CaptainTurbomuffin

XD Hahahahaha

Why not just simply add a much higher cost to the OX4 and mke the SP stronger? or effectiver?

sounds good.

You can simply calculate how much DV is there in your craft, you can count the requiements for a landing or a burn there, this is how it's done in real life. In ksp, you could count, but rather players just go there, and if their lander is not enough good, they crash and make a rescure mission using the experiences, as a more 'kerbal' solution. At interplanerary missions, it is a bit harder, but you can still experiment at Kerbin and Mün in that case. And finally, you just always try to have as much fuel as possible, if your lander has more fuel in it than needed, no problem. The mentioned feature could be really good, blowing up things and killing kerbals witouth any serious result, but maybe the work what it would need would help the game become better at other parts. And yes, there is still lots of problems around the game that is more important than this. The planets are being explored by you first, so how we would know how they look like? But still, it sounds good, altough somehow it is not fitting the game. And it's a simulation in a simulation. That's just weird, right?

Simple: Nearly all pod's description is talking about can it survive a re-entry, wich is pointless as there is no, and there will not be any re-entry heat. Same with Mk.3 and Mk.2 fuelsages. Just because these descriptions can confuse new players. Writing a new description shouldn't be too hard, but least useful.(?) ( or add re-entry heat? least to career? I know I should not suggest this but if there's no re-entry heat you can deorbit and recover any stages, making shuttles useless)

why, at big crafts, I mean very big crafts, you ( or I mean I ) run out of RCS very quickly, and do not have enough space for small reaction wheels. I use very strong wheels from mods, but a less stronger could come handy in stock too. About the gimbal: yes, In the original idea, I tought about not making it very overpowered, just frogot to write it down how. Edited. At least, thank you for warming for that.

Wouldn't orbiting a gigantic shuttle like that from 2 stages need some 5m wide fuel tanks first?

Welcome. I have got some ideas for new parts to the controll section. Firstly, here's the Advanced SAS. It is 2.5 m wide, but still it's only as strong as any 1.25 m reaction wheel. Maybe this is because there are those advanced computery thingies near the smaller reaction wheel. So it both contains ASAS and a smaller reaction wheel wich is making it useful. The idea is a new 2.5 m, simple reaction wheel, with the heavy torque of 80 ( like 4X1.25 m reaction wheel ). It would be useful for me, as sometimes I use quad-couplers with reaction wheels to have strong SAS in a vehicle. And if we're at ASAS, how about a thrust-controller system included in it or a new ring part, wich automaticly adjusts the trust of the vehicle's engines that the Center Of Thrust will be pointing towards the Center Of Mass? Here's an illustration: Here, the green arrows are the engines' thrusts. They could be adjusted by the mentioned computer that their summarized vector, the purple Center Of Thrust is pointong towards the Center Of Mass. The skipper engine's thrust will be reduced by this computer as fuel is being drained from the main tank and as the COM is moving towards the shuttle, making the COT moving backwards too. Normally, with shuttles, this adjustment is made manually, by right clicking the engines. Also, lots of RCS are requied too for balancing. An adjuster modul like that would help A LOT. Another way for shuttles is using the structure of the STS, where all engines are reusable in the shuttle, and balancing can not be done by lowering an engine's thrust. There, you have to counter the flipping of the craft by giving an angle to the COT. How about a gimbal unit, wich could angle the engines you mount on them to make the COT pointing towards the COM? This could help those who would like to build the legendary shuttle. What this unit would do is turning the engines -and the COT with them- towards the COM. Of course to not make this an op-gimballer unit, this couldn't be used for moving, like the built-in gimbal of engines, this could only be used for making the vehicle balanced, and not be fliped by unbalancedness.Could not be controlled to not help in manouvers, and changing direction. How do you like them?

You can have fuel in the engines itself. If you need a lot more, use a fuelsage, but they are used in real life too if as mutch fuel is neeed.

They are definetly not useless. Add a rocket fuel tank into a Mk.3 unit with 240 less liqulid fuel, and both the problem of COM and oxidizer solved. you also got more fuel in it. For the case of dumb weird attachment points, use the BZ-52 Radial Attachment Point. But note that these are botch solutions. 2 options for the fuelsage should be added: one is for carrying fuel, or LFO, or nothing ( structural fuelsage), one for its type: Lots of fuel, or courrent fuel ammout(with a lot better fuel-mass ratio), and MOST IMPORTANTLY a cargo-bay. For making optimal desgins, there should be another Mk.3 fuelsage with the half of the courrent one's lenght, and this Mk.3 Fuelsage Short should have the mentioned options. The low COM gives more stability for planes, and comes quite handy with shuttles. Adjusting the COT to it would be a bit hard, so still use attachment points for that.

