Sky_walker

Not a big fan of this idea. If anything of that sorts - I'd much rather see procedural fuel tanks.

Very good idea.

Then don't do it. I play KSP on Hard and never done something like that. Oh yes, please!

+1. Replace the old small foldable gear with the new one. I see ppl already complaining about broken designs - plenty of 1.0.0 designs were already broken due to changes in aerodynamics, so new landing gear makes little difference. Progress shouldn't be inhibited by an attempts of preserving older designs. It's your own design - fix the thing if needed.

Quit an easy mode and start playing hard. Then we'll talk how "even 3x more expensive rockets have a minimal effect on the profitability of most missions".

IMHO tech tree is what needs most attention as soon as possible. It should be expanded, require by far more science to research in 100% but possibly less for an individual nodes. I wouldn't mind doubling or tripling the amount of nodes and grouping them in something that makes logical sense. Also some of the techs need to be moved earlier or later in the tree (eg. LV-N should be in a last or second-to-last column because of just how uber-capable this engine is). Please, don't. Last thing we need is making a step back after months and months of complains to get it fixed.

Got it. For those curious - it's: positive;negative;zero Sadly I still have a problem with that. I took sample GROUND_PROXIMITY_ALERT (from manual) and put it into test.cfg file in \GameData\SkyMFD\ directory, then edited line in p5_crew40x20.txt to: {2}{1:":"; ; } {0}$&$CREW_0_FULL GROUND_PROXIMITY_ALERT CREW_0_PRESENT CREW_0_TITLE But instead of seeing semicolon or nothing - I'm getting NaN. I wrote set of my own custom variables, and tried to call them both - in conditional and raw {0} calls and they all show NaN. I also tried moving it in a few different locations (eg. inside of RasterPropMonitorBasicMFD) but still can't make it work. I looked through ModuleManager.ConfigCache and my variable is there: UrlConfig { name = GROUND_PROXIMITY_ALERT type = RPM_CUSTOM_VARIABLE parentUrl = SkyMFD/test url = SkyMFD/test/GROUND_PROXIMITY_ALERT RPM_CUSTOM_VARIABLE { name = GROUND_PROXIMITY_ALERT operator = AND SOURCE_VARIABLE { name = RADARALT range = -10, 100 } SOURCE_VARIABLE { name = VERTSPEED range = -10000, -4 } } } Any ideas what I'm doing wrong?

Perfect Thank you. Two quick questions more: In pages text files I found this: {1:":"; ; } Which prints out colon if CREW_0_PRESENT=1 and otherwise nothing. That's fairly clear - curly brackets mean a call to the variable, 1 means the second variable, which is CREW_0_PRESENT, ":" is a string with colon, but... what's further on? I would expect one semicolon in a style of shorthand ifs: condition ? true : false but somehow here I have 3 inputs separated by semicolons? Is that working on -1;0;1 ? Is it possible to write more elaborate conditions, eg. is stupid and panic greater than 0.5?

Good Nice work testing it. Seems like it works better than I expected.

You tried swapping your radial engines with a single rear engine with the same thrust and testing how that affects drag? (Gases from engine should fill the vacuum behind the rocket reducing the drag - or at least: they would in real life) Is drag of your service bay affected in a same way as the fuel tank? (Makes me curious if it's just a last part that has an increased drag, or all of them) You tried adding two smaller fuel tanks instead of one larger and seeing how this affects drag - outcome total drag for the rocket should be identical, but is it?

Crashes. Surprisingly enough - I have more of them in 1.0.x than I ever did in Alpha versions.

Is there anywhere I can find some sample project that adds "hello world" screen or something similar that I could use as a base for creating new screen for RasterPropMonitor? Right now under 5th bottom button you can flip between Crew rooster and Flight log, I'd like to add 3rd screen to that - anyone can point me a right direction where to start?

Hehe, I got only males That said though - I rarely do more than 1 rescue mission per playthrough. It takes way too much time (real-world-time, not in-game time) per money earned.

There's no need for either of them. Through all my time in KSP I never build a Mun mission with either tri or bi-coupler, and I have few dozens of Mun landings done. Structural parts are helpful mostly with larger landers, for basic first-time attempts there's no need for them either. These are definitely a good suggestions.

