tater

Soviet is fine, but I agree with gregroxmun, the extant capsules are all "NASA" style, so gemini matches stock better. I often use HGR which has both Soviet style pods, and a Gemini analog. I also think that the 1.875m parts are just incredibly useful, particularly in slightly scaled up RSS configs, with otherwise stock rocket parts. With a full suite of Soviet-style parts, it would almost be better to have a full set in 2 styles, and you pick on or the other (just from a part/memory standpoint).

Sigh. What's your point? Of course you would do that. In KSP this would be a "contract" telling you where to land, frankly. You design/fly rockets, a planetary geologist would tell you where to land, you'd not pick place randomly when you are in orbit based upon what goofy orbit you managed to come up with. Everything would be planned. The site would be picked because you flew photographic orbiters first, and mapped, then you'd send something like Ranger to possible landing sites, then Surveyor to actually land there. None the less, the choices made are because they think there will be a better chance of finding particularly interesting stuff, Curiosity was sent to a location with a high-probability of interesting stuff, but how many particularly interesting things it finds are effectively random. I can go for a walk not far from my house in a site where there is a higher than average chance of finding dinosaur fossils. What I find on a given walk is random. Erosion determines what is on the surface any given day. On top of that, I could walk right over something, missing it, that a paleontologist would have spotted 10s of meters away. In KSP terms, the "biome" is a place where they'd expect to find certain stuff. So lowlands might have large flows like the Mare, and other, related geology. You'd not find mountainous geology there. So within that, you can either add hand-drawn areas of interest to maybe 2 places on the map, that even at tiny KSP scale are like needles in a haystack, or you make some that match the "biome" but can be placed randomly. Without intentionally looking for one, how many "anomalies" have you accidentally found in KSP? That's about what you can expect from hand-made "areas of interest," and the Mun has way more than most worlds, right? I made a point of seeking out the monolith, and even knowing exactly where it was, I had difficulty finding it (it was buried). I've seen no others, If I happen upon them, great. I don't think we disagree here even a little. Of course random is a tool. Random need not mean "utterly random," though. I can imagine a game that randomly generates worlds using a reasonable (simple) model of planetary geology---but I have no where said I want this for KSP, so it's off topic. I disagree entirely here. It's not painful at all. You add the tools to provide the data one would find on a wiki page. If certain data requires mapping, you send a flyby, or an orbiter. The actually useful science drives your choices instead of "Acme corp wants a satellite in polar orbit over Duna" or temp scans, etc. Meh. So we'd have camera parts, or other stuff to actually do that would give is the same data. KSP is all painful trial and error, the dev won't even give people dv data without mods. I never said planets themselves would be randomly generated. Reread what I suggested. I said Squad would make (the same way they do now) more planets and moons, and that these handmade planets would be used as the "pool" to make a random kerbol system drawing a subset of the planets they had made for any given kerbol system. The number of total planets might be 8 +-3, and the number of moons variable per planet (weighted based upon planet size, larger planets tend to capture more moons). Their orbital positions, and perhaps scaling would vary. So in some games the next planet out is Duna, in others it would be an entirely different world. Heck, it might be possible that Kerbin is a large satellite of Jool. Anyway, individual planets are just as good as they are now. It is wrong for no reasons at all. State one, please. For long-term replay. Again, if you can reread, the worlds are created in exactly the same way as they are now, or indeed, even as you might wish them improved. Squad creates some extras at the this same level of quality, and gives the return player the option of a randomized system---it builds a new kerbol system using the parts it has (pre-designed worlds). The only change might be scaling, done in such a way to not break things (a 2-3X RSS config is entirely playable with nothing but stock parts, so I'd limit resizing of planets you'd land on to that sort of scale, and might allow the gas giants to get a little larger since they are just gravity-well eye candy. My suggestion was that the thrill of exploring would be greater, and there is more replay fun if the solar system can change if you wish. Say 24 planets made by squad, only 8 of which are ever in any given game, and Kerbol and Kerbin remain the same. Perhaps Kerbin always has at least 1 moon for gameplay, unless it is itself a moon, then there is always an additional moon. What's the downside? I nowhere suggested inferior biomes, indeed I explicitly stated I am against sub-biomes, and only think that scatter level detail/sites should be random---we have scatter, why not make a subset of it actually interesting? - - - Updated - - - Here's what I mean by random, I'm going to clarify, again. Imagine a card game. Kegereneku seems to be saying that I want people assigned 8 randomly generated cards. 8 rectangles of paper with random stuff printed on them. What I am actually suggesting is that the game draw 8 random cards---from a standard deck of cards. The first has infinite possible cards, most of which will be gibberish nonsense (his point). My idea had 8 choices out of 52, carefully crafted cards that all make sense (in a card game, anyway). In any given game, your hand would be the planets you get from the deck of planets (placed sensibly in zones around the sun, BTW). A different experience each game, but not random in the bad way Kegereneku suggests. The more planets in the "deck," the more chances to play without a 100% repeat experience. If some small RSS-like scaling is thrown in, then it results in even greater replay value.

