Sky_walker

I have imported the launcher to the latest KSP, did few upgrades, posted it on Steam Workshop. It's available at https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1466791594

Think you've got a mistake in texture packs. duststorms.dds: SVE_MedResTextures.zip - 11MB SVE_HighResTextures.zip - 2.8MB Shouldn't it be the other way around? Larger file in High res pack?

Time for necromancy: Official Rift support? Pretty please?

I tend to run Ariane 5 as a base, though I usually run smaller, more efficient missions instead of a huge fuel-burners.

It'd be great if this could come with a container to store the samples and an additional mass, even if tiny. Eg. regular sampling would be like 0.02 for an empty container and 0.05 for a full container (size-wise it could be like a smaller version of FL-R10 that can be mount not only linearly but also radially), to be gathered by EVA. large samples could be size 2 with 0.05 empty mass and 0.5 full, and require robotic arm to capture.

I have a few, but sadly all the screenshots of them I made were lost during the hard drive formatting. Now there's only one remaining - my Ariane 5 with ATV

Space Telescope. That should have been implemented ages ago, IMHO, as it's a very common type of scientific spacecraft.

Miracle magnetics, parts that bend as if made of rubber (or worse) and other nonsense like that.... see my avatar for some random example.

Well, I would scrap the surface of all the planets in a game and re-think it from ground up. Money permitted - I would hire geologist to help out creating some interesting interconnecting geologic features on a surface (canyons, mountains, riverbeds, etc.), introduce some some active features (volcanoes, cryovolcanoes, geysers, seas of methane, etc.), basically: Use planetary geology as a list of possible features to implement into the game. My main goal would be to make planetary exploration a thing. Something that pretty much doesn't exist in the game as of now.

ESA sort-of does it, only by replacing radio-based ESTRACK with laser-based satellites of European Data Relay System. But only sort-of - EDRS won't be used for probe telemetry but rather as a data link.

Yea, same here... came back for a while, played half-way through the tech tree and burned out as well. Now I only pop from time to time looking for what's in a next version. For now I'm catching up with some series I missed while being on a holiday, and occasionally play Take on Mars (looks like they plan to evolve that game in a similar direction to KSP, only in more limited way, yet it feels more serious than KSP does, which is a good thing). The whole 1.0 release was a huge chance to reignite interest in KSP, but it was turned into a debacle by devs choosing to rush the release. Which is really a shame...

Wow, the excitement level of this mission goes higher and higher! hehehehe I'm most glad to see that ESA yet again proved nay-sayers to be wrong! Amazing news. Philae apparently got 24 Watts available at the moment which is said to already be enough to run some experiments. But because it woke up so long before reaching perihelion (what will happen on 13 August 2015) it seems that ESA will be able to study Comet with Philae for quite a while now.

Well, that's what they basically did. Their "color" images are de facto a composites of panchromatic + narrow wavelength red & blue. Green channel is created by subtracting other colors from panchromatic image, therefore it's not really green. It basically contains everything in wavelenght spectrum with exception of subtracted filters. It's good enough for public, but if you really want to know how it looks like in full colors - New Horizons won't tell you that.

High gimbal engines are missing for ages nd currently they are one of the biggest obstacles in building a shuttle. as for SRBs - yes, please. I hoped to see larger SRBs in SLS release but instead got taller boosters that look way too thin for SLS o_O no idea why such decision was made. We really could use thiker boosters. Also: they should have gimballed thrust. In fact most if not all of the modern SRBs are gimballed, and yet none of them in the game are.

It makes no sense (OX+Mono)

What engines specifically would you want? Cause I'm against adding parts for the sake of adding parts - mods do that well enough. If anything - new parts should fill gaps in a line-up, and there's relatively few of them when it comes to engines. One most obvious missing engine is Size 3 Poddle - short, upper stage engine for largest rocket parts.