Wow, that's a lot of negativism. But let me just address a few misconceptions: Every suggestion I mentioned could be added as toggleable, I never said they must be mandatory on every difficulty level. I thought that this was quite obvious and not needing a reminder seeing that pretty much everything that devs add is a new difficulty setting . That's not true. We already have mods adding some of these, and they don't require any magically huge amount of computing power. Also note that these are not just an aesthetic additions. These are an additions that add exploration into the game, and some additional challenges, as tater put it: ^ this was my goal with both: terrain features and atmospheric features. For you it might be just aesthetic additions, for others it's everything but! In general an idea behind it was similar to Huygens / Venera / Vega probes - destroyed after certain time on a surface posing a specific and unique challenges to the gameplay. I'm just throwing some ideas here, doesn't have to be specifically acid if you prefer to assume that all of the KSP hardware can be made acid-resistant (but even then - I'm hugely against giving people stuff for free, so every acid cover should have mass associated with it). In general the goal is that at least one or two of more challenging planets/moons to reach should be more than just an equation of gravity + atmosphere, they could add some unique environments with unique factors, some of which might mean nearly inevitable destruction of your vehicle if you stay for too long (so no more years long rescue missions, if you will fail - you fail - again: interesting mechanic and a challenge presented to players that they can easily avoid by going to other planets as there's still plenty available). That's precisely what I'm addressing in my point. Science should affect the design and pose new challenge, not be boring repetitive clickfest that you are sick of after going through 1/3 of first career playthrough. Or at least I and many others were. But there are always people that dislike change. They really don't and craft you gave as an examples only enforce my statements. Rovers are by far more risky then doing powered jumps or having a spaceplane, the only minor benefit they offer is energy efficiency, but they do not really have any role to fulfill. Even in campagin - everything can be done by a single spacecraft, there's no reason to build rovers (other than fun factor, obviously). Probes and satellites don't have anything distinguishing them from each other, it's the same thing right now - unmanned core with an engines - there should be some role made for them to distinguish one from another. It wouldn't be anything that new would encounter players. Things like that should come in play by the time you leave Kerbin and go for an interplanetary flight. By that moment you aren't new any more. Inner workings of the jet engines absolutely do not need to be simulated. What matters is the behavior of an engine as a whole that might teach people wrong things. For that look up some jet engine mods, such as this: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/70008-0-90-Advanced-Jet-Engine-v2-0-4-Apr-10 I'm not talking about making them more or less attractive, I'm talking about making them more realistic. Heat buildup is not realistic, as it was discussed in other threads already. Use search function, there's been a dozens of discussions about LV-Ns and their flaws. Got enough to make it a concern. Re-read my post. I already gave an idea how to portrait it. Even if the cinematic way of visualization is not realistic - it's by far better than not having it at all. Goods overweight the bads, etc. Alternative would be to present it in a way similar to Fallout games - which is an easy way to portray it in a video game that's also easily readable. I'm not looking for a realistic simulation of radiation, I'm looking for making it a factor in the game. Beginners wouldn't start in alternative KSC. Equally well you could complain that the Hard mode would only frustrate beginners. Sure it does, but beginners do not play in a hard mode. There are ways to resolve that. Either you can place asteroids on an orbits nearly identical to the orbit of a target planet and add asteroids around calculated L4 and L5 location, what should keep them in relatively decent location for a few years (in case of Jool it would be dozens of Kerbin years), or you add small SoI in L4 and L5 with easter egg asteroid in a very center that cannot be moved from it's location. From my experience new players who start with KER learn game by far quicker than those who don't have it. But I already posted some suggestions how it could be integrated without popping large window with tons of numbers that might confuse very-first-time players. That said though - I'm interested in giving people access to information, not specifically integrating this one mod into the game. I know the reasons, I disagree with them. IMHO it brings more problems than it solves. We're back again to "realism is not fun" reasoning? I'll pass getting into that discussion for yet another time. Again the same false argument? It's very simple calculation on very basic collision meshes that you don't even have to do every physics tick. I never asked for a perfectly realistic, physics-based parachutes system. It seems like you are reading things from my post I never said. And I have no idea how did you came up with thinking that it'd require rewriting the rendering system, that's a total nonsense. That should obviously be a difficulty setting limited to hard and moderate as it might affect early-game difficulty (keep in mind though that it very much depends on how you design your rockets - many people wouldn't have any bigger inconvenience out of that - key factor in that would be to make people use engines in appropriate size and thrust to the mission instead of using one engine and throttling it down to near-minimum levels). Like I said numerous times - by the time you could have a problems with it - you wouldn't be a new player any more. People have plenty of experience by the time they boost their rocket outside of Kerbin SoI. And if reentry heating is a difficulty setting - radiation would be one as well. This change wouldn't be nearly as frustrating as you try to picture it - you didn't read carefully - I pointed out that we wouldn't kill Kerbals, just add a visual change to them. I know there's a lot of opposition against killing Kerbals with radiation, for many more reasons than just frustration, this topic was discussed more than once over the years and I think the implementation I suggested is by far most balanced and fitting the game world while still adding a lot to the gameplay and educational value of the game. Also let me add something I didn't mention before - presenting information. If player would be said that a Mk1 Command Pod doesn't have a shielding required for interplanetary flight - he wouldn't use it. If player would be said that LV-Ns have radiation shielding only above - he wouldn't put his crew below it. A lot of frustrations and issues can be resolved by properly informing players. I know some might find it surprising considering that right now KSP does very little to inform players about anything, but that's a truth that works in pretty much every other game. By now I'm quite sure you simply don't understand when the "additional computing power" is a factor to consider. In that case - it's meaningless, and there's absolutely no limitations in the engine that would affect it. RealPlume mod is doing just that (only with a different particle effect than the one I pictured). Nothing nor everything together of what I suggested would make it even remotely close to the simulator.