1.875 m parts to go with it, too.

I have a large number of hours (not Steam, so can't guess), and I start a new career with each patch, and with substantial mod changes, plus RSS configs, etc. And I'm doing OK in terms of replay. I tend to play with life support (I prefer low-resource count versions, like Snacks!/USILS, with kerbal death turned on), and even in stock I only send manned craft long distances that look like a Mars reference mission in terms of habitat space just for roleplaying. As a result, I have visited all the SoIs with probes, but have only sent manned flights to a subset, and have not landed on all bodies yet as any failure that I cannot possibly rescue before LS runs out is a major issue (I rarely have fatalities, and most have been kraken attacks with no quicksaves). Without mods I'd have played a lot less, I think. I also don't look at the wiki pages, or read up before hand on what to do. I made a probe "bus" that spread a few craft in a line to try different periapsis points to test aerocapture/reentry on Eve, for example, so I could get a feel experimentally instead of just reading a forum post. This is my way of keeping "fog of war." I never used tab to even look at planets I had not been to, and never even played with sandbox aside from orbital testing for similar reasons. I want to be surprised as much as possible. In short, I don't disagree with you, I did't think it was something worth squad actually doing (total, randomized kerbol system), I said it was "the best possible game from a replay standpoint'" not that it was what they should bother with seriously. It's more like "a perfect KSP for decades of replay of my dreams" not a serious suggestion. They need to fix what they have edit: to be clear, I'm against procedural sub-biomes, but I think there is some merit in random, procedural, scientific, "areas of interest" to investigate within rover range of a given landing site on a small scale-size that would only be discernible on th ground.

Again, I agree completely that areas of actual geologic interest should be taken advantage of, 100%. Heck, I think squad should do a better job of creating such areas in general. Change scale, though, and ask a simple question: Could an astronaut or probe ever find something of interest at a landing site that is not apparent from orbital photography? Yes, or no? If the answer is "yes," then you are either suggesting that Squad manually scatter stuff on this tiny scale all over every world very carefully, scatter it randomly over every world on a level that you'd find them at a reasonable rate---OR, it could be scattered randomly only in areas where the player has a craft capable of possibly spotting these tiny "anomalies" of interest (these would be actual geology). BTW, if you said "no," you are simply wrong, it's not a question of opinion. Curiosity, for example, finds things that were not visible from orbit practically every Sol. In the image above of the Apollo 17 site, that rock would have been barely visible in some high-res imagery. The LRO flying now can image Apollo sites with a resolution of ~1m, and the Lunar Orbiters of the mid 1960s did about the same. Ranger managed 0.5 m resolution on the last image before impact. You could tell boulders were there, but not if they were interesting for a geologist. The first 2 methods require literally millions of new, interactive scatters be added. The 3d method need only throw possibly a couple per landing site, likely 5 orders of magnitude less stuff for the game to track. There is a place for random, and it's on THAT scale size I am talking, NOT major features, visible from high-res orbital photography. The purpose of KSP is really to explore a solar system with a space program. Such a randomized system would have to be done in the context of changing the game such that there is "fog" about what the other planets actually looked like. Orbital elements are calculated with precision from ground-based astronomy, and some data about atmospheres is know pretty well (spectrometry). That said, the resolution of the surfaces would be pretty low. The first Mariner flyby utterly changed what people knew about Mars, for example. A random system need not have planets generated 100% randomly, BTW, they need only be placed and scaled randomly. Imagine the Kerbol system, but squad makes 10 more planets, and twice as many new minor planets/moons (tiny is size a, huge mons are size z)---they can be made at any detail you desire. A randomized solar system would simply alter the orbits, and pick 6-10 as "planets" and give each a chance to have moons based upon size (smaller planets get 0-3 moons of size a-g, medium planets might get sizes a-n, and gas or ice giant planets get moons of sizes a-z. All can be as designed, or scaled by a factor of 1 to 6 (size, and orbital distances). The scale factor would be capped in difficulty settings, since 6X is about like 6.4X RSS. Kerbin would stay the same (or maybe scale from 1-3X so standard parts would fine (3.2 kerbin is great with nothing but stock parts)), though it could have the orbital distance chance somewhat (within kerbol's habitable zone). So we have a random system that the player must explore to know about (again, better science instruments and "science" in general to meaningfully unlock the secrets of worlds, taking images (camera part, like scansat) to make a map view at whatever resolution, for example). The planets are just as well constructed (ideally better) than they are now. Randomization is involved, and it is unambiguously better for replay, with none of the negatives you mention (I granted all your positive improvements, so you'll need to explain how not having a wiki page for every world makes exploring less cool---the game will generate all that data as a function of what science you do (atm height, composition, etc, etc).

