prophet_01

I voted somewhat realistic. It's pretty good considering that it's (as far as I know).scale and scope. I haven't seen another simulation that is able to cover such a huge "space" with that level of detail. Especially with mods like realism overhaul it gets rly close imo, and it still runs on ok on rather crappy computers (my laptop ). Realsim depends on what you want to compare it to. For a game it's pretty good, for a simulator (which it actually isn't) it's still somewhat ok. Compared to real life... it's enough to show concepts, but not more That said, a list of stuff that makes me laugh: the stock atmo is a joke, a funny one at times, but still not even close to RL. Mass and drag? Well... The planets are RLY dense and way too close to each other. I doubt that they could remain on such close distances from each other (and still remain such a minimal eccentricity). Most moons are way too close to theire parental celestials. The tidal forces on kerbin won't be pretty... I would expect zhe mother of earthquakes to destroy KSC every couple of hours Dunas atmosphere appears to be way too dense, it would need to constantly evaporate gases in order to keep that density. That is at least not mars-like The sudden border between absolute vacuum and atmosphere seems well.... odd? The sun is pretty much impossible as it is. You can't leave kerbols soi as far as I know. There are no big-ish asteroids. Compared to RL even an E-class asteroid is rather small. And nobody knows where all those NearKerbinObjects come from. My guess would be rainbow's end... All planets and moons have perfectly even gravity wells. Real world ones don't. Even geostationary satelites tend to move toward more stable positions and NASA had quite some issues with unstable orbits around the moon enough picking from my side. KSP is still cool and the fact that I actually notice those things, shows how much I've already learned about all of this watching Star Wars is never the same after playing KSP...

In stock ksp you can spam intakes and "airhog". So basically fly at 2000 m/s and do a suborbital hop. A rly small burn with a tiny rocket engine at apoapsis is usually enough to get an orbit. I've seen lets plays with jet only hops to a 200km apo/ 40km peri almost-orbital hop. Rly unrealistic...

I absolutely agree that there is something srsly wrong with the current gameplay. Jet engine booster stages for rockets feel rly wrong... I'm playing with FAR, DRE and b9. The result is that the isp is nerfed a little and jet engines overheat at high speed (best you can get is about mach 3). Although that doesn't fix the problem entirely or is all that much more realistic (refering to the big picture) it is a good aproximation imo. It bans the most obvious exploits that I see with the stock gameplay. Sure, it is still possible to spam intakes, but it won't get you much closer to orbit due to overheating. So a mini SSTO or a 60% payload fraction are mostly off the table. I'm more or less willing to live with the messed up isp, although variable eficiencies would certainly be great. My knowledge is mostly based on wikipedia and forum posts from people that obviously know way more about this topic, so It's not likely I missed something. If so, tell me what nonsense I should stop to spread around @slashy I would prefer the ram engine aswell. However, the SR 71 is a working plane that gets into the air with another type of engines due to it's design specification (sry english is not my native language and I struggle to find the right technical phrases here). Anyway this particular plane shows pretty well that it is possible to use (modified) ram engines only. I'm fine with the aproximation that turbo jets in ksp work abou the same. If I missed something here, please tell me

QUOTE=KerBlam;1672822]I like this idea... idle animations would be awesome, short of AI. Seeing them do some more interesting stuff in the IVA cam (whatever that box is called) would be good. Having them get wildly excited or scared in certain situations would be amusing, so long as they didn't do anything too stupid.

I would expect reentry to require a significant amount of testing, but not necessarily a lot of coding. Aero seems to be a lot more complicated. But it's not important to me if when reentry mechanics get released. anyway, I think my comment earlyer was missunderstod. I'm not saying that people won't get that things get hot on reentry or that they are stupid. Reentry is hardly noticed if you just go to orbit and it only starts to rly matter once you return from the mun. Performing your first mun landing already requires you to learn and practice a number of new techniques and it's usually the point when people either start to get rly sucked into the game or quit entirely. 5 people I know started playing ksp within the last year. Two of them are still playing and another two lost interest after struggeling to do a mun mission. The last one never had interest in deep soace exploration, build a number of spaceplanes and never went beyond LKO (rather strange case). Anyway, what I want to explain is that the hardest part of the learn courve is at the exact same time when reentry mechanics would strike aswell. Don't get me wrong, I like DRE and would like to have it in stock. But I don't want it to kick in at this point as I expect it to make the game less accessable. I would like reentry to be an optional feature. Although most new people expect it to be a thing due to the reentry effects, they may still struggle to get the right altitude and course. If they master everything from the start, nobody would stop them from turnimg the reentry option on. KSP is known to be one of the most challenging games in public (outside of this forum!). This is a good thing, because the devs managed to hit the game/simulation balance pretty much perfectly imo. Orbiter for example did not do this (of course it never intended to do so), but ksp is that popular and amazes that many people for a good reason. Long story short: I would like to have reentry, but definetly without sn increased learning courve