Adjustable height landing gear in stock game would be delightful addition

NO. It can't be too open either. Tech tree is very helpful to guide a new players through the game. It should be build in mind of being helpful for them, especially at a very beginning. The one-part-per-node is a complete opposite of that idea. Sometimes you might want one-part nodes, eg. with LV-N, but it cannot be a fundamental principle of the tree. NO. I totally disagree with that. Starting node is an essential part of the game experience. Eg. with the tech tree by Sherkaner you'd be able to "loose" the game before even building a single rocket by just making bad decisions at a beginning - it's unacceptable. Not to mention that building a tech tree with no starting node would be far more problematic than otherwise. Yep NO (as explained in point 1) Yep Yep Yep NO. Not only interdependency makes sense in many cases but also adds to the requirement of otherwise very powerful and too easily accessible parts (eg. LV-N, though that one IMHO should be an end-game tech so more people would know how to make an interplanetary missions without LV-N addiction, cause it's perfectly doable but noone is bothered having such a capable engine in a mid-late part of the tree) Yes, but only if it doesn't mean spamming player with dozens of useless parts very early on. Things like large grinders should be somewhere in a middle / mid-late part of a tree when player can actually build large rockets, has a capacity to make a good use of them. Perhaps... but IMHO it's a waste of time. I seen an arguments raised and I think it's not worth the time spent. Yep Yep Yep In general I think that everyone agree that we need a more intuitive tech tree. But the very first post in this thread is spoiled by some very controversial ideas that really, shouldn't be there in a first place. Jesus, that tech tree makes as little sense as a current one. To give you a few examples: Monorprop tanks seems to be thrown all over the place with no logic. Engines are always in a separate nodes than fuel tanks - cause making life more difficult is a primary objective (as far as with rocket engines you can sort of use existing tanks, though it's a very, very bad idea with 1.0.x aerodynamics - with ion engine and xenon tank it's a chore and very unfriendly for the first playthrough). RCS block available not only before linear RCS, but also requiring you to upgrade to the level 2 to get it. lol FL-T100 -> Oscar B while at the same time FL-R10 -> FL-R25. 24-77 as a starting engine? Really? With LV-T45 being 2 techs away? Flea All of girders and beams in a tier 1 More winglets and fins than ideas what to do with them. Also: starting with canards and no elevons. External command seat as a starting tech ...I can't be bothered to keep on going. It's a mistake on top of the mistake. Why do you even promote that?

I think we should have a long Size 3 capsule with vertically enclosed elephant. Weight: 13.5t Impact tolerance: 5m/s Base unlock cost: 70000 Base part price: 17000 There. Done.

Perhaps also differentiate them by some additional features? Eg. QBE would have lowest heat resistance of all parts in a game (to make sure ppl use them in a similar way to the cube sats), and all of the tiny cores wouldn't be able to support larger scientific experiments (Eg. goo, science bay, etc. would be inactive unless connected to any more capable core). I don't know, just throwing ideas around, but these parts are really asking for an overhaul.

IMHO the goal should be to match the quality of Mk II cockpit. It's really, really beautiful and I wish all of the IVAs would be up to the same standard. Oh yes, yes please. They should talk with the RasterPropMonitor guys and try to make it stock, or something...

Well, if they can make it - I'd be really pleased. 7 year gap between these EM-1 and EM-2 is rather ridiculous.

I'm quite sure he never asked for removal of any existing parts, but rather adding new parts to simplify the design when you want to use them. Optimization is always a preferred solution, but IMHO at least some of these could be implemented in a game as really building a large spaceplanes is a chore. If they could provide at least parts 4x size of the current - it'd be a noticeable, positive difference.

That's a nice suggestion that should be relatively easy to implement and give some quick help to the issue raised. I like it This. Size of the decouplers and separators should be re-thought and follow some logical, consistent pattern.

IMHO all of these parts - QBE, HECS, OKTO - should be completely overhauled and re-thought, perhaps some of them even scrapped. They either should be a part of some family of the parts or not there at all. Right now it looks like they are slapped into the tech tree as a single-item dead-end.