mattinoz

Have to say I'm not a fan of the current UI with the 80's clunky fonts and buttons but it's seems that is just what you get with games. <Old man yells at cloud> Damn you Mindcraft </> The only thing that has really bothered me about the Altimeter readout is that is at the top of the screen and would be to me if all the info was clustered together near the Navball. I don't mind a change of the style. Indeed I'd love to see a Pixie Tube Readout sticking up from the bottom of the screen but that would be just as skeuomorphic as current.

Closest you will get to a solid list is :- http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Planned_features Or the "what not to suggest list" which frankly could use a Post-Release clean-up. I'm not just suggesting this because it would give us clues as to plans post Unity 5 mega update.

Given a 747 travels at 250m/s (according to google) and you can walk around the cabin I don't see why Kerbals can't walk around closed cargo bays if there is enough gravity to cause friction. They should be able to wing walk if flying slow enough. Given the new wheel system handles friction could it be adapted to give kerbal feet friction as well?

More auto populating action groups would be a real bonus as well. For things like air intake, solar panels, cargo bays would delete a lot of what always feels like meaning less busy build work. Still other than making a highly tweaked VTOL not sure how having an action group for each control direction would be useful. Would you have these groups act as momentary-on actions? So for example they switch a air intake from open to closed when the key is pressed but they flip back open when you lift your finger. Then again more/better action groups can only be a good thing and should always be supported in my book.

Sure it gets easier in one aspect but it opens the door to different challenges that have their own hardness. To me it's more about breaking the learning curve in to understandable chunks and giving new players the info they need to learn how that information fits the mix. Even setting challenges to help push the understanding.

Hopefully the complete rework of the staging code and UI will mean we see dV and TWR incorporated in the new UI. Ideally to me each stage that add or removes engines would have a widget with TWR either as a hard number or even as a less accurate series of pips. Also dV should be in there as well just as given. Yes it's something that players should learn but really it's laborious and boring and very much un-fun once you've done it a few. If not full dV to start with at least give us dry mass / wet mass and take the most tedious part of the process out. Then expand it and make the calculation more complete as the VAB upgrades.

Couldn't you place a fairly low efficiency engine on your craft then burn the fuel off as you enter the atmosphere? Place it to fire retro and in the direction the nose wants to move. That way you can use throttle to help hold angle of attack during reentry and the pressure of control system. Get some use out of the fuel while also draining it. Still would be good to have a part with a drain off mode.

So it would be similar to the way the new relays will allow transfer pilot skills?

Instead of planting flags - Tourist should pitch a tent so they can stay at a destination for a while.

Yes please, using 8 place anywhere RCS thusters on the back seems like a good idea until you have to translate forward for more than 20secs.

Can't speak for others but I know I've supported more rover, plane and rocket parts. Other than the memory management issue (which should be fixed regardless) I see no reason not to have more of all of them.

I agree with the Dev's part failures on flying craft would be bad. To me the alternative would be to add a chance that a recovered part wouldn't pass certification and not get credited to your account. What ever "credited" means in terms of being added to a part number or funds. The chance of this failure could be higher the harder the game setting. I always though at some stage the game would get a Jeb's junkyard - ie a random heap of lowish tier parts to start with and search for hidden gems to start your flying adventures.

Well the junction edges of KSC create some funky angles and conditions for rover testing. A concrete slab out there as spawn point would also be useful for engine and part test contracts. Objects built and named in this building could then appear as sub-assemblies in the other construction buildings. So you can build your rover send out to test then when ready to send it elsewhere get quick access to it. Although to me this would be useful for building or refining sub-assemblies.

If the engine handling orbital position is broken out to its own process that can handle any number of craft couldn't they then reduce the physics bubble of each ship down to say 100m outside the furthest part or even smaller? The he other question that always comes to my mind is why do docked ships become one? at least in an orbital situation couldn't they be a bunch of very tight bubbles orbiting in formation. If one part or multiple of these parts accelerate that produces a collision that accelerates the next bubble.

E: all of the above

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/TVR-200_Stack_Bi-Coupler I think the existence of this part in game is almost enough proof for that a 1.8m part size is needed. Are there any real rockets that use this twin core style?

As long as it comes with a Gemini style adaptor equipment module with integrate rcs thrusters and retro engine it would be a good addition. Or or could be more Russian style. Really why not have another 3-4 capsules in the game.

There should be a zero tier for the admin building. zero being just doesn't exist then if you never go in it wouldn't be a blight on the landscape.

But what if you want to use the waste to seed your colony with organics? I mean if you were seriously starting a long term off-world habitat then bio-mass is going to be a valuable commodity. After you paid all those funds to get a bunch of Kerbals to Duna it would then be an epic waste of waste bring back that resource to Kerbin where there is, by all reports, no shortage of poo. So if the resources are massless and tied to container weight. I can't efficiently ship back an empty (or with just enough supply for the rotating crew) container to be refilled for the next supply run.

Another person agreeing with something like, if not just, USI life support. Keep it simple keep it friendly, keep it kerbal. Only thing I would add to the above is API hook for more complex modes to build on top of stock life support instead of starting again from scratch.

Call me crazy... but I don't see how this is a problem. Clearly game time wins the day if I wrap ahead of that it's at the risk someone will invalidate my time line. Indeed this to me only adds to the strategy. So Player A wraps ahead grabs a window and goes and catches the asteroid. Player B then has a couple of options seeing they hold the game time control. 1) find a faster path to win the race and seeing they control game time make it impossible for player A to win. 2) put something in player A way to invalidate their timeline but in the process hand them control of game time. Then the situation reverses. Good clean competitive fun.

Because the Kerbal's arms aren't long enough to reach them?

I'd only add maybe they should take a look at VAB/SPH hanger and unify all of them to consistent style and logic. Overall fully agree remaking the same mistakes as they update to Unity5 UI just because that's how it was done would be a colossal let down.

Yes Please. It's been suggested a lot but I think it's getting more and more of a requirement for stock.

That's a Stirling idea.