CaptainTurbomuffin

I didn't get it, but if you construct a ring, and rotate it, you'll have artificial gravity. You can see videos about it, with people driving rovers in some.

Personally, I don't like many of them. I want incredibly radical planets. However, the glowy one and one of the lava ones fits it

Well, I'd like something that forces you to avoid certain situations. Like a life support, or kerbals being frosted at night, incoming storms, ect. Than, you could have trouble with time based repairs, even with timewarp. But that's just an idea...

Somehow, using 1m parts with the same rocket is better than 2m parts... I don't know, why, but if that's the situation, a 2m NERVA should be lower than 4 1m ones. But anyway, if you want to use them for larger motherships, the 2m nukes could be better at long-term, and the 1m ones on shorter-term. But the 2m one should definitely not be a tweakscaked-up version of the 1m nuke. Diversity is essential. For the tanks, I tought about plane tanks having a lower dry mass,and better heat resistance, and crash tolerance, but on the other hand, higher cost. So if you can fully recover your craft, use plane tanks because they're op. If you're staging a rocket, and the decoupled tanks are lost, conventional rocket tanks are far more cost effective. Nothing to reply on the others. Personally, I have already suggested what I'd like to see. The items are in my signature, plus this, and a 3m poodle/terrier analog, low profile, stack-attached cluster engine.

I'd love that, I hope it's planned.

The whole driving system and rovers are being totally reworked in 1.1

Steam is in-game. It can be accessed with 'Shift+tab', of course, if you have steam, and you're logged in.

You mean mission stats, with diagrams? That'd be awesome! R+

I agree with the suggestion, seeing how your CoM moves is one thing, but seeing why is another. The easiest would be a toggleable mode, where a reddish or bluish or you know color indicates the density of a part. For example, wings would be light ping, fuel tanks reddish, and nukes full red. With spaceplanes, the parts' density is really important, as you can move your CoM further back only by rearranging the parts in the fuselage, so you put the dense parts to the back. The problem is that it's hard to figure out the density of parts.

This must be really old. I tried to find the actual suggestions from here, but the freshest link from here still seems pre-1.0

On hard modes, witouth reverting flight, you have to test them in-game, wich adds to the excitement. Do some test launches before the main one.

Always use decouplers with parts that you won't need! If you frogot to add them, use your spacecraft to smash them to the ground!

In addition to steam?

Once I suggested something about pods' level limiting both the iternal and external UI's instrumentation. (low pods have rusty clock-like indicators of the very basic instruments, and high-tech pods have plenty of accurate, digital instruments like radar alt. or heat level, DV, ect.) How would you like that?

yes he does

What I did not understand was how Wherner von Kerman became a scientist from an engineer. I would rather like to see a separate kerbal as a scientist, while keeping Wherner as a rocket engineer.

Not a bad idea, but I don't think it could get popular. The problem you described exists, and currently, autopilots are more handy when it comes to solving it. Autopilots won't requie your attention, you can go away and make a coffe, but they are not as cheaty as HyperEdit.

Nearly all current suggestions were suggested before, by someone else.

Based on this, IVA might get an overhaul soon.

They should. They should also hire some graphics for a graphical overhaul.

yes__

External seats are incredibly overpowered. They are 16.8 times lighter than a conventional Mk1 cockpit, meaning that you need a 16.8 times smaller rocket, and 16.8 times less cash. I use them in career as often as I can. Not being able to start them manned is a kind of nerf, but that won't stop me from putting the kerbal in from a later decoupled and recovered cockpit. Starting seats manned could be even more overpowered for rockets. But if the rover tester was an enclosed area, and you couldn't launch planes and rockets from there, that would be excellent an place for testing rovers, and starting with manned seats.