Thank you! now my images are working!

They aren't useless. Add a rocket fuel tank with 240 less fuel in it and both the problem of oxidizer and COM is solved. For the case of dumb weird attachment points use the BZ-52 Radial Attachment Points. But these are botch solutions. 2 options should be added to them: What's in it: Liqulid fuel, LFO, or nothing ( structural fuelsage ) And for its type: lots of fuel, the courrent low fuel ammout (with a lot better fuel-mass ratio), or (MOST IMPORTANTLY) a cargo bay For optimal desgins there'd be a half-lenght, smaller Mk.3 fuelsage, with the mentioned options. Low COM is good as it gives more stability to planes and comes handy with shuttles. Adjusting the COT is hard anyways because of that, that's why adapters for engines would not solve that. My thread have been merged with this, that's topic was about the Mk.3 cockpit. Here is that: Greetings.(Before all, I am new here, and my upload is not working. could someone help me fix that? thank you.) I think there's still some work to be done with the Mk.3 fuelsage system. Do you like the Mk.3 cockpit and fuelsage? ( 'cause I do not ) First of all, I think there are several things to fix on the Mk.3 Cockpit. -My main problem is that it is not having an IVA view. -Secondly, I don't like it's shape. It's not fitting with any plane's image. -Thirdly, I can't find a nose-cone that is fitting with it. (the Aerodynamic Nose Cone in colour) But still, it is the best choice for big planes, looks better on planes than the Mk.1-2 Command Pod. I think a remake would help it to be much better. What do you think? I also made a draw of my idea for that how it could be made into the pod with the best view from it. -It was drawn onto the previous image, the represented kerbals are real-sized ( relatively to the fuelsage ) -Because the pilot is close to the vindow wich is having a steeper angle, there is a very good view from IVA. Better than from the Mk.1 cockpit. Top windows are there because they would be cool. -As the original Mk.3 cockpit is seen from the front, there'd be no window for the kerbal sitting in the middle, so he could be looking backwards, maybe with a window wich from he could see into a cargo bay behind the cockpit. Or he could be sitting in the lower floor, just like the mission specialist at the STS, or simply like the third passenger in the Mk.1-2 Command Pod. Or four of them at the top... Describe what you think... -At a lower floor there could be the third passenger or you could go down there in the upcoming IVA version (As I know they're going to add it once), beds could be there, but because kerbals do not sleep, rather tables and funny things like in the PPD-10 Hittchhiker Storage Container, there could be the airlock, but most importantly, a window. -An addition could be an RCS nosecone right fitting to it. I've copied the layer of the nosecone I've drawed onto a Mk.2 cockpit, to show that it is fitting with other cockpits too. An RCS nose cone could have 100 RCS fuel in it, and the thrust of 3 RCS thrusters to all direction ( expect for backwards, where the connection is ) I've made a subassembly from how it could work, and if everything is fine, I've uploaded it. http://file:///C:/Program%20Files%20%28x86%29/Steam/SteamApps/common/Kerbal%20Space%20Program/saves/TT/Subassemblies/RCS%20Nose%20cone.craft This is how it looks like The arranging of thusters and tanks under the nose cone 3 thrusters to all directions Would you support a remake of this cockpit? (Sorry for mistakes in my english)

As you have may noticed, the PPD-10 Hittchhiker Storage Container's airlock is too small to have an airlock there, it's rather a simple door opening to space, decompressing the cabin at going to EVA. Also, this is the pod where kerbals wear no helmets that'd protect them from this. What do you think?

Than sorry, I didn't know that, and if the new patch's out in a week, you made me a very happy man. Sabotageing will be done in multiplayer. I know what's on the not to suggest list, I remember that I have mentioned that only for a hardcore mode. They do not want many of those things in their game,and many people want that. There's a mod of those things for them. I can combine the mod with the new career mode an it'll be my hardcore mode ^^.

Useless until infinite ammout of bought, available parts are removed from career mode.