Here is something to read for you: Is it just me, or is Unity 5 going to be AMAZING for KSP? How exactly would a Unity 5 update affect KSP? Unity 5 [is now available]

Interesting terrain features - canyons, volcanoes, geysers, caves etc. - also different types of terrain should affect your spacecraft. For example ice should be slippery, moon dust could add bit of additional resistance when driving, minimus plains could shimmer when looking towards the sun, surface of Gilly could create a clouds of dust when thrust from engines would it it, etc. etc. Interesting atmospheric features - some planets should be hot causing issues with heat management, some planets should have acidic atmosphere, slowly damaging your ship until it explodes if you won't get out from there, some planets should have sand storms, some planets should have lightning storms, auroras, etc. Science that actually requires you to do something, not just click few times in one biome (eg. impactors, drilling, long-term monitoring, taking rocks (with mass) and returning them home, make some samples very fragile (maximum G force of 3 or it's destroyed), make other experiments require heavy rockets (eg. space telescopes or deep underground drills), etc. etc. don't be afraid of adding experiments with contrary requirements to each other and don't be afraid of adding experiments where Kerbal has to do something, or your vehicle has to fly on a specific trajectory for specific amount of time). Science should be a part of the challenge in both: your actions and designing spacecrafts specifically for experiments. Game shouldn't actively encourage you to stack as many scientific modules at the same time as possible, it should give you a mission with a purpose and challenge. Every existing type of vehicle in the game should have a role to fulfill. Right now you can do everything with a single ship, that never should be the case. If we have rovers - there should be an experiments and equipment designed specifically for them. If we have bases - they should be an important part of exploring other worlds. If we have satellites - they should fulfill some role in the game, such as passing signal from other planets back to KSC or be used as a space telescopes. And so on, and so on. Life support. Absolutely mandatory addition IMHO to make any sense out of multiple elements in the game that don't really "tick". We have unmanned probes, but sending them to interplanetary missions has by far more disadvantages than advantages. We have bases and no reason to use them while they could be a great place for farming offworld food. We are sending gigantic interplanetary missions and our only real concern is fuel... etc. etc. Research tree should be rebalanced to include more nodes, split in more logical order. I'm fine with starting manned, but we really could use some more varied paths. Researching an entire tree should require more science - or you should get less science from doing stuff on Kerbin and it's orbit - in general game should strongly encourage players to go visit both moons and make an interplanetary flight. Also earlier suggestion with making science an actual activity would really help in making it feel less like a grind and more like a rewarding progress encouraging you to move further and push the frontier. KSP is supposed to be a teaching tool so it should have few things fixed not to teach children a wrong science: Isp should affect thrust, not fuel consumption Jet engines are totally screwed in a current state of things. They require major overhaul to make them even remotely close to making sense and not teaching people things like building rockets with jet engines. Farram already went through describing various issues with KSP implementation of them, so feel free to contact him if needed. Nuclear engines need to have some of their real flaws implemented, I'd especially suggest adding permanent radioactive contamination when crashing engine into the ground (I could live with a green glow, and I guess it wouldn't have to kill kerbals (there's a lot of opposition against that) - if you want something funny you could make them turn brown or start glowing themselves) Reentry heating should be a real danger, as of 1.0.2 it could be not there at all and few people could actually tell the difference Heat management should be a thing - add radiators, make me account for heat in large space stations of manned crafts going closer to the sun, make me waste more energy on heating the crew while in a shadow of the planet, or going far away from the sun, etc. Sending kerbals into extreme envoirements should be extraordinary challenge, not just "remember to take more fuel than when landing on a Mun" like it is now. Remark: there should be tools showing you predicted radiator requirements, and flying manned should have higher requirements than unmanned. Lack of life support. I can't stress enough how big game-changer adding it would be in a terms of what people learn about difficulties of space travel. Added difficulty curve can be offsetted by putting enough supplies on a manned pods to easily make a trip to Minimus and back without being worried about food. We also should have a display with estimated supply of food in days (much like we should have a display with estimated Delta-v). [*]Not a wrong science, but other things that would greatly contribute to the learning factor of a game: Add axial tilt for at least few planets. Add second KSC at a different latitude (let people choose it at the beginning of a game?) to teach people what difficulties are involved in launching from locations like Plesetsk Cosmodrome Add some more space objects in. Eg. Trojans, Greeks, Comets (including these on highly elliptical orbits similar to Halley's Comet), few Oort cloud asteroids, or asteroids with highly elliptical orbits... possibly also a Sedna equivalent - extremely challenging orbit, but you could add some very unique and exotic terrain features there to make visiting it very rewarding. Also note that not all of the asteroids need to have the same density - they actually should vary a lot and provide some unique challenges. This entire point would both: teach people about existing objects in the solar system and provide lots of additional challenges for long-time players. Add Kerbal engineer. It will teach people some fundamental terms, such as Delta-v, but also help learning the game (as you can instantly observe how additional fuel tanks affect your TWR and ÃŽâ€v) [*]Some optional, less important additions: Upsize Kerbin to more realistic size (perhaps not 1:1 earth, but, say, 80% or so would start making sense) - it'd help resolving some of the issues like soapy atmosphere, lacking dangers of reentry heating, etc. etc. Why devs are struggling with many things related to game balance is precisely because fundamentals are wrong, so simply taking realistic values and putting them into the game isn't even an option. Currently Kerbin has higher density than any known element, this really doesn't help with anything. Make chutes more realistic. Key suggestions: Gradual deployment - not only more realistic, but also helps limiting shock when deployed; make it impossible for chutes to overlap - this should not be a thing; half-deployed normal chutes should be different from drag chutes; chutes shouldn't randomly disappear Limiting throttling on some engines (eg. RS-25 can throttle between 67% and 109%) it would add an interesting factor into the game without being as painful as limited ignitions Add cryogenic fuel, rebalance engines to make it Solid < Liquid < Cryogenic in terms of Isp. Make cryogenic fuel tanks drop ice particle effect and have some inherited flaws, like loosing fuel over time. It'd also help rebalancing research tree and making progress along with rocket design decisions much more interesting Add radiation as a factor into the game. So you would never build rockets with LV-N in pull configuration, or you'd never send Mk1 Command Pod into the interplanetary mission. Two additional parts would be great - radiation sensor and radiation shield (with very high density), pretty much required when making missions to Kerbol, Moho, or low Jool orbit. Or if you'd want to make it even more realistic - add radiation belts to the planetary bodies... And as I said earlier on - I know there are many opponents of killing Kerbals. so I would suggest either making them glow or turn brown due to radiation. Shape (the looks) of exhaust plumes should change depending on atmospheric pressure. I'd love to see that behind my KSP Ariane 5: Well, that came out longer than expected.... but I hope you'll like the list - feel free to share it with others And I know many people wouldn't agree with one point or the other, or even most of them - but consider this: before 0.9 we had a strong opposition on a forum against making aerodynamics more realistic, and now when we got them - even though they still got plenty of flaws - people in general very much like them and wouldn't want to go back.

