prophet_01

Not bad. In my opinion getting into the air is the hardest part. Why did it crash after 19 seconds? And as always, if you don't know where the problem is ask YouTube

I usually use srb's around a liquid core with an upper stage. For the heavyer stuff I use more srb's (up to 8) and a bigger liquid rocket as a core. If that is still not enough I may go for 2 big liquid booster around a liquid core. There aren't many payload's in my programm that require even bigger launchers. I only used asparagus in sandbox mode. The biggest launcher I ever used was a nasa-sized liquid core and 6 boster with mainsails around that. It had an asparagus setup. The payload was the engine section of my jool 5 ship (which ended up as a 600t monstrosity in low kerbin orbit). As I reached jool I realized that it it still had like 8000 delta-v left.... since that day I use the delta-v map and reduce my safety margin

Life support would be nice. An ingame storage for a week would be absolutly necessary to not increase the learning courve to much. I would also like to see communications having a bigger energy consumption. I don't know if a specific range for each antenna would be a good thing to have. I would like that as it would give you a reason to use the more energy hungry ones (and additional ones that require even more power). I would also like new science experiments that require a lot of power or the experiments bay to be changed that way. Thoughts?

I think this is something rather specific. I also have no idea what practical reason there is... can't you just take the tiny structural element as the root part and add the radials + rockets from both sides? Not good for more than one conection, but srsly what for?

Has anyone used tac ls and remote tech without further mods for energy generating parts? I am ok with the amount of electricity generated compared to weight. I agree that a larger number of parts should require electricity as I see how much playing with those 2 mods changed the importance of power consumption for me. The distance issue is something I would like to see fixed aswell. But I also think we need an additional part if that happens. Something for the last nodes in the science tree. I am thinking about fuel cells or maybe a small fission reactor. Opinions?

Not to mention how tricky it will be to do a fitting conection to the rocket. moded parts (fairings?), part cliping or simply an angled cockpit will make the implementation of this srsly difficult. And before I forget, do you rly want to watch this on every launch. Sure it would be nice for the first couple of times, but it might get pretty lame after that... most people will turn it off and all the hard work would not be appreciated

Chaterer can be nice at times but got pretty fast anoying to me, so pls put in a turn The music thing is true. As much as I like the soundtrack that is implemented,.there simply aren't enough tracks. I can't enjoy it longer than half an hour I usually have some old jazz or swing from my own playlists in the background now. Although "fly me to the mun" might be too much of a clishe

Ovean the highest? Why so? Water corodes stuff and is only used by nasa etc cause it's easyer to land stuff with chutes only without damaging stuff

I have no problems whatsoever (windows 7 64 bit). Runs like a charm with a ton of mods. I can run EVA and b9 at the same time without texture reduction. It's heaven As far as I've heared it pretty much either works perfectly or horribly. Not much in betwen. No changes from 0.24 to 0.25 for me.

I used it a lot once I unlocked the parts I wanted to do my first couple of landings on minmus. I got a large amount of science unlocked, unlocked some more parts to go for an apollo like mission to the mun and continued. if you use that strategy for performing costly programs like grinding a certain part of the solar system. Just do the planing and construction stuff before you start and you are fine. It's also nice if you do highly expensive testflights that have a high chance of failure. Develop and testfly a piggyback shuttle in hard mode career and you are as good as bancrupt I crashed 4 of them before it worked as intended (FAR and DRE can be mean)

Some support for landing big crafts on the runway. It is rly difficult to get alligned and get the right angle when landing a shuttle. Some more markers, lights and an interface that gives you basic info on your allignment. oh and of course aerodynamics that allow you to actually glide somewhat realistically and do an unpowered landing. If you don't know what I mean try the landing in FAR (gliding on a controlled decent) and stock (falling out of orbit like a rock)

Yep, this ^ would be nice. I already did numerous landings and would still rly apreciate some markers on approach. Eyeballing is sometimes rly hard for me, especially when playing without quick saves in career. Shuttle missions can be very risky as they trait maneuverability for weight. A tiny margin for errors is the result with most of my crafts. I just crashed a shuttle yesterday I wasn't straight (horizontal angle) enough on approach and rolled slightly to the left, leaving the runway after about a 100m and crashing horribly. I now use 2 flags instead of just one to get the angle right... but I still don't have a good idea on how determine my vertical angle precisely

Yep. It's time for this. I do the flag thing aswell. Those small polishments are always nice for the gameflow

I have been fine with docking ports so far. It moves a little bit but it's not too bad. After that I use the ship's rcs to move it downwards until I get some distance to the payload. To me the cargo bays are too small anyway... things getting stuck is the result

To do a proper ssto space plane you do need LF-only tsnks, the more options you have the better. It's not impossible to do it with the current parts but the balancing can be tricky. Fuel is used during the flight and the com shifts. If you want to be efficient (use full tanks only) you are pretty limited by the parts that can hold LF-only. Those usually have to be somewhere near the com. Such a feature can be handy and would allow more designs. NERVA's using the fuel they are supposed to use is nice, too

