DundraL

Uh guys, I think all the stuff about boats.... I think you are reading too much into this. I believe its a change for the way thing collide/ float on water. I dont thinks they are adding boat parts or anything like that. Just existing parts interact differently i think? EDIT: Also, will firing upright rocket engines decrease buoyancy if they are underwater? Causing the rocket to sink?

Sounds like 1.0.5 is coming along nicely.... Been looking forward to this quite a bit, and im really happy about the buoyancy change. Does this mean things dont kill themselves when falling over after landing on water?

Haha, a while back I wanted to do something similar with the pixels on a computer screen. With reduced resolution and color count, it is possible to systematically display every single possible combination of pixels on the screen... in a lifetime. Think about it.... Though the would mostly be random garbage on screen at some point there would be a picture of: Earth from space. A cartoon of you eating a tire. A picture of your mother holding a burning ketchup bottle. A blueprint for an undiscovered technology. Consider that text can be part of a picture.... The text of any national anthem, past current or future. Lyric to an unwritten song. A correct (and incorrect) text explaining about how the last human dies. etc.... every picture you can think of... yea you prb get the idea.

Yes it's possible. Just as rockets use chemical energy to fling mass out the back, you can also use magnetic fields to fling charged particles out the back.

Wow, what a bunch of ingracious, self-entitled BS i see in this thread. You didnt get a devnote? TOO BAD! NOBODY OWES YOUR ONE! Why would somebody be MAD at the fact that a game they like of going to be on another platform? YES! OMG ITS FOR MONEY! BLESPHEMY! Are you mad that squad isn't spending all their time for you/ your platform specifically? Making THEIR game fit whatever image you happen to have in mind? Are you MAD that they want money to continue coming to squadHQ and spending all day working on KSP? Squad is a business that relies on (OM MY GOSH!) money to pay their employees. Without employees, THERE IS NO FURTHER UPDATES TO KSP. Its not a @(&%^@ charity people. Your one time payment of whatever does not buy you slaves that work for the rest of their lives updating, tweaking, supporting, and upgrading KSP. Its money that makes it worth their time. The costs continue month after month and if the income doesnt, IT GETS SHUT DOWN. So dont be so suprised and offended when they do something to secure future funding for KSP. ITS A BUSINESS! ITS NOT EVIL TO PURSUE MONEY! GET OVER IT!

Anyway... back on topic.... As usual, I suck with words. Here's what I meant: I like this way because it can handle 30 degree slopes without tipping, and its easy to get in and out on kerbin once landed. It is also like to point the right direction during ascent AND descent. Its stable but not so stable you cant turn it to steer where you need it. Another idea that might work is for some pods to have their CoM adjusted towards their floors. That would help it during descent but hurt it during ascent, though you would have alot of room for stabilizing during ascent. It wouldnt do much overall but it would help with tiny capsule reentry.

Well from what I see, what you have is a design problem: Those fuel tanks act like giant fins when empty. If you kept them full I bet it would fly like you wanted.... but why haul dead weight around? Try a lander can with a heatshield on bottom with the tank above it. Thats what I usually do, as it keeps the CoM high on ascent and low on decent. That and it reduces the need for ladders etc.

Hi, just showing up with an item for the wishlist: a checkbox to calculate with airbrakes deployed. Considering they make a major impact of trajectory, I think being able to include them would be a pretty big change for the better. Anyway, thanks for the awesome mod, cant live without it!

Hmmm now I want to give it a guess... landing lights on all landing gear / legs?

Wow, this is amusing to watch people wracking their brains looking for more clues than are there... Roverdude, wait longer to say it! Or better yet, give more hints hidden inside other misinformation! This is fun to watch! Call the conspiracy theorists!

sounds great. add tech tree unlocks to be funds, and you got a hole in one =) TBH, I always thought sandbox players would really enjoy contracts even though they dont get any resources from em.

Wow, I didnt know about the inline fairing bit... still wont let me build the fairing first to allow for easier engine clusters.. but ... thats good enough I guess

I DO do that... but IMO, I think it would be nice to be able disable a probe core on a manned flight till I need it for automated return for example. Or maybe I don't need 5 probe cores draining batteries when I launch a rocket delivering multiple satellites to orbit.