I thought we already got time-sensitive contracts and in the end what we got were timelines that never caused any problems unless you intentionally skipped them.

Re-read my post. I specifically pointed out that they are not stable. But nice you found out quote from wikipedia confirming what I just said. It doesn't mean however that they are "invalid". Also Earth Trojans do exist (or at least one of them )

That was a very... forgiving simulation considering that KSP planets don't make much sense. Eg. Kerbin density is greater than a density of any known element and Jool density is greater than the one of Mars... sorry to disappoint you, but KSP system couldn't possibly exist. Lagrangian points do exist in real life (n-body system), but they are not perfectly stable. That said though - they are still valid and we still know how to sent satellites to them - heck, there are whole groups of asteroids located around Lagrangian points. Here you can read more about their stability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point#Stability

No n-body physics = no Lagrange points (and few other, less obvious things). Correct me if I'm wrong but from what I recall you can fly to L3, L4 and L5. The most important points - L1 and L2 - are impossible to achieve in a stable matter. That's ... ekhm... not true considering that there is already a mod for that.

True. But visual feedback would really help. Randomly disappearing chutes feel, as you said, "like a hotfix"

Interesting - this mod is the only one I have that pops WS.Reputation.1 warning in Norton antivirus.

Oh, ok, I get you. I thought it was a quote from Maxmaps twitter. "An interesting tweet from Maxmaps:" - your post, and then everything that followed is from Maxmaps. Apparently it's not. Sorry for confusion.

I can't think of any existing "science" in KSP that would fulfill that condition. I very much agree. It'd be a very interesting challenge for navigating in zero G. Some caves could also create unique environment to explore with rovers, something that we currently do not have in the game. Would be very fun. But IMHO adding some scientific experiment that can be conducted only in caves would be interesting on it's own (eg. underground astrobiology sampler, or something like cave measurement package?)