Hyakkidouran

I am not sure everyone agrees with you. If it starts zoomed in as you suggest many people may not like it. How about saving the zoom level at the end of the previous EVA and attempt to use it for your next one? Maybe that would appeal to more people. Also, it would be nice to be able to change the roll of the camera on EVA. I am always annoyed when I want to take a screenshot and I can't get the picture I want just because I landed my craft on a slope.

In general, planets further from Kerbin need to be a better source of science points. This way, even if the player could still max out things at Kerbin, a trip to another planet would speed things up so massively that the player would be encouraged to do it.

Leave future sci-fi tech for either 1)mods or 2)a future official expansion that would use the same engine to build a radically different experience. Vanilla KSP should remain a game teaching that science is not as easy at it seems, and that going into space is actually a huge deal. It's actually almost an educational tool rather than a game. I don't want this changed. I can understand it would be fun to do crazier things with the engine, but please don't put that in the official main game.

I remember reading a novel about explorers who discovered life forms in the atmosphere of a gas giant, but it was 1)not life as we know it and 2)fiction. XD Some people need to go back to geology class : the center of the Earth (which is far less massive than a gas giant) is so hot that stone behaves like a fluid. Despite the high pressure, it's just too hot to allow the existence of solid matter. If earth is already like this, just imagine how Jupiter is... I think Ghost13's suggestion is how the game should handle this. When a spacecraft goes under a certain altitude, just have it be destroyed automatically and give us a different text message. no need for anything more complicated.

"Super", I hope you are aware that your idea is ridiculous. I am sure some people find ridiculous stuff like this funny, but I am pretty sure most people who play (mostly) serious simulations like KSP don't like this at all. If you wish for something nobody else would ever want, then you must do it yourself. Work a little and you can create that planet by modding the game, and then you'll see for yourself the consequences Hilton would have on the gravity balance of the solar system (joke intended).

I thought a little more about this, and I believe it would be great if it was a difficulty option. I approved of that feature, but after several fails today, I was reminded that for me the game is already hard enough, and I really don't need extra difficulty. XD However, I can definitely see the appeal of such a feature for experts. So how about making this and maybe even some other aspects of the game optional? Maybe the devs could put in an "expert mode" which adds that kind of features. If it is disabled, then things behave as they do now. In fact, KSP could use difficulty modes in general. Along with integrated support for modded solar systems (so people can create crazy hard worlds or even easier ones if they want to), it would be the best way to make the most people happy. Airplanes simulators (IL2 sturmovik or flight simulator) often have difficulty levels that match the level of realism. KSP could go the same route.

Considering the difficulty of the game, it would give a sense of fulfillment to players. Especially those who are not exactly scientists and have trouble achieving orbit or going to the Mun : a cutscene could be a nice stimulation to persist and try to go further. Should be considered with low priority, though. The game still needs more important things, such as eradication of bugs and improvements to the interface.

I think implementing armor degradation like prophet suggests is probably too hardcore for most players. Unless it becomes a difficulty option that you could disable. Otherwise, having specific parts to accommodate for harsh conditions could be a thing. The player would have to launch slightly heavier crafts as well as remember to use the proper parts, which would add a layer of complexity that could be manageable. In order to be truly fair, the player should be able to learn fairly easily that he needs to use such parts on certain planets. Science experiments in orbit or in the upper atmosphere of a planet should provide obvious clues that this planet has a "harsh condition" modifier. Otherwise, it will just be an unfair rookie trap.

I just thought today while playing a session of KSP that the option of sorting the list by alphabetical order instead of mission time would already be a great improvement to the tracking station. It's less fancy and useful than the original suggestion, but I genuinely believe the dev team could implement a switch between mission time sorting and alphabetical sorting in a very short time. It would be a great feature! In fact, with proper naming, an alphabetical sorting could act as a substitute for groups and celestial body filters until they are implemented. Just give ships a prefix and here you go! I really want at least that feature now. Hopefully the devs will consider and implement it quickly. If I have alphabetical sorting, I would be able to wait a long time until we get something better. And I am sure I am not the only one.

Made a double post, sorry. See below.

+1 It's an easy change for the devs, so I see no reason not to do adjust the price so 1 unit of charge is the same price. The difference between being structural or not could be negligible. The upsides of each type balancing out (being structural vs behaving as massless).

I agree with the idea. It's too heavy for what it does. If the cupola of the real ISS is lighter than 4.5 tons then there is no excuse at all for having a less functional part being heavier, as you can't claim it's for the sake of realism.

