Sky_walker

If they'd want they could create an interesting balance between antennas and tracking station upgrades and how upgrading one or the other affects how far you can go before you loose contact with the space center...

As if SAS would be the only thing missing for size 3...

Safety concerns were an important reason why programme did not receive additional funding. But yes, funding for the Mars mission was a major factor for the decision, no doubt. Doesn't really matter. Fact is that radiation isn't implemented in the game. It's not something you can discuss with, it's a binary operation, either it is or it's not, and it's not.

It's not an Add-ons forum. Here we discouss game, not mods. But to answer your question: yes. Yes, and I'm sure many people would love it to be revamped. Most of it are remains from some early versions and really should be re-thought from ground-up. Either to follow chronological order or "power" scaling, or whatever else as long as it makes some logical sense.

Wasn't it that using RCS backpack and thrusting up pretty much guaranteed your Kerbal to bounce off from the ground?

I'm not interested in discussing pro or anti-nuclear politics, I'm interested in facts. And it's a historical fact: Nuclear engines weren't used on spacecrafts because of the political costs. IMHO the closest equivalent in KSP to that is reputation. That's a wild assumption. For all we know: radiation isn't implemented in the game. That's where story ends.

Yes, it's a natural consequence of having research tree instead of linear progress. None the less - LV-N is before RTG (but RTG isn't in the same branch as LV-N). I would love to see that. But it was suggested several times already and general responses were mixed, so I don't have any hopes for seeing that implemented in a game. (Solar panels, batteries, fuel cells - everything lowers efficiency over time. Also fuel also degrades over time. I would really enjoy seeing all of these processes in a game) And yet abusing uber-ISP without costs and risks involved in real life nuclear engines is perfectly fine? Cause I'm not fine with that.

I don't think it's a bad thing. I'd much rather have old threads necroed than a new threads created and the same arguments repeated over and over again.

Yea, there are some issues with DDS in mods - if devs could address them or build some guide for people how to avoid common problems or how they themselves prepare DDS textures for the game - it'd be a great starting point Cause devs switched to using DDS textures themselves.

Yes, please, I would love to see them too. Moreover - I would like to see an option to start your game in other KSC, located in a different latitude. Something I mentioned in my post with a list of things I'd like to see to improve KSP. He is not suggesting a mod. False assumption that people posting in Suggestions forum are the same people that post in: [h=2]General Add-on Affairs A general discussion place for talk of all add-ons, and the place to request them.[/h] Said the guy who wrote a post complaining about complains. Now that's just silly.

Random fact: LV-N is available before PB-NUK RTG. IMHO tech tree requires a fundamental overhaul and an addition of many new nodes to be both: more fun and start making sense.

Makes sense. They could make it an XL size engine (still very forgiving comparing to the real engine) and increase weight further. Yep. Disable them by default in Hard mode. Most people never even learn how to do interplanetary flight without nukes, and unlike Rapiers (that suffer similar problem - people not having a clue how to build SSTO without them) nukes are available in a mid part of the tech tree. That would be really great No, thanks. That's not realistic, NEVRA engines did have throttle. What I would suggest adding: Radioactive effects. I wrote a bit about it here, TL;DR: add green glow to the radioactive area or parts that suffered radioactive exposure, make Kerbals turn permanently brown or make their heads glow green when in longer (30s?) contact with radioactive areas, in EVA mode you can give them Geiger meter similar to the one from Fallout games warning about radioactivity. Destroying NEVRA should cause a radioactive cloud - lasting at least a year on a ground (if not being permanent), and in space it could existing only within physics range (for simplification). Placing Kerbals anywhere else than above the engine for a prolonged amount of time will make them suffer radioactive effects (so no LV-Ns in pull configuration), even if engine is shielded Possibly: add an option to remove shielding - unshielded engine should be notably lighter but much more dangerous for Kerbals and much more expensive in reputation, generally: Something that you want to use only for fully unmanned missions. [*]Launching NEVRA in career mode should have (high) reputation cost attached to it (eg. in Hard Mode it could be ~40 reputation), so launching missions with multiple NEVRAs would be difficult to pull off. [*]Make it an XL-sized engine (size 3 if I remember well? the largest one, like SLS), and increase weight further - as already mentioned before [*]Increase thrust significantly (eg. 4 times in vacuum) to make it more realistic and compensate for added disadvantages All it would change is how you operate thrust. With LV-Ns you'd slowly increase, take a break, increase again, take a break... untill you're happy with the speed it accelerates. Then cut it to zero (cut liquid fuel flow) in an instant when you reached the node. It will require more skill, but won't be annoying.

I play Hard mode, only with quick saves and reverts (so it's actually custom mode). Sorry, but game is way too buggy and crashes too often to play it without manual saving. Sometimes I need over 5 saves to go through descend, reloading after crashes, flying 20 seconds, saving, flying 5 seconds more and crashing... KSP was buggy and was crashing back in 0.2x days, but since 1.0 it's by far worse than before. I toy with sandbox too, but only for some designs and experiments. There's no proper game there.

That will help a lot, but won't solve the problem with using 4x4k textures for smoke effects. Physics got little to deal with memory. Porting to Unity 5 will improve that part of KSP I point you to that comment: They're basically pushing optimization from one release to another. Seeing their track record I very much doubt they'd get on improvements like that when porting to Unity 5. And let's not forget about modders - devs should start doing something to encourage modders into optimizing their creations, eg. using DDS textures instead of TGA or PNGs.

I build few test landers and in general I found that for me it's easiest to land with 4 or more legged lander. 3 legged is too easy to tip-over when you don't come down perfectly vertical down.

People who don't fine KSP to be fun don't spend their time on a forum. So it's really bad place to ask

This moment when some people realize game is actually easier with FAR than stock.

Yea... that's not going to happen. No matter what they'll do. And for me - that's all I want. I really couldn't care less if the new planets would be on the same level of (no) detail as the current planets are. I want planets to become interesting and something worth exploring, not just one-off visit, perhaps few more if you are into visiting easter eggs.

If planets and moons wouldn't be on rails - at this point I would suggest building mega-mining station feeding fuel to that single monster engine pushing Gilly on a collision course with Kerbin: ps. that screenshot somehow reminds me of Stargate SG-1 - the mission where they prevented mega-asteroid hitting the earth

That's the spirit! The bigger you build at the beginning the more time you save in a long run.

I'm quite sure I seen an idea of museum very close to yours already posted. Use search function, perhaps you'll find it. On a side note - General Discussion is not a forum for suggestions

Are you turning green? I'm quite sure you should be green by now...

Always have two inline nuclear engines pointing in an opposite directions and synchronized to work as a nuclear powerplant for your rocket. (For easy mode point them outside, for Chernobyl edition point them at each other)

That's very interesting. So fairings on top of the rocket seems to be working as expected, perhaps even better, further increasing your drag (I guess fairings shape plays a huge factor here), but fairings at the bottom of the rocket work worse than having an inverted nose cone or even nothing at all.

1. Yes 2. Yes 3. YES! 4. Yes In KSP there's a mod for pretty much everything. Doesn't change the fact that I'd like to see these suggestions in the game itself