Although the regular DER is already pretty foregiving, it's still rather easy to do it wrong. I'm basically a big fan of it but for new players it's too much to ask for imo. Many people struggle to do a moon landing. Pulling one off and burning up on reentry would rly suck. I pretty much don't notice DRE until I start missions to the mun. That's why I think it should be very forgiving if implemented, and maybe even adjustable

So change the grid. The current boosters have differen thrust levels aswell, so it's not rly a good reason against them. The current sizes don't work that great with large lifters unless you spam them and attach boosters to boosters... not only does that look strange it's also not aerodynamic, one large booster causes less drag. At least that's how it's supposed to work, stock aero is something else atm And it also helps with designing a rocket. Maybe it's just me, but I'm rly tired of adjusting the thrust of up to 4 sets of boosters over and over again just to get the twr about right. With more tweakables for boosters you have to set even more stuff or copy them. It's just not as comfortable as it could be. Small boosters also don't fit bigger payloads that good, again unless you stack em and use like 4 as a center rocket, which limits radial attachements :/ you are right they, lose some efficiency. But at some point there is a limit of high you csn build with thin boosters snd a bigger rocket should help here On another note, grid profiles would rly shine with stackable segments I think, but either way they can be used for many different tasks and would rly help srb's in late game. I think they could use some more flexibilty. I personally only use them on small and medium launchers. If I have to use more than 8 at the first stage, I usually just use a skipper instead

Has been suggested and it's still an idea I like a lot. If it gets implemented together with wider boosters I would be rly happy. And I would most likely scream like a little girl if we get stackable srb's aswell. How about a "adding moar boosters!" for the update's name? Btw, why would you want srb's with continuous thrust? Since you burn fuel over time the twr would still increase. Did I missunderstod you? I would expect that profile with the cross in the midle to be very useful, as it should keep the twr at a more or less constant level

I like this. I already missed it with jool. I mean it's a rly cool planet and since jool is the only gas giant it's one of the most interesting and unique places to visit. Visiting all the biomes of kerbol should be quite interesting aswell, and challenging. A polar orbit around kerbol should be quite heavy on the d-v budget. I think an overhaul of the textures for both would be required though. Atm stock jool is not that pretty, at least not if you've ever seen what a texture mod can do. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to melt the older pc's graphics cards. if it looked a little less like a dirty ball of green whool and a little more like an atmosphere with cloud layers (not actually clouds, just "rings" paralel to the equator) it would look a lot better

At the university we had a prof that worked many years as an inspector for the goverment (germany btw). Hus job was to make sure that radioactive polution was within the legal limits. Aside from nuclear reactors he also had to inspect natural sources, abandoned factories (very funy stories about radioactive toothpaste and stuff like that) and crematories. It happened a couple of times that they burned a pacemaker on accident... so there is a law about it now as there are still a couple active. The craziest thing he told us was about a small town called "schneeberg". The people there used natural sources of uranium for a couple of things like paint for plates and cups. They also used unrefined contaminated materials for theire houses as it produced heat... The so called schneeberger disease was the result... you can see that stuff in museums. I checked it

It would be sad if they aren't willing to do a big-ish step towards FAR imo. I agree it can't be much worse than that soup we have now... but that's not rly a good reason to stop halfway (learning courve might or might not be such a reason) I don't think that the people here are overreacting all that much. They just care a lot about this particular aspect. Considering how long the aero overhaul has been delayed it's actually not the harsh discussion I expected to see. I think it's a good thing to find out what's the current opinion of the community. Isn't that the point of early access? I don't see much histeria and arguably the worst we have around here are opinions that sometimes lack a solid foundation.

Well, too much authority is not necessarily a design flaw imo. Most leightweight probes or satelites that decouple from a booster stage and only hold a minimum of fuel have that issue. You can't adjust the torque of the SAS right now. I've heard a rumor that this is going to be implemented soon. That will hopefully help the ultra lightweight segment a lot. For rly large ships I prefer manual controls, they are just too whobly and often rather specific regsrding the limitations. Even mechjeb can't be trusted on that scale most of the times