Sounds like you were grossly too steep.

Answering implies a question, and I see none.

There are only a couple reasons in game for any need to vet landing sites beforehand I can think of. One, if there were ground features that were hard to see from orbit that were capable of damaging a lander (small-scale features in the terrain). Two, if science returns were predicated upon picking areas of geological interest more precisely than the "biome" (should be renamed due to "bio") mechanism does.

Once again, we are talking past each other. The first thing to remember is that career mode, and the game in general are NOT going to change massively. I'd like it to happen, but the probability of that happening is ZERO. Given this, we have to work within ideas that have a non-zero probability of being added. "Biomes" are a thing. All the worlds need to be improved, so your idea of making interesting areas via "art" is not impossible, so that's a good idea. Scatter exists, as do "anomalies," so perhaps those mechanisms might also be used. I like your idea of detailed areas of interest... describe one to me, just an example. Is it possible that some of these areas of interest, as detailed as they might be are not really site-specific? (by site I mean the exact location on the map, not the type of terrain. Ie: interesting feature X only occurs in lowlands, but it need not occur only in a certain lowland area) Duna might be a better example, but for the Mun, we have scatter rocks, sort of like this, only rounded for some inexplicable reason: (the guy in the picture, Jack (Harrison) Schmitt, taught a unit on lunar geology I took a rather long time ago, as you might imagine, his slideshows were epic for a geology class ). Isolated outcropping like this that are different than the usual scatter would be a simple, random addition that would provide something to do on EVA. Once you land on a body it might have a % chance of generating a rock that is different from other scatter XXX to YYYY meters away from the landing site (far enough that it might look like normal scatter at a glance). Say just angular boulders for the Mun, instead of the rounded scatter. These would have colliders, too. Your idea would be great for things like Rilles, domes, or even a kind of material collected on the above Apollo 17 mission, dark mantling deposits. Those are macroscopic features and by definition need to be done to the terrain at large. What I am talking about is the sort of small-scale novelty that only gets spotted once you are on the surface itself. Think novel deposits that Curiosity finds pretty commonly. Geologists know what to roughly expect, but then Curiosity sends an image os layered sediment visible due to erosion, for example, and it's exciting. Invisible from orbit, obvious at EVA height. These features are not truly random, which is why we can use the "biomes" to chose appropriate small-scale additions. Areas that formerly held water on Duna would get exposed sedimentary stuff that a scientist could spot, for example. I was merely making an observation that this is the case. I wasn't saying to nerf the science to the point you needed to go to Jool to make a new rocket engine (dumb tech tree), just that by adding additional large chunks of science the whole tree might get unlocked far faster than it does already. In general, KSP needs a time-based mechanic. I suppose many play by warping any given mission to competition, to get time passing. I'm against planetary science buying technology, anyway, but there is no way that's gonna change, sadly. I don't disagree, actually, I have said many times that the entire tech tree is basically concurrent, and spans a gap from the late 1950s to the early 1960s You are "preaching to the choir." I think that the best possible game from a replay standpoint would have the entire solar system randomized each game, with detailed planets that are interesting, and the science is redesigned to gain useful information some of which is required to be able to play well (determining the important data about planets needed to safely fly there and return within the game, instead of consulting a wiki page---the data that requires spaceflight, that is, the baseline would be what you'd know from ground-based astronomy).

