tater

Yeah, but they need to be USEFUL.

Really this falls into the broader category of "cameras." Assuming a revamp of science (more below), they could add: Low-res camera (starting tech science item). High-res camera. Space telescope. Revamp of science: 1. Separate "contracts" generated by 3d parties from "missions" generated by KSC staff. Pure science would be heavily weighted to come internally. 2. Science contracts would be generated in a way that requires certain accomplishments before others are suggested by Linus/Werner. Mapping bodies for appropriate landing sites (lo-res first (space from orbit, basically), then high res of areas of interest (the latter being like visual surveys we have now). High res would generate landing missions. 3. Space telescope would function as low-res for anything outside Kerbin SoI, high-res for Mun/Minmus. This means you could unlock the visual survey missions from Kerbin orbit for distant worlds.

No, sorry, the guy above me said the name was confirmed… I knew it was a real name, and who she was or I would not have posted it, so his use of "confirmed" confused ME.

An actual space race would be awesome gameplay, IMO. A good reason to undertake... Not optimally tested missions.

Cool, I was right (and on reddit, too (spudly is me)).

Or Ven, which also begins with V.

Valentina?

Way, way less than beer. It paid for itself the first weekend, honestly.

The contracts right now are entirely screwy anyway. FP added some good new contracts (that still need a lot of work, IMO), but the stock contracts are mostly bad. They should separate commercial contracts vs "missions" that are dreamed up by Linus and Werner Kerman ("Explore the Mun," the survey other planets (or temp, seismic, etc), etc). Then perhaps the satellite contracts could follow those guidelines. The base idea is OK, but there are not enough parts to be concerned about this. Think about it, I want to make a decent size rocket, but the only company making big tanks I get penalized for buying from?

They could, presumably, add kinds of procedural parts that are not as adjustable, right? Like you can only change the diameters to stock values, and only change the lengths up to certain limits (as PP does, unlocked by the tech tree). Same with wings, have a few shapes, and allow simple scaling of them within some range.

LOL. Barbentina would be cool, though. Add a line so that if Barbie shows up she has 100% stupidity. Another suffix: arella Barbarella

Sally (Ride) as for other names, I like the oddball kerbal names best. Names are randomly generated with prefixes and suffixes. Suffixes are easier to start with: a ana ara ava entina ia ie ina ine ita lana ova uki y Some prefix ideas: M Oliv Svet Val Tam Dam Mar K Sam S Barb Kath Beth ...

Not a good idea, IMO. Right now, pretty much the only difference in parts is size, it's not like there is competition among 1.25m engine companies, and you have a few to choose from in each thrust/Isp range. If there were multiple choices for ~200 kN engine manufacturers, then it might have some meaning. A variant would not be parts, but contracts. Perhaps by taking contracts from one company, its competitor might be less likely to use you? Or another company pays a lot because they are hated, and working for them hits rep. That makes more sense to me.

So I've been switching between 64X and Jumbo 32. I like both, but honestly, this setup should be stock, IMO. I've been playing a career set to normal, but with astronaut respawns, etc unchecked, and I leave revert/saves, but only use them for when I get nailed with a bug. FAR/KIDS/KJR/DRE as well (these have become pretty much required for me as a baseline). Even on normal, there is a reasonable challenge just getting to orbit with stock parts (I forgot to throw PF in last night, but I will this evening), having to upgrade facilities, etc. Kerbin also feels more like a planet (as it does in all RSS mods I have tried).

What one would reasonably expect aerodynamics to behave like is what aerodynamics actually behaves like. Anything else, would be what someone… I dunno, irrationally expects aerodynamics to behave like. What order approximation they do is up for grabs. - - - Updated - - - PB666, adding science missions is just eye candy (some new parts). The science system is so screwy, and provides nothing but "points," that I don't think it's worth much improvement unless it is profoundly changed, as well as how it interacts with the reward system of the tech tree. I'd like to see the paradigm of science change such that there are experiments that actually provide the player with useful information to complete missions.

Not really, other than exploring everything. The KSP reward system is all about the tech tree, and you'll likely fill that in 100% before the first year of your program is done.

Not all bodies have magnetic fields, or fields that would provide useful information. The real moon, for example.

This, right here. I paid 20-something, and I have gotten way more enjoyment than that expenditure.

I name them about as well as Kerbals name their children.

Very nice job.

I never said that. I said one aero, and disassembly and reentry destruction being toggles to ignore (a functionality both FAR and DRE already have). Easy no reentry or disassembly effects. Normal yes to reentry, no to aerodynamic failures. Hard is yes to both. FAR is not hard, just different. I think that is OP's point.

Easy, normal, hard. Basically sets of prechecked boxes.

I think IFLS or Snacks (with death) makes more sense for any base game implementation. A certain percentage in any system is recovered, and there must always be additional consumables added to that to maintain life. Lumping them into one consumable is a perfectly good abstraction. On topic (closer, anyway ) realism does not require even minute detail be simulated in real time, some things are fine to abstract as long as the outcomes make sense. Aero is not one of those things, or, rather, it will of course be abstracted, but as the player interaction with it is on very short time scales, it needs to be more accurate. I don't think that the community is even an issue, huge numbers are modded, and since there are no "supermods" where people are all on the same page, there are nearly as many installs as people. A common game simply is not a thing. Honestly, the current "difficulty" sliders are more grind sliders, IMO. None change gameplay, they just add odd speed bumps that bear little to no bearing on reality.

Why not? For aero, I see no reason to, though you could certainly have a toggle of RUD events as a result of aero, I suppose. For Life Support (the single biggest realism change which unambiguously impacts difficulty, IMHO), it could be a toggle, or possibly have levels of difficulty (hard tracks it, deaths, etc, medium could track it and merely impact rep, like Snacks (you can edit Snacks to kill as well), and easy with it off entirely. Reentry? DRE has diff levels already. I agree completely.

It's important to reiterate that it is easy to have certain realism features a difficulty toggle if coded in. In addition, I think many would prefer stock to have more realistic options because stock will likely always be more optimized. If we don't need as many physics mods, we can use that overhead on eye candy and parts.