The shuttle's SRB's had gimbal ( http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Solid_Rocket_Booster ). I was thinking of a gimbal tweakable that is tied to a cost and mass penalty, so gimbal is an option but comes at a price. I think that cheap boosters without gimbal should still be part of the game, but sometimes I would like to trade cost- and fuel efficency for conrol The thrust depends on the surface area of the solid fuel within the booster. Depending on the shape of the fuel within the casing the thrust may vary during the burn. There are pictures of some examples on wikipedia That mod looks rly useful. It would be nice to have this in stock. I'd prefer to unlock it with a late-game tech tree node. No need to confuse new players

Your a definetly not the only one. I usually can't watch them, but it would be nice to know what they have been talking about there. On quite a few occasions I only found out about a few bits from the squad cast on the forums and I also missunderstod some discussions because I was missing an important piece of information :/ just guessing here, but I think that discussions would be more on-topic and productive if everyone had access to all the relevant bits

The thing I've noticed is that it's not entirely the SAS's fault. Before 0.90 the SAS behaved differrently. Now it seems to be working as it did in 0.23.5 again (I rly rly like that btw) + orientation functions. It's vastly more agressive now, which is great for instable launches. But on the other hand this seems to be a resson for overshooting and oscilating around the node. I personally prefer how it is now as I don't build ships with 500t in orbit that regulary Ways to make the SAS work in every situstion, would be to adjust the SAS behaviour automatically once you reach space automatically or to implement button to do that during the mission. For more precise orientation functions (in space), the game would need to be able to adapt the maneuver to a vessels mass and torque

Yeah the 2.5 m tanks rly look a bit outdated. However if an overhaul gets done, I definetly want the orange tank to keep it's color, even if it sometimes look a little strange (it's iconic). I'm mostly fine with the 1.25 m tank's look. Maybe the 400 could need a small change. But I can't rly mske up my mind on that as it looks low tech without, but not that crappy. It fits quite nicely into the barn-age atm. While we are at it, the oscar-bravo doesn't look good imo and is not performing that good in many situations. Imo it has been in need of a redesign for quite some time now.

Yeah that would be great... a few thoughts of mine: gimbaling should be a tweakable aswell, it also increases the price of the booster. That way they would still remain remotely competable to ssto's (tradeoff: time to complete the ascent vs budget). I would keep the burn profile the way it is at the begining and add a tweakable for other option(s) once you unlock the big ones (maybe the same unlock for gimbal). Constant thrust would be rly nice, but I do also like the current burn profile for mysmall lifters (I usually reduce the thrust by 10 - 50%). the possibility to stack would be sooo freqkin awesome the way you mentioned it... I hope that at least some of this makes it into the game eventually

Looks like you found something that nobody noticed yet. Good finding

I know the problem. I build an SR 71 replica with FAR and b9... It's great once it's in the air Have you tried to break right away and let your turbines spin for a while? Also, the rapier's rocket mode is not limited to use in space Those two helped me with my heavyer designs. Some people also use the flat grass plain around ksc, but that's not my cup of tea on topic: I don't think that this is rly needed and it's also kinda weired tbh. Oh and as far as I know big planes can't be accelerated that way because the load on theire structure is already high

True, Henry (point taken) should be able to roll using gimbal. With the upcoming aerodynamics that might be pretty important. FAR taught me that gimbal is a nice thing to have, especially with heavy lifters. Control surfaces dont work that well at low speeds and a 500t rocket tends to be rather slow right after launch

Uhhh shuttle O___O but honestly, we still can't. You need high gimbal ssme's for a shuttle of that size (or/and throtle up during the flight with rly big engines) and IIRC the shuttles boosters aren't comparable to the boosters in ksp. They don't increse thrust that fast and then just stop edit: the shuttle SRB's also had gimbal

I think that even with the aerodynamics released in the next game the usual "realism" (/masochism) folks including myself will still prefer FAR. To be honest, I doubt that squad is going to add adequate hypersonic mechanics and will settle somewhere near NEAR (no pun intended). They also won't give us the data readouts and simulations package that FAR enlights and confuses us with I personally think that I will try it out and will return to FAR sooner or later. But lets see

I would like that. It would make sense to me for satelite contracts. Edit: That may belong to suggestions and development

I agree that the BACC needs a small buff. But just a small. I consider it underpowered but I still use it a lot. I frequently use a first stage of 5 solid boosters, the center one being a BACC and the others depending on the payload's weight. With the part count introduced I don't use radial decouplers that much anymore, at least in early and mid game. BAAC shine if you use FAR and have problems with the part limit. If I manage to keep them stable during the ascent, I get a rly low cost launcher for small payloads. They lift almost all of my probes and comsats and apart from SSTO's there is no real competition for them in that field. A 2.5 booster would be awesome btw

Sounds interesting. Might be interesting to give pilots better maneuvering skills if they reach higher levels. That would make them even more valuable which is a good thing imo