He might have been confused, as the very first release (way up the thread, obviously) had the main mod folder named wrong, and the work around instructions posted were to rename it.

That's EXACTLY what I was getting at, actually (persistent rotation, and radially mounted modules).

Really cool mod. I have a suggestion for parts. It struck me in stock, that it would be cool to have a command pod, and habitat that were exactly the same size and mass as the MPLab part (3.5 tons). It would allow for a radially docked, large spacecraft for outer system exploration that feels like it includes what it should include. Alternately, a command pod and science lab that are the same dimensions and mass as a habitat, since you already have a habitat. Alternately, assuming the same diameter, the ability to stack certain parts to make a meta part that is the same size/mas as the biggest/most massive. Some way to easily make a balanced craft that doesn't have to always have symmetric modules opposing each other radially.

I don't, either. I play with LS, and aside from just bringing supplies, I bring at least hitchhiker for every couple kerbals for Duna (even more stuff for farther out), plus a kerbin reentry vehicle, often more. in 0.90 I unlocked everything in no time, way before Duna. It takes slightly longer in 1.x due to the lower science from contracts. Brand new career with the kerbal planetary systems mod, and I have probes on Duna and Ike now, and 2 vehicles en route with astronauts (1 unmanned ahead with a hab and fuel to leave in orbit). I have a few of the 550s left to unlock in the tech tree, so it's not totally unlocked. Wanna say it's around day 255 of year 1. So 1 year ago, no kerbal had been in space. Before the year is out, Kerbin will have exhausted all possible improvements in spaceflight technology, and will have landed kerbals on both moons, and Duna. There are a couple of permanently crewed bases on both moons, with transfer stations above (I cycle resupplies and new crew so the crew can become useful skill wise). So the question is, how many days should this take? Sputnik launches, and before the year is out cosmonauts are on Mars? By the time Kennedy makes his speech, there are men en route to Jupiter? Or is it 4x shorter because of kerbin days?

This is a joke, right? If you don't have everything unlocked in career before even the first decent Duna transfer window comes along, you're doing something wrong. How many Kerbin days from never launching a rocket to unlocking everything should it take? Nerving the science, aside from just generally making sense, in this case would have a net effect of nothing, or positive science as there would be additional stuff per "biome." If there are 3 new EVA things per "biome" then you really want 3X the science? I'd say they'd want no more than the total of normal, + 3 observations to be close to what it is fir the one set now.

There is a good reason for "random," IMO. Replay. If the only really cool places are always in the same few spots, you know where to land every time. So how about a slight variant... For each region or group of regions depending on the body Squad makes, I dunno, 10 "areas of interest." Instead of tweaking the map directly, these will appear randomly within that region type in some fashion. Instead of just an area like the dumb survey contracts, they could be something like interactive "scatter" or the anomalies. No more than 2 or 3 of these would ever appear in a given career, so you might go a while before you see all of them. Some might be boulders that are substantially different than the scatter (all would be solid), others might be a sort of "decal" on the surface that changes the color (some sort of neat geology, perhaps ice in polar craters). Your idea about awesomely done areas of interest is also a great idea, that's the kind of anomaly I'd like to see instead of what we have. Stuff that is plausible, the real universe makes some stunning topography.

Instead of bothering with geomes/regions (I agree that biome needs to be dumped for obvious reasons), why not have new science predicated upon: 1. Science already done at that area. The game knows that you get X (where X might be 0) points for a surface sample at a particular spot, right? If X=0, then the game generates contracts. Yeah, it requires going to the contract office, but heck, Squad called it Mission Control, and this would be the first time it actually fits as a name---Mission Control gives to a mission to go to area X, Y, and Z and get more data. 2. The skill level of the scientist. Perhaps the number of alternate locations for science generated by the contract is the science skill level of the scientist plus a random number between 0 and n? Make pilots and engineers have a low chance, and scientists a higher chance. Perhaps science skills a multiplier? New Locations would be a random number between 0 and 2 multiplied by science skill.

