CaptainTurbomuffin

Your suggestion is nice, but as the devs said, we are going to have multiplayer. It's up to them how they solve it. I think we should have a co-op too, like the one you described. The only problem is early-game, where you mostly use 1 simple kerbal. The others would just spectace? I especially like the idea of doing advanced science in the lab manually, by moving test tubes around and pouring liquids everywhere and making a mess. It would also be better to have more scientific experiments to do, wich for you would have to do something different from clicking a button. Like carrying the materials bay around, and putting it in water to see how X;Y reacts, or making measurements and collecting samples from different landmarks in EVA. Mission control could specify the tasks that with you can earn the most science, also forcing the player with this to explore. For example, get to the bottom of that abyss, there colllect samples from X;Y, take photos of X;Y, or use your plane (they maybe tell you what you might need?) to fly down in that valley, than return to your landing craft before the sun sets. This could be done in that rts-style. Mission control could specify the site to land, guiding you to the most beautiful, interesting site, that you can reach, where the terrain is especially detailed, and there are interesting landmarks, such as a waterfall, or geysers, caves, or just the mountains or the transition of the biomes is awesome. Of course, first things first. All planets should be more detailed, as there isn't much more than a large, flat area as your landing site, where there's nothing special, explorable in your range. They are only interesting from orbit. Maybe some people could be hired to make the planets especially detailed, while keeping their style. Also, making some extra-special places, wich may be your future landing sites, based on your tarjectory, and wether you have the equipment to explore most of it. Of course, your system couldn't handle such celestials, that's why it has to be made much more efficient first. May Unity 5 help us. Currently, more than 70% of what the game loads is invisible to you. Than why it has to be loaded? Much more graphical options are also necessary, including much more graphical efficiency, and better textures. Also, about the parts. That's another weak point. Couldn't my 8 fuel tanks, stacked on each other, be simulated as one, long, flexible (that's still stupid. it should be brittle) fuel tank? And to add something to the topic, my idea is to give identical contracts to the players (at least terminating the luck factor), so they will go on identical missions. Solving multiplayer is easier, if your subjects are trying to accomplish the same. Of course, that won't work on long-term.

The suggestion is excellent, I would've suggested this if you don't do it so. I just can't imagine, would it be reomte-controlled, so right-click-open, or something like in GTA? But anyway, it's enough to just look at your plane from the back to find out what an awful desgin it is. Rep+, but not for your plane

I do not suppport this. Leveling up is easy, you just have to perform some manouvers. If that would be implemented, we wouldn't need 3 crew capsules, as we could fully level up just one kerbal (jeb) and he could do all the work, and we would only need the small capsule, wich has 1/4 the mass of the big one, meaning that you would need the quarter of normal rescoures career mode would have to be re-alanced, ONCE AGAIN. Also, you could mass level out kerbals with simply one mission in later game. This current level system is bad. But with a different leveling-up system, this could work.

We should forget this for a time. All planets are uninteresting, and they need to be updated, keeping their own characteristics, while adding to them. For example, geysers as you've said, storms, canyons, more radical mountains, and that each should have very interesting, unique thematic. They should also be detailed, as currently, (nearly) all your landing sites are uninteresting, large flat surfaces. But anything like this is only possible after the game is efficient enough to be able to handle this. Currently, the waste of rescoures is not ablieng anything that would mean even higher requiements.

Giving a nickname to the aerospike is like giving a name to the RAPIER.

And VTOL-s

Yes. I always hate that the stuffs of my payload appear in my staging. Also, be able to merge parts in the staging. For example, you have 24 engines in the first stage. You can't even see what's in the second stage.

I keep seeing suggestions where the main problem is that you can get too much science. A) Spend it Customize your career mode, so that you'll recieve less science. C) Administration. Turn them into cash.

Yes. A long, long time ago, with a different aero, you couldn't make spaceplanes witouth an incredibly efficient rocket motor. Of course, this would be overpowered in rockets, that's why the aerospike has no attachment points, and other things such as no gimbal(despite that the real aerospike had gimbal). But it's also logical: how would you safely fix a decoupler RING on the top of a SPIKE?! (witouth using magic). Jet engines used to have attachment points, wich were removed. Maybe again, to prevent their usage with rockets. They had no fairings as well, wich looked quite weird.

Being realistic is not a point in KSP. We need a balanced one.

Sometimes, Mk.3 parts are not enough flat for me.

When I first red this I said What?! Than I looked at my game and tried to observe it. It was there, altough I got used to it so much that it doesn't annoy me.

Not only an infinite electricity hack, but a no-heat damage (Including parachutes!!) would be nice for testing crafts.

I always used paper, pencil, and my calculator for things like that. The disadvantage is that it makes your room messy.