IVA is a great potential in the game, but it's not utilised properly, and it's obviously semi-finished. The ability to drive from inside could be a great experience, but it isn't, due to obvious decifiencies. I have 3 main problems: the incredibly poor visibility the lack of proper instruments and low graphics For low graphics... Let's face it: the whole game has inadequately low graphics, expect for some parts of the UI maybe. I am really sure that graphycs should be improved, beginning with the IVA. If the IVA could have a lot better, realistic graphycs, that wouldn't hurt the rest of the game, as IVA's like a different dimension... The lack of proper instruments make flying vessels only in IVA really hard. Also, the instruments are not properly visible. A higher tier command module could have more instruments inside, allowing a better control over the ship, or more user-friendly instruments, such as digital displayers and monitors instead of clock-like displays. For example, buttons for action groups, monitors displaying the status of the ship, docking alignment, DV, or even customizable stuffs like kerbal engineer. This would also allow a better looking inside for highly instrumental cockpits, the Mk.3 for example as the same monitor and panel won't have to be spammed 4-5 times just as it's done currently. Another great idea: use different instrument skins in the external view! A low pod could have only the most basic instruments, wich could be rusty clocks, that are rather unfriendly, being inaccurate and fairly hard to read, and an advanced pod could have precise, digital stuffs, and more useful instruments, like radar altitude, or DV, or KE-like customisable stuff. Also, if the instruments were closer to each other in the IVA, the instrument panel could be much smaller, and all useful instruments could be visible while consuming a very small part of the IVA screen. Also, the IVA of probes could lead you to the remote controller's IVA, something like the probe control room mod, or you could even control them from the inside of another craft. Visibility could be improved by reducing the area of the cockpit you see, and increasing the area of the outer environment you see. This can be done either by adding very large windows, or witouth modifying the external texture of the cockpits (size of the vindows). The trick is to have the camera point (the head of your kerbal) placed closer to the windows, as well as having thinner windows. Than you could have a great visibility from all of the command modules. One thing also limiting visibility is the thick, sailent border of metal arount each window in plane cockpits. Removing it could allow visibility from multiple windows from plane cockpits. Also, at planes, the camera point could be high up, so you could have a better view of the land around you. If the instruments were on a smaller panel, than you could have the outer environment on even more area of your screen. If the instruments were closer to each other, there could be a smaller instrument panel. If its top could be only visible normally, with the most important instruments like the navball, you could have an even better view from inside. The rest could be visible after looking below a bit. I describe how this could be implemented with the current cockpits. If someone has the time, maybe he could move the camera point to see how it would look like. Mk1 Command Pod: Move the camera point as high as possible. Rotate it upwards a bit so the kerbal won't be exactly facing forward. Than move it as close to the window so that it covers about the upper half of the pod. A thinner window is essential. Instuments in the lower half, and there could be some near the window too. Mk1-2 command pod: Camera point closer to the fromtal window, but you can have a perfect look from the window at the right. Clear the area around the frontal window. Mk1 inline cockpit: this one is the best, but it could be better.The camera point could be moved upwards, and the black stripes could be removed. Not all instruments should be visible, as there could be a functionaling HUD. Mk2 cockpit: This could be a LOT better. Thinner windows, and remove the thick metal border.Than move he camera and the instruments forward a lot, and upwards a little. Mk3 cockpit: Move the camera and the instruments as forward as possible. Move the instruments under the window up to the window's edge, and the ones above the window down to the window's top. The kerbals will have vision through the first windows. The kerbals at the back should either be moved near the first ones, or simply moved sideways, so that they can see out from theother windows. Of course, move them forward and give them instruments. Be able to focus view on the docking windows. I could continue, but I think you got it. I'll probably make some drawings about how it could look like.

We already have the hitchhiker container. Even if we had some more, why would you want to use it? There's no life support. Baloons-I don't think you would find many use of them. Even if you would, it's nearly sure that there won't be baloons in the stock game. Inflatable heat shields... They should surely have lower stats than the standard ones with the equal size.

Currently, the aerospike has nearly the best TWR. Based on my suggestion, it would have one of the lowest BUT its thrust would still remain high, so it would become even better than the LVT-T30!