Sky_walker

I sure hope so. Cause seeing game released with... something like that.... would be rather.... disappointing.

This system might work only if you assume ghost-mode. Meaning: Players cannot interact with each other unless they're at exactly same point of time - any attempt to do anything with a ships owned by another player will cause clipping with no interaction what so ever. But even then - this system is flawed because it requires game to transfer and store quite a large amounts of data, data that isn't collected right now (otherwise we'd have a reply mode), so it'd require tons of work that only adds on top of what is necessary for the multiplayer. TBH: If anything I'd prefer wrap master over an idea from original poster. Even if it could be implemented in some reasonable time window.

In general the way they organize items it very confusing for a beginner. For me during first 3 day it's always been a problem to find stupid separators. I keep on looking for them under the engines section, cause they're separating the engines, but nope... You know what would be good? An option to search for an item by name or keyword. Say: I type in a search box "adapter" - and I get all adapters. I type "docking" and I get all docking ports. I type "landing" and I get all the wheels and landing struts.

I'm afraid it's not as simple as it looks. All current struts work by stretching the middle part instead of correctly adding segments (you can see it very clearly on a fuel pipe where arrows are stretched). But yes, if possible: I'd love to see that. It'd really help simplifying the designs.

+1 to op. I got some tiny moon lander probes propelled with RCS and even FL-R10 RCS Fuel Tank is too large. It'd be great to have something half the size. Be it radial or linear - doesn't matter (radial would probably be more versatile, but if you'll make it linear - how about something in a shape that fits Probodobodyne QBE?)

1. If plane can't leave the ground - flaps will make no difference. Problem isn't in game lacking this feature - problem is in your design. 2. You're confused what flaps are suppose to do. They don't magically make planes take off. They increase the lifting force for a price of drag. And that increase isn't as huge as you think it is. 3. In current aerodynamics system - flaps are impossible to be implemented in any reasonable way. And when they get around fixing aerodynamics - your plane that barely can get airborne now most likely well be very firmly sitting on a ground.

Nope, such "plane" is a definition of fail. It's like saying that Kerbal is boring because you need to obey laws of gravity. THIS.

Yep, cause they'll never say where it was Besides: needed be they can just move it around.

What not to suggest. Nearly every topic about comets got closed for that reason. Expect incoming doom. Never the less: +1 to the comets.

Again: Noone in an entire topic asked for perfect, fully realistic aerodynamics. Just something that would make sense (eg. nose cones would be beneficial instead of just crippling your spaceship) and be more believable (eg. no rocket-powered chairs).

1. Areodynamics would make flight path of a baloon much less predictable (especially in regards to rotation) and therefore pretty much unsuitable for space launch 2. It'd add buoyancy cause right now it doesn't exist in the game. 3. And with added buoyancy you'd need to have a proper air resistance to ensure that using baloons and rockets at the same time (or in general: using baloons anywhere in a middle stage of flight) ensures rather catastrophic drag instead of just adding a lifting force to the mounted rockets. 4. Hopefully improved areodynamics will prevent parachutes clipping (by this: spamming them will be counterproductive) and by this: also prevent baloon clipping (so again: spamming them would be counterproductive unless someone starts using brain). AFAIK none of the Rockoons reached an orbit. Also note that none of the engines we have in the game comes even close to how small the rockoons were (ok, perhaps linear RCS thruster does come close, never the less: it lacks power comparing to the rockets) Don't get me wrong - I wouldn't mind baloons as such, however seeing issues with physics, areodynamics and clipping that the game has reassures me that they'd be used to nothing else but exploiting glitches.

Erm... suspicion? Why suspicion? It's a fact. And why it needs to be about "me"? Haven't you noticed that you are ALREADY limited in what you can launch? It's what devs want. Otherwise all planets would be gravity-less balls floating in space. Besides - as I mentioned elsewhere - if devs would ever implement areodynamics that do-not-suck-hard than they should give people an option through the console to switch back to the current mode (as someone else said: through the console because it's essentially a cheat). Nope. Just build stuff on an orbit instead of sending everything in one go. That's the point - engage in the game, stop being a carebear. Some things simply should be build on an orbit. Kerbal marvels would be there, only in a different form, while at the same time we'd squish all of the nonsense like one you got right there on your screenshot. It's meaningless. It's like arguing that your station sux cause you got no science points from it while you wasted tons of time and effort building it. Keep in mind that not everyone play campaign and problem isn't in in-game points (be it science or currency) but rather physics and areodynamics. +1

+1. Excellent ideas! in a first two days of my gameplay I thought that Kerbals DO improve over time, However after ending my first Mun mission where I barely returned back to the planet (run out of fuel while still being in Mun sphere of influence) having the steepest reentry in my whole Kerbal career (... I actually should have burned this ship in the atmosphere) I noticed that stats remained unchanged, and... well... I was completely disappointed. So much effort and such an amazing adventure with nothing else to cherish than a flag and science points :/

Can't wait to see 1st stage ballon-powered launch into space. IMHO: No, something like that shouldn't be added, at least till the areodynamics engine is fixed to prevent ridiculously stupid abuses.

Hate? lol Why so defensive? I'm just saying truth. KSP is game aspiring for some degree of realism, and the fact that you can launch something like that is comparable to this: It's not what I THINK, it's what BASIC COMMON SENSE tells me. Your monster is something you never ever should be able to launch in space.

An excellent post. Agreed with every single sentence! Noone, not even a single person in this entire thread, asked for a "perfect areodynamic model". Just one that makes at least a little bit of sense.

+1. Even more so as in real life spaceprobe parts that look more-or-less like Kerbal adapters nearly always hold fuel inside.

Your monster is a perfect proof why we shouldn't have massless parts as well as new areodynamics engine. You never, ever, ever should be able to lift something like that to orbit in a one go.

Definitely. I'd love to see that too.

Silly argument. There are still EVA reports and Crew Reports. Both of which give manned-missions a huge overhead over unmanned. Sounds great. It'd encourage people to combine manned and unmanned missions, perhaps even do what we are in a real life - first send unmanned probes and then send crewed spaceships (though I guess it'll end with people simply sending one ship that "has it all" >_>) - at the very least though: It'll make probes not as borderline useless as they are now.

Ohhh.... ok, your image explains a lot You should attach it in the original post. I think I just misunderstood what you mean. Ok, I'd like to see that too Perhaps even in a slightly different form - you know how decouplers have this fairings added when you mount them on the engines? They should detect if the next part after it has a same diameter as a decoupler and if so - add them. This way you could create perfectly smooth rockets not only in a situation like yours - with small engine - but also when ship ends with something else than an engine - for example let it work well with clamp-o-trons or RCS or antennas or... well: anything.

Gap in a spacecraft? No clue what you're talking about. But anyway - if you don't like it this way, put decoupler between fuel tanks and adapters instead of adapter and an engine - this way everything will be in line and a perfect shape. If they'd add resizeable engine fairings - they'd need to change mass too. In the end it's the same thing, perhaps slightly lighter, but we start talking here about kilograms, something that can be easily saved by improving your take off procedure. I don't know why people want "free" stuff all over this forum. Mass-less items, items with no drag, complains about adapters that weight something.... if you want to play an arcade games - play something else. Otherwise: don't complain that things have a mass.

What about adapters? Why you don't want to use them? [edit]: FL-A5 Adapter should solve your problem with Rockomax 48-7S

Use bigger engine. There are engines for each size of a fuel tank. Use them accordingly. I like current system - allows you to attach additional things next to the engine. For example: I've got 6 linear RCS around main engine on my moon lander.