I'm not against this, but there is already too much "science" WRT to the tech tree, etc. If something like this were added, I think all science values should drop. That said, a few points: 1. procedurally means "randomly," basically in KSP terms. I would make them less random, and predicated upon: A. previously generated science for that particular body. B. previously generated science in/over that geome (biome really needs to go, "biome" requires biology). C. the presence and skill level of a scientist on the scene---more science skill allows them to discriminate between more of the same, and features of genuine interest. D. possibly the completion of contracts related to that biome (including "Explore"). To maximize the science gains on your first crewed munar landing, for example, you should have to take data from orbit, over the biome, then previous landings (probes, since this example is your first kerbal there). Each would add the possibility for novel areas to be found near the landing site. Since the first mission is probably NOT a scientist, but a pilot, it will get less total science. Coming back to the same site with a scientist will generate more possible science. This would be nice because it would encourage more diverse crews.

I have looked. I like your stuff for bases a lot, I'm just not wanting the entire suite of other stuff, and I'm trying to keep memory use low (I'm on a Mac) for stability (fingers crossed for U5). Again, cool for bases. That said, I'm not happy with 2.5m parts for longer term bases, I want more elbow room Also, inflatables are cool, but they need to get covered with a couple meters of regolith

Yeah, I was way off topic. For mods, we have to be content with large bases. I'm commenting partially on the semantics of "colonization," which implies more than a cool base to me. KSP really offers just a smidgen more than what the RL ISS is.

I don't use ions much. What about the giant battery part? It holds 4000 EC, which is a 457.7 second burn with the ion according to the wiki. That would consume ~1/3 of a pbx150 for all of 0.2 tons, right? Chuck something on it to trickle charge the battery, or just put 3 on there if you need to use 700 xenon in 1 burn. You can lock them when not in use, too. Why are batteries not a good choice?

I checked out that mod, had missed it before. Cute, but not what I consider colonization. If the KSC looked like the sort of place where kerbals lived like ants in a hive, then it might make sense. They seem to build stuff that looks rather a lot like we have on Earth, so I'd expect real colonies to have to have apartments for kerbals. The greenhouses could also be parks for them to have common areas to walk around. Obviously things would always start small, then grown, but a small colony (vs a base) in my mind would be as big as KSC. A colony is people/kerbals being born, and living their entire lives there. I see anything meeting that standard as being akin to an O'Neil colony (landed or not). I think it's beyond the scope of KSP 1.X, but I think it would be awesome for KSP 2.X (which I would pay for).

There are no good ways in KSP to model programming things, and light lag given the inability to deal with anything out of focus. Craft should be able to do what they are told to do, even if the player is busy doing something else. Not just a KAC warning for the player to watch the craft, then effectively manually send the EXEC command in RT, but to have the craft automatically execute any maneuver node it comes upon. I suppose a work-around would be to have the game check the craft vs the planned node, and determine how much of that node it can actually execute using the current stage, then calculate the resultant patched conic for that. Next time the player selects that craft after the node has passed, it uses the new conic. If you make a node that the craft can actually fulfill, then the planned node (dashed line) is the conic the game will use. The craft would show an inaccurate path in the tracking station, I suppose, until you selected it, then it would retroactively switch (sort of like catching up ISRU after being out of focus).

He's likely assuming the sublimation that is occurring is from extreme heat, would be my guess, even though it's below the triple point.

This. Given the insane timeframes with the inability of the game to deal with constant acceleration trajectories, FTL is required. Perhaps you have an artifact someplace weird, like polar orbit above Kerbol... sort of like Gateway (a Fred Pohl book). IN that book, the spacecraft were there, and you got in one, and it took you... wherever it came from. Randomly to the pilots, but not random at all. Perhaps you get there, and doing so unlocks a new docking port for Gateway. You then dock with it at an empty port (it's a huge asteroid with docking ports all over, each with a latter above it (in a cool, alien alphabet)). There can then be a button to "jump" and you blink to being docked at some station like the one you left somewhat (different letters). Now you can explore a new system.

I'd like to see "on rails" constant acceleration trajectories, then nerf the living **** out of the ion engines