I will say this in answer to GigaG, but this actually applies to a lot of people with suggestions for planets. Some ideas are interesting, but in general most people who imagine planets on this forum tend to come up with ideas for planets that are harder to reach than the planets in the current system. Problem is most players of ksp are far away from doing such things. Especially those who try to play the game without using the wiki. I consider myself to be decent at this game. I am at the point where I am attempting to reach harder planets, Moho being my current target which I keep failing to reach. I think I'll eventually be successful, but because I am still not good enough at optimizing my trajectory, I basically require at least 30% more delta-v than numbers I have been reading online (how the hell do you reach and orbit Moho from Kerbin with only 4000-4500 delta-v ? Can't figure it out.) I have read a lot of the wiki, and, even though I am clearly not a genius, I am an engineer with a childhood love for astronomy. I also had a lot of free time lately to play ksp. Despite my interest for astronomy, my science skills, and that free time, I am basically only at the point where I think "boy, if I could land on Moho, I'll would have achieved such a hard and awesome thing". I am at this point after 150 or so hours of playing, which is not an easy number to reach when you have a job and/or social life, as most people do. And even though I am not Verner von Brown, I started this game with knowledge that helped me a lot. Please remember that a lot of KSP players out there have less free time and less scientific background, and can barely make it to the Mun. A game should not be designed and balanced for the sake of the best experts, but rather so that the average player can achieve the main objective (in KSP, it is basically landing on each planet). It would actually be very interesting to have statistics. KSP seems to sell quite well, but I suspect a lot of people don't make it that far and ragequit the game. Performances of people like Jesse Cox on Youtube are great examples of an average dude's reaction to KSP. In my opinion, the game rather needs one or two easier planets, instead of crazy hard ones like the ones you describe. The best way to make everyone happy is probably to integrate into the game proper support for modded solar systems. This way the true experts would have their fun in the crazy hard systems they imagine, but a player of the vanilla version would have access to the default, more reasonable solar system. The default solar system we have now is huge and challenging enough for most people. If I were to add things, I would rather add easier things, which is why I am suggesting an oxygen gas giant planet with "gas rings" (could aerobrake in that!) as well as an "easier eve" planet. Those would not only be fun, but a much higher percentage of the people could actually enjoy that fun.

The idea of displaying the tracking station using the tree algorithm (what Kasuha suggested) is a good alternative to my original suggestion. The list in the stracking station could be reworked in order to display this tree just like windows or other operating systems display files in the file explorer : the root node would be the sun, and planets would be like folders that you could "expand" or "retract" with a "+/-" icon. It would be very convenient, and you would not even have to add any icon. The list structure would just have to be reworked a bit more. If the devs choose to do that I am fine with it. However I would still love to have custom groups.

I am not going to suggest planet names or say where they should be orbiting. i trying to think about this in terms of gameplay. Here are things that would be funny to see and experiment around as player : - A gas giant with rings is probably very hard to implement from a game programmer perspective, but it is probably the thing most players are hoping to see, me included. I guess it's probably easier to code if the rings are made of thin particles acting like a "fog" rather than thousands of actual thin rocks. - A gas giant that has an atmosphere containing oxygen. You could not land on it, but you could fly in its atmosphere using air-breathing engines. - Eve, except for orbiting, is actually the hardest planet to do things on, which is kind of a rookie trap as it is close to Kerbin. Maybe we could use a planet on the same concept and "easier" somewhere. (for instance, 1.2g gravity and atmosphere twice as thick as Kerbin). I hope this helps, but if you ask me, the game is already hard and long enough, and we don't really need many more planets. I have played maybe 120 hours of KSP, and I am barely at the point where I managed to land my first huge-scale expedition on a distant planet. 120 hours is a lot more than most games, and I can foresee needing at least as much to do everything I want to do (setting up a mini-base on each body, basically) If you don't cheat, this game is HARD, and you really need a lot of time to do anything. I think that keeping Eeloo (or replacing it with a different body on the same orbit) and adding one planet and one gas giant (hopefully with rings!) that has a set of 2-3 moons would allow the player to explore most possible situations and would avoid overwhelming the player with too much to do. If you follow my suggestions, I guess that gas giant would be one with rings and that allows the use of jet engines, and has 2-3 moons. And the "easier Eve" would be a planet somewhere, maybe close to Kerbin to keep the idea of a "easier planet". In fact, if the developers wish to, they could go with the idea of two "sister planets" that share the same orbit with a different angle around the sun. But maybe they don't want to do that because it would be too different from our solar system.

Hello, I don't know if this suggestion has been made already, but I have a few ideas to improve the tracking station a little bit. KSP is a great game, but once you have started setting up bases and rovers and satellites everywhere, the tracking station becomes very confusing. Sure, you can filter by type of craft, which already helps a lot. But because the list is sorted by mission time, it leads to confusing list orders. For instance, if I improve a lunar rover base 3 years later by sending my fancy new designed rover there, the new rover will not be at all in the same place in the list as my previous rover was. Example : MUN ROVER BASE 1 - 3 years ago MUN ROVER 1 - 3 years ago DUNA ROVER 1 - 2 years ago KERBIN ROVER 2 - 2 years ago ....(more...)..... MUN ROVER 2 - few days ago Since KSP is all about been organized and methodical, I believe it would be great to be able to manually sort this list and/or have more filter options. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Suggestion 1 : filtering by celestial body In addition to the filter by craft type, the game could offer the option to filter by body's sphere of influence. Using a drop-down list, the user could select a planet or moon defined in the game. Once that body is selected, only objects currently in that body's sphere of influence will be displayed in the list. The list obviously contains an option "All celestial bodies" which disables the filter and is the default option. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Suggestion 2 : "custom groups" (could also be called folders or custom filter) If I use the example above, it would be very convenient for me if I could access all the rovers and separate buildings of my Mun base just by clicking somewhere. Even if those are objects of different types ("rovers" and "bases"), and have been launched years apart, it would be great if I could regroup them in a custom group so that I can find them easily. A group could be created and renamed, and then objects could be added and removed from groups. In the example above, I would create a group "MOON ROVER BASE". Once I select it, the tracking station will only show all objects belonging to that group. If I wish to, I can combine the group filter with the type filter and the celestial body filter. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- There are several options for implementing this in terms of interface, and there is probably discussions to do. But hopefully those features sound interesting. I have worked as a developer and I can assume those features would not be very hard to implement, while at the same time being very useful for any player. Hopefully you will consider them. Good luck with the development!

Maybe go further into your save editing : if you change the altitude and reduce the speed to zero, maybe it will work?