Well, just as the title says this is a list of ideas I don't think merit an entire thread by themselves. If an idea gets alot of interest, or if I cant explain it properly in a paragraph, I may give it its own thread. TLDR: Dont post. 1: Add a fuel pumping function to docking node context menus: A click of a button starts evenly draining fuel from tanks on one side of the docking port and putting them evenly into the fuel tanks on the other side of the docking port. Simply moves fuel from one side of the part tree to the other (relative to the dockingport) . Fuel flow logic would still apply. (no effect on locked tanks or tanks separated with a decoupler.) This is to allow for an easy fill up at orbital depots, without coding to try to keep track of what parts are new to the current part tree. 2: Clicking altimeter to toggle between the display between sea-level and radar altimeter. Pretty self explanatory for the reason. Maybe a little indicator telling you which mode its in. 3:Jet engines: handle intake air indirectly to prevent asymmetric thrust. (its still a thing) by calculating TOTAL intake air rate (from all intakes) and TOTAL intake demand (from all engines) you can use that to apply the resulting performance changes to ALL engines. Directly subtracting intake air from each engine will eventually result in the last engine to take its slice of the pie to get less pie than the rest so to speak. 4:Handle the mass of intakes and jet engines as a system, not as independent components. This will allow more control of an aircraft's CoM. That or reduce weight on jet engines by a fixed amount and add that much weight to intakes. please note this thread has nothing to do with aero, thrust, altitudes etc. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/92819-An-arguement-for-a-simple-intake-jet-engine-tweak for more into on that problem. 5:Move electrical and thermal parts to their own tab in the editor. The utilities tab is getting over-crowded. Moving solar panels, batteries, fuel cells etc to their own tab. 14 parts I think. Make the tab have a lightning bolt on it. Should be pretty easy to learn. 6:Solar cells: Change the texture to show that it has a radiator on the back. This will help players realize the additional function of solar cells faster. 7:Science parts: Add a new science tab beside the resources tab for the in-flight UI. Clicking it should show you a clickable list of science parts on your vessel. Clicking one should result in "using" that experiment. Unusable ones should be greyed out or list the reason they are unusable/ already used. Should highlight the part like hovering your mouse over the part. Keeps you from having to mess with the camera to get it inside those service bays. 8:Bacon: make it crispy and delicious. Dang now I'm hungry. 9: Probe cores: give them a stand-by or hibernation mode in their right click menu. This makes the vessel uncontrollable, but the core stops using power. You can of course still bring it back out of standby. BONUS: put probe cores in standby when their battery gets really low. Make it a slider in the right click menu labeled "standby at power %" It would give us one last chance to deploy solar panels before a probe is lost. 10:An extra level of time warp available only on solar orbit above 50,000,000M.... Even at current max warp, it takes ages for things to happen way out there. 11:An easy way to do inline fairings based on squads UI. (assuming you are in the process of making a fairing already) click the rim of the fairing you are making (or press space?) to leave the top of the fairing open and create TWO (2) attachment nodes at the height of the farthest fairing section. yay, now we can have engine clusters for mid-stages.;Fail, this is already almost done and I didnt know it. Just add the ability to terminate fairing construction at any point and add a node there. 12:Improve fuel flow logic. Treat fuel tanks connected directly and inline to eachother as a single large tank...a "tankset". Drain each fuel-containing part in a "tankset" evenly. This prevents CoM from swinging so far towards the bottom of your rockets near the end of your first stage and causing a tumble. Fuel lines would still pull from other tanksets first. It would have no effect that would change existing designs, other than making CoM move around less. You wouldn't even need to change your design in 99% of cases. ... So thats a dozen ideas that I think would have a good effect on KSP gameplay overall compared to the amount of work required to implement. Sorry if some parts don't make much sense, I'm running on about 2 hours of sleep atm.

IMO they should just increase to atmo to 100KM, and reduce the ISP nerfs to ASL and VAC to a small degree. Id say make 360-370 to high end of chemical rocket ISP. That way, it takes more to get out of the atmosphere, more realistic scaling of atmosphere density, and allows for the balance that squad seems to be looking for. As for making the engines more realistic, I'd have to say that real rocket engines have a much better TWR than in KSP. But if all engines had a realistic TWR,the that would pretty much remove the variety of engines in KSP. Would you really care if your engine weighed 0.1T more with a difference in 15 or so ISP?