Sasquatch_Punter

I use the claw, but imho only docking ports and kerbals on EVA should be able to connect the fuel systems of two ships. It would be nice to have fuel ports with lines that kerbals can drag around and attach to other fuel ports. There needs to be more to do during EVAs.

For launch stages I like practical, aerodynamic designs, so my rockets tend to look generic on the launch pad. In space is a whole other story, especially when I start building up stations. Then again, I used to play with a 2Ghz Core2 Duo laptop that was 6 years old... Building fancy-looking stuff was easy, but flying basic rockets was the only way to get playable framerates.

Craziest-sounding mission I ever attempted: taking a suborbital EVA report in Jool's atmosphere and returning the kerbonaut to my Laythe ground colony.

I just build a few research outposts around the Mun and Minmus, then pretend that they're performing offscreen while my major exploratory missions are in transit. What bothers me more are the asteroids. Who knows how many giant E-Classes hit Kerbin every year? Imagine how tedious stopping every one would be... Ugh.

I think it's also due to the way the wheel module handles surface geometry; riding over an edge onto a very shallow decline causes momentary "air", and the wheels end up bouncing around as they fight to regain traction. On heavier rovers the suspension is loaded moreso to both decrease this air and push the wheels into the declining surface, therefore you have better handling of edges. The problem is that this isn't all that realistic. Neither is the sliding that kerbals experience when they hit the ground at high speed; regolith isn't smooth, it piles up like sand and slows objects immediately.

@HvT The lunar landspeed record is currently about 5m/s, yet slopes still cause lateral slide when trying to drive straight on the Mun at that speed. The problem is that traction gradients aren't implemented very well; you can see this in effect when your rover takes a small turn and you have a sudden unexplained loss of traction, followed by your wheels catching the ground and flipping your 3-ton rover on its ass. A light, 1-ton rover should have more than enough mass to get traction on Duna, but inevitably they start sliding and the wheels start lifting off the ground. This isn't a small, isolated incident, either; the forum search turned up a bunch of threads about this exact issue. @RIC, I didn't hear about that. That's good news!

I'm not sure why, but every surface in this game feels like a skating rink. You crash, and your parts go sliding down a gentle slope for miles. Kerbals glide along the ground at high speeds instead of ragdolling properly. Even rovers can't handle more than 10m/s before their wheels start acting drunk... In all honesty, driving is one of the least fun and most annoying aspects of the game for me, when it could be so much more fun. Imagine driving high-speed rovers across Duna or even Minmus without having to contend with the sliding bug? Or wheels that are responsive to braking and never take 30 seconds to go from 10 m/s to 0. Imho the ground-related physics need love too.

LOL, good. Seems like an obvious addition.

I haven't seen this mentioned on here, but with the new mining/resource processing mechanics, doesn't anyone think the stock game should incorporate reattachable fuel lines for surface refueling? Something similar to what KAS does, since being forced to use docking ports on the ground can be fairly frustrating.

I still do it, but I'm smarter about it than I was. No more 2km/s vertical speed reentries on Kerbin. Honestly, I'm pretty happy about that. It makes deorbiting stations a lot more fun, too.

Simple answer: make your craft aerodynamically stable. Payloads and fairings that are as streamlined as possible, plus fins (preferably controlled ones) at the bottom of the first stage. The less aerodynamic your ship is, the longer you need to wait before starting your gravity turn. You know, it's really not that tedious. I have a lot more fun designing my ships now anyway.

Not really. It's more inline with harder difficulties in the early game, but becomes much easier after a few good missions. Hell, I play hard 100% of the time and can pretty well just breeze through it. Hard mode is set up to punish inefficiency, but for people who've already mastered efficiency it's a cakewalk.

It's a compromise between realistic and fun. The drag system is pretty realistic AFAIK.

Looks perfect to me. Just the right amount of distinction without being distracting.

+1 First time I've actually had to restart a career play through due to being beaten by hard mode. I barely orbited the Mun with tier 1 buildings before I realized that I blew the budget on tech I didn't need. Strapped for cash. Forced to get creative with basic tech because a renovated R&D facility costs over a million funds. No EVAs. No patched conics. No maneuver nodes. Can barely get enough science to unlock most basics because missions are 100% harder without all the nagivation aids. Can't even launch a Mun lander before upgrading the launch pad. You have to fight to survive in Hard Mode now.