Yep it's mostly an effect of outsourced R&D that disturbes the balance. If you deactivate that it gets better. I'm pretty sure this is getting adressed "soon". My bet is early beta

I don't think it's realistic, but gameplay wise it's not a bad idea. Spaceplanes could need that kind of tweaking. And I imagine tbis being easyer to work with than tweakables. But a "default fuel setup" button is a must. I would rly like the devs to give some basic info on theire plans regarding that topic... Somebody correct me if I'm talking nonsense, but tweakables for fuel or variants of tanks (or whatever the devs like best) should not be that hard to implement. It rather seems to be a design issue. I absolutly understand and agree that they don't announce content that may not be possible to implement, but this is most likely not a feature from that category. I would rly like to know if there already are plans on how this will or won't happen. Or if it is still a good idea to discuss the different options. Btw this suggestion may be the most flexible and caters most people's needs

While I would be fine with some resource bonuses, I srsly dislike the idea of kerbals improving the performance of a rocket. Don't mess around with ISP. It's a physics driven game not an RPG. I would be a fan of ribbons though. But tbh the kerbals are more or less funny looking freight to me. It may sound cold, but I have more sympathy for the ships I put them in. I rage a lot more if I crash a reusable shuttle compared to the "well..., next?"-attitude that hits me after killing another kerbal with a lander that crashes into the mun

It would at least give another good reason to get yourself some knowledge about slingshots and gravity assists. I hope that the devs think about aerobreaking. Otherwise It's a cake walk to get a class d (maxbe even an e) to lko. Just meet it in interplanetary space, long before it enters kerbin's soi. Redirection to an aerobraking maneuver is not that difficult. You don't even need to be precise about the periapsis, just aim for a capture and do the rest with a couple of soft breaks. I already did that woth a class d. And I used a reusable schuttle to do that with a class c It could most likely do that with a class e, but the mission profile was already exotic and I didn't see a reason to make it more difficult at that time. The result would be: getting something like 10 orange tanks with launch costs of roughly 30 k funds (in case of my schuttle)

Yep, I agree with Nathan. This is an issue that I encounter a lot. It gets me to do some multiplikation But it would take away those unpleasant panic attacks that strike me once in a while when I believe my lieve support is not sufficient. Different timecode for live support duh

Some overhaul on effects sounds lovely, BUT keep in mind that a whole bunch of people are running ksp on low end pc's or laptops. Even a mod will ruin the framerate for those folks and light theire computers on fire... clouds, as pretty as they are, need an option to be toggled and the same thing needs to be there for any other option that eats ram like a black hole. Without a huge effort on optimizatios I don't see this happening any time soon, though. I use astronomers pack and I rly enjoy it. I am rly curious about the upcoming biomes in 0.90. Those will srsly enhance the looks of those sad space potatos. Eye candy and new terrain to explore helps a great deal with the motivation it takes to visit a planet for the second time. Snd also with not beeing disapointed after flying all the way out to Eeloo Materials are a feature which is most likely too confusing for the average new player. Don't get me wrong, this would make a nice addition in form of a mod. This is something from the realism category alongside with real fuels, real chutes and basically most stuff from realism overhaul. It pushes ksp towards simulation/real live design options, which can be nice. However, this isn't a good thing if you are going for a casual launch after a long day at work. Realism Overhaul is something for a weekend

I srsly like those ideas. Imo those are rly creative and awesome. The first one is by far the best method I stumbled across to teach newbes about interplanetary transfers and launch windows. Adding vehicles that need to be carried back home would add a ton of gameplay options. Especially with FAR and DRE I can see this beeing the challenge many experienced players are looking for, at least I would definetly try this out. Have some rep

Mining from asteroids was pretty much what I expected after the big 0.90 post. I like the idea and I hope for an asteroid belt. I hope they get the balancing right... it might be tricky. If the extraction process is too fast and/or asteroids have too much fuel I see all kinds of weired rock-ships flying around

I like the basic idea. But I think it should be limited to smaller crafts. I don't know if I like big airships in stock ksp. Srsly, they don't fit into the stock game and would only work due to the size of kerbin and resulting small amount of dv(weight) you need for reaching orbit. It would by all means result in even more unrealistic gameplay. On the other hand I gotta admit that flying carriers are rly cool. I saw some footage of the uss macon and uss acron (if there is anyone not familiar with those, google it! you are about to see something awesome ). Airships are pretty nice at least. However, if it ever gets to stock game, which I doubt, there needs to be an anti-clipping mechanism or we get weired results once aerodynamics arrive. Invinity-glide 2.0 should be prevented

Yep, I was confused that it wasn't implemented with tweakables, too. I can imagine to use both variants anyway and it has been suggested before the update... well I just hope they want to add this in beta and just pushed it back a little