. Play FAR and go for a srb approach (no gimbal). you will see how much of the price is determined by tail fins. Also SSTO's will require balancing at that point.

Exactly. That's what I would have expected (and what I would like to see). But judging from the pictures the buildings don't rly look like that.

It's a good idea, but at the current state of the game it's not as simple as adding a couple of contracts. A system to identify biomes would be needed aswell. And that's the tricky part in my opinion. Text based info screens only would not rly improve the gui or appearence of the game. Visual systems similar to the tracking station or a map require more work. I hope this will make it into the game in some form, but I won't hold my breath

First of all, we don't know that yet. Remember this is a wip and as far as I know there is nothing more specific onthis than pictures of the current state of development. But it seems like this might be true and therefore: Agreed. A dirt runway is not a bad idea. We should have the option to give planes a role in early career. There are a lot of people (including me) that want to progress in a somewhat similar way to earth's space programs. That includes planes for high altitude flights and of course suborbital hops with spaceplanes. It's fine to limit new players with the tech tree to avoid confusion and part clutter, but removing the runway in tier-1 is not a good idea I think. It could require construction instead of being build from the start, but it should definetly be available.

I definetly like it. Remember all those dark humor jokes on antares launch failure? The game would be a lot less fun to learn and would give you a bad feeling when crashing or messing around, cause it would feel like actually killing people and raising hell. But with all that cartoon like aspects it's a lot more fun to learn the necessary basics and know how, while the clear message is "failure can be fun". I want to enjoy my explosions and failures instead of being serious and feeling bad for the kerbals I killed. On the tier-1 buildings: I am more or less ok with the idea, but some buildings are just too trashy imo. The barn is one of those. It may change with the final textures but atm it's not my cup of tea. I like the trailers though. Those feel right for me. I think they should decide on thetheme. Junkyard OR farm but pls not both as it's just too much (at least for me). On the idea of evolving parts. That would be kinda nice. I like it as long as it's only visuals. No offense, but ISP changes and alike would make the gameplay a little messy imo. It would be not harder for new players and an it's additional aspect that severely affects the gameplay and might be hard to spot or predict. Sry for the mighty wall of text...

I just saw the pictures of the wip tier-1 space center. I don't want to discuss the buildings, there already is another threat for that. The thing I want to suggest is a seperate space suit model that matches the style of the developing space center. The shiny white suit looks weired next to that junkyard/farm thing. I would like to see something that looks more like the 50's/60's suits for high altitude flights (x-15). Or the suits used for the first EVA's that were puffy like a balloon and mostly made out of textiles. That's what I think would match the idea of progress. It could upgrade with the VAB or maybe require being upgraded seperately. I am not sure if there should be a disadvantage with the earlyer suits or if it should be visual changes only. Also those early ones didn't have RCS. However, EVA in ksp without RCS is not a good idea, ladders are a little buggy as we all know. Anyway, thoughts?

I am happy with some of the stuff. The trailers are kinda cool (reminds me of the public launches). The cover around the building close to the launch pad are quite funny. The crappy looking telescope (srsly silo?) is ok although not my favourite. The barn... rly, a barn? Simply too much imo. Oh and before I forget the shiny white/clean space suite looks like the one thing in the picture that does not match Btw has anyone noticed the windmills in the background? I like those allthough again, those don't fit in there that early

I would like maps in the science archives with biomes on them. If you haven't visited it yet the area could be displayed in grey, but once you were there it show it's name. If you click on it you would see the experiments you've done there. the current archive system isn't that user friendly and it's also flooded with doubled reports... I am currently using the ksp wikis biome map and mark visited biomes with an x using paint :/

I think small tanks first are a good idea. Regarding the gameplay that would slow down the early progress of experienced players and make the tech tree actually matter. At the moment I think most of us could easily pull of a munar (or at least minmus) landing as soon as decouplers are available. I think that isn't a good thing. At least it would make it harder to do so right away and it might bring the mission profiles vloser to a more realistic progression. That part of gameplay appears to me as being much more relevant than a somewhat historical tech tree. also, people who are new to the game are entertained by the comic style and the reason why they aren't initially scared is the goofy art style. Kerbals in rockets that scream or grin like idiots are a big part of the game's charm. Imo that should stay the way it is

Well I am not sure what you try zo say here in detail but I asume you want to suggest multiple quicksaves and some ui changes for the science transmissions. If that is what you mean I think both is not a particulary bad idea. A lot of people like multiple quicksaves and do that by hand. At least I did it for my first jool trop as the multiple aerobreakes and slingshots make things very complex. No idea what else you want to say though. Pls be a precise and don't leave others guessing

Hard mode (although I quick loaded after some strange bugs with the maneuver nodes and an unintentional exploid with strategies). I use FAR, DRE, remote tech, TAC ls, b9 and the highest settimgs with astronomers pack (visual stuff, a working 64x version on windows is rare, but awesome ). I also have some roleplay restrictions. Getting started was tough and I was rly in trouble when my 100k funds payload for my munar station sunk in the ocean... I was planing my entire progress toward a reusable infrastructure around the mun. It got delayed... (but is finally established now) I don't have to grind for more funds anymore as I am able to ship half an orange tank+consumables to the mun for roughly 50k funds. My next goal is to get enough science to get my shuttle program going. So far I burned Jeb during a messed up reentry and killed Bill during a mun landing (I was distracted by an easter egg that I unintentionally discovered during the final decent )

Number one: hard mode career mission to gather science from space just outside of kerbins soi (kerbol orbit). I thought I might as well gather some science from the mun on my way and use it's gravity for apush. I aimed for a munar flyby at roughly 8 km to shorten the journy (more speed from slingshot). Long storry short, I timewarped (x100) past the muns soi and was just enjoying the view, when I realized that the mun was closer than I expected... as it turned out the timewarp-past-soi thing changed my periapsis. Jeb pancaked into the munar highlands.