I can only say what I said at the other thread about nukes: Increasing the thrust of1m nukes could also be a solution. Once their TWR was lowered by increasing their mass and lowering their thrust. The 'worst' was that they started to consume only LF, making NERVA-powered rockets carry more than half-empty fuel tanks (but also making them realistic). Instead of lowering their thrust, I think something should be done like removing gimbal, power generation, and limiting its usage. For example, you can run them for <balanced value here> minutes only, before their reactor core is depleted. After that, you have to recover them. 2m version: a lot less effective than 1m versions, just like with any other engines, but having extras like gimbal and power gen, and longer life? Having a right-click option for each fuel tank, to carry either LFO, LF, or nothing(structural) would also be nice.

But increasing the thrust of1m nukes could also be a solution. Once their TWR was lowered by increasing their mass and lowering their thrust. The 'worst' was that they started to consume only LF, making NERVA-powered rockets carry more than half-empty fuel tanks (but also making them realistic). Instead of lowering their thrust, I think something should be done like removing gimbal, power generation, and limiting its usage. For example, you can run them for <balanced value here> minutes only, before their reactor core is depleted. After that, you have to recover them. 2m version: less effective than 1m versions, just like with any other engines, but having extras like gimbal and power gen, and longer life? Having a right-click option for each fuel tank, to carry either LFO, LF, or nothing(structural) would also be nice.

There's a variety of visual effects mods that make KSP downright beautiful, hopefully some or all of them will be added to the core game at some point. Edit: Ninja'd! Scatterer places the fog (wich is not as intense with the default options, as it should be, of yourse, I always increase that) over the low texture terrain. You will have a better sight, but increased requiements. There should be lower textures at distant areas, and very good textures at close areas. My aim is not to have fog, for realistic look, but to have higher texture resolutions, witouth the game going mad.

What I'd like to see is something like laythe, or a modifyed laythe. Basically, a planet, wich is very very close to the blue gas giant, and that gas giant covers most of its sky. The blue gas giant would have animated vortexes (like ones that Jupiter has), and you could watch them spinning in real-time. Maybe it should have plants on it, oxygen, and canyons where you can drive your planes?

If you zoom out on the launchpad, you see that the vast majority of the planet is being loaded. Also, the textures are far from good. It's just enough to look at the water: you can see the same piece of texture being repeated, giving a sight like minecraft. .If you look at the left, you can have a perfect look at the mountains, that are far-far away. In real life, after you move further from an object, due to the atmosphere, you will have a less accurate, and slightly blue image of it. On the mountains at the back, you can hardly see the landscape. On the mountains in the middle, you can spot the trees. On the closest mountain, you can see the branches of the trees, the flowers, the grass. If the atmosphere in KSP would behavie such like that, low resolution textures could be used for distant objects, andhigher and higher resolution textures for the closer terrain, and, because very far terrain is not visible, the half planet shouldn't be loaded. This would not only make it look realistic, display the distance(good for landings!), and lower the system requiements, but really high, and diverse textures could be used for closer landscape, and it would look like awesome. Currently in the game, I have observed that 3 types of texture resolution is used. The one you see from space; where the ocean is even blue; The one you see from atmospheric flights, that looks like a creased paper; And the one you see when you are closer to the landscape. This is what you see during low-altitude flights, and while walking on the ground. Altough the texture is terrible from close, this is used as many times at low altitudes, that it's homogeneous . 3 is not enough. Altough the fog would help it, we need at least 10 types of resolution. Due to the fog, the mountains at the left shouldn't even be visible, but a high-resolution, excellent texture should be used for the grass you are walking on. Of course, on higher altitudes, due to the rare atmosphere, even distant objects become visible. A lower-resolution texture should be used for the mountains, and the launch site too. I am waiting for your replies, if you find a problem with it, tell it me so I can update this thread.

I see your point, bigger nukes are necessary. But wouldn't they be overpowered? At least, they should be have performance than 1m nukes. Using the large one is comfortable, using many small ones is more efficient. Just like with other rockets. In career mode, I never use 2 or 3 m propulsion. Using lots of 1 m parts is a lot more efficient.

it's easier to land there.

I don't like it. You would need an additional seat with the common 2m capsule to plant flags.

I normally don't use a crew with more than 3-4 employees (tourists don't count). Those who are 'accidently smashed' can be replaced with the rescured ones. I don't think this could be hard. Of course, if you can have as much scientists as possible.

Yeah! If I used the rotation/offset tool to offset something, this shouldn't be resetted if I move the part again, in place mode, or I just copy it. But instead of inserting a new mode, the copy mode, where this would work, it would be easier to make it work with Alt-clicking. Of course, I keep seeing people who never never ever use hotkeys. For them, it would still be better, if once you've clicked the 'copy' button, your next click will copy a part.

Alt-clicking would still be easier.