Greetings. I'd like to share my suggestions with you about how career mode could be improved and about how it could be made incredibly difficult, as a new, hardcore-gamemode. 1.: Development of career mode ( what'd be changed in it ) -Add credits and costs: I know how courrent items have costs, what have no effect to the game, but you know, they could be added. Could be used to pay for followings. Could be earned by doing science or additional tasks. -Optimise costs: some costs are not matching with the item's value (Example: that tiny Cubic Octagonal Strut costs 650, and the big Mudular Girder Segment costs 100), and there are a lots of other mistakes including that all ofthe new rocketdyne fueltanks have the same 2600 cost. -Add abled recovery for rocket parts/boosters You wanna build a rocket, you buy the parts you'd like to use (and the little number shows at 'available parts' how much is avalable and ready to use, you go buy some if you need more). Loading/Launching a rocket wich requies parts that are not available will result a warning messeage. and if you add parachutes for example to the boosters the game'll continue using the physics on them after decouplement, makeing them abled to land. And if they have landed, they'll appear as debris in the tracking station, and by recovering them, they'll be available at building. Recovering may need a cost too, the higher ground distance the part travelled, the higher this cost could be to result an advantage for SSTO desgins. -Add fuel costs It is noticable that fuel tanks have very high costs, maybe because they are pre-filled. I think they'd be empty (resulting lower cost) and paying for fuel should be done separately. This is good because if you use your rocket and you can recover its parts for building a new rocket/loading one you could just reload the fuel needed, instead of replaceing empty tanks with filled ones. An understandable example: Rocket 'A' is launched, you recover its parts after the misssion, you load it to transport for example the secont modul of a station, and because all parts are available ( because of the recovering) you just have to pay for the fuel, and you can launch. This helps spaceplanes again. -The more passengers, the more science We all know that doing the same experiment/report for the 60th time won't give much science. But repeating 5-6 times after the first time the experiment's done gives you the same science value. Maybe this is because collating the results is important in science to minimalize mistakes. Why couldn't this be done with kerbals? The more passengers you have, the more science you get for a crew report or doing an EVA-report could be repeated a few times. -Remake the MPL-LG-2 Mobile processing lab As I courrently undersanded the working of this device is that recovery gives you 10-20% bonus science after proccessing the samples in the lab. What the describing says is that proccesing the samples gives you the same science value as recovery. Or/and you can reset a science device after transmitting the results to do the experiment again. Of course this is not how this thing works. Another way how it could work is that it produces science on orbit/on different planets, wich makes no sense. One great way how it could be done is that experiments are desgined after reaching a new achivement and science is made after these experiments are transported to the lab and lots of electricity is available,under a long time. This science could be transmitted or recovered. These experiments could be transported to the lab in containers like the SC. 9001 Science Jr, acting as a fuel for the orbital-science-generator. This'd give a great chance for small/tiny desgins to serve the stations. The described ways could mean more types of labs. As in real life, maybe some scientic divices could be operated from a lab, like telescopes, radiation-measurers, ect. -Additional tasks Smaller desgins are not really haveing any purpose. You could be hired for some money to orbit small, pre-made non-editable satellites, if your offer is good enough. 2.:Hardcore mode -The mentioned career-mode features -No saving/loading and no reverting flight -Bad impressions at failure A compensation or what should be payed for the relatives of lost kerbals, and the more failure you make the less additional tasks you will recive. -rival space program Conquering the galaxy is easy really if you are doing it only. There could be some other space programs competing with you, just like how it was in real life. They'd be on other places, have launches, and you'd recive feedback from their successes or incoming launches. Also, who wouldn't like to use tiny probes or separaton-projectiles launched from aircrafts to sabotage enemy launches? They'd make intentional mistakes like frogetting to add parachutes, electricity-generation, ect. to give them failures. Also, they may recive additional tasks instead of you if you made several mistakes or they just have a better offer. And of course a surface sample or a flag is not as valuable if it is not the first. Competeing with them may requies to reach an achivement from one mission, making no saving even more dangerous. And of course an early failure may mean an irrecovable disadvantage. This is hardcore mode. -heatshields needed I know that they said they don't want re-entry heat, If I want that just get the mod, but why couldn't it be in a hardcore-mode? Just because you'd may recover everithyng easily by adding parachutes. The need of heavy heatshields may increase the value of a recoverable vehicle, creating a need for shuttles and ssto planes. Or a smart heatshielded rocket would help a LOT in the race for offering the best offer for orbiting satellites. -Cabin fever Isn't spending years in a Mk.1 command pod a bit too simple solution at hardcore mode? The human record of flying alone witouth getting mad/sick was only five days. the same could be with hardcore mode kerbals. Of course a mün or minmus exploration is easily possible with this limit, but no further journeys, like duna. The more of them is in the ship, the longer time they could survive. For exmple, a lot more time in a Mk.2 command pod because they can talk with each other. A PPD-10 Hitchhiker Storage Container and the PPD-12 Coupola Modul are the best long-term cabins with equipmentsm like board games and snacks. Addding them to a station producing science from experiments on orbit will result longer time a crew can work effectively. And replacing the crew could be done with the same mission as you reload the experiments as orbital-science generator fuel. Also, the Mk.2 and Mk.3 pits could have beds at a lower-floor, making them abled to keep kerbals healthy longer. Sorry for incidental language mistakes.