tater

It's important to note that in this poll, "yes," and "don't care" are the same thing effectively, that Squad should not be concerned with it.

Never done this.

"Contract" is just a word. Relabel many as "Mission Ideas" with YOUR flag as the company logo. You are not "accepting" them from a 3d party, your space guys are sitting at the conference table at KSC spitballing ideas, and the one you "accept" is the mission you picked. Those labeled "contract would then be just parts testing, satellites, the odd 3d party space station, etc. Right now "Mission Control" for some inexplicable reason gives you "contracts." Really, "Tracking" should be Mission Control. So let's do that, relabel Tracking as "Mission Control and Tracking." Take "Mission Control," and relabel THAT to "Mission Planning Office." Got it? Now, instead of "Contracts," it now presents you with both 3d party contracts (just as a telecom might hire a rocket launch for their payload), as well as internal planning ideas from your own mission planning people (Gene, etc?). These missions would have science and rep rewards, and no funds rewards, although they would have funds up front, and possibly any needed tech as experimental parts to test. Failure in those missions would result in lower expectation missions being offered next cycle perhaps. Some of the science missions would be very broad. "Explore the Mun," "Probe to Jool," etc. There would be a wide selection. The point is to make actually doing the science more than getting to the SoI and hitting "crew report." If you were really tasked to get rock samples, the geologists would be telling you where to get them. Mission planners pore over maps to find just the right spot to maximize their few kg of rocks. Example: Go to Mission Planning Office earning in your career: 1.There is a parts testing contract for a rocket engine company that wants (yet again) some really absurd test done on their new motor. 2. There are 2 contracts to place various satellites (I'd have their payloads added to the VAB as a subassembly (no cost to you, it's "blue" like testing contracts)), your job is to put it someplace, then it ceases to be yours). Your planning guys have been brainstorming and have the following ideas: 3. Munar science. This mission plan includes a budget (funds up front as many contracts have) as well as a few parts and wants science from around the mun, including a few specific areas they want observed from fairly low altitude. Assuming this is successful, they'd like to attempt a landing at one of the sites observed, and EVA/surface collection done." 4. Orbital Science. Again, a budget, and a few parts offered. The lads sat up over too much coffee and decided that if they could put a few guys in a can, and leave them in orbit for a while, they could determine how long it took for them to go completely nuts. The mission requires (and supplies like a part testing contract) the hitchhiker and a clamp-o-tron, with the idea of putting a small station aloft, and the experiment is over and science gained after XX days on orbit. 5. (these are based on progress, so they might vary based on total science you've gained) Minmus science. Lower budget, just wants some preliminary orbital data for now. 6. Duna… same deal, but less of a budget until you have more science, or a launch window is coming, then you get the full-Monty Duna mission ideas (from exploration to trial habitation, etc). You can always do whatever you like as well, you'll just get a less science than now---with a science astronaut, you'd get 1/2 of what it is now, but seriously, who is not swimming in science by day 60 anyway?

I am actually thinking this more and more. As long as "science" is lumped together to give nothing but points, the only way to make it seem like you are doing something is to tell the player the story. 1. Massively drop all the no-contract science rewards. Keep them, but make them much smaller in magnitude. That munar soil sample? Not 120 points, maybe 12 instead. Scientists can still up them, and if the base reward was lower, then the science skill could simply be a multiplier. Skill 5 scientist gets 60 instead of 12, 4 gets 48, etc. 2. Science contracts would be done as progressives that make sense. These would have the large rewards in terms of science. Many would also unlock parts like test contracts. If the contract is to do a visual ID, which sets a spot for EVA and sample return, which then opens a couple landing spots to take seismic data in a new mission (samples have to be returned to set off last phase), it gives you the seismometer to do so. You get the idea, many of these get created.

I'm all for more science parts as long as they do something actually useful, and not just fixation as points harvesters. Like tie certain kinds of science to certain nodes on the tech tree. So you need surface science to develop some lander parts, and maybe space science (radiation levels in robot, etc) for habitation modules, etc.

Good points,GregroxMun. Development would end up taking time anyway if it was done right---not sit and wait time, but actual playing the game time. Ideally to unlock a Mk1-2 pod, for example, you might be given it as part of a progressive set of missions. Maybe orbit it for X orbits of a certain altitude or greater (basically a wide speed range to hit the atmosphere at), then reenter straight from that apoapsis (sort of like the recent Orion test in RL). Not instant, but not tedious. Such a progression might include something like many of the new FP contracts, only with that part, so it might have another mission to put it in Mun orbit or something. The player gets to us the part ahead of time though, so it's hardly a hardship (of course such parts need to include related, required parts or it would be silly, so you need staging, and at least a few 2.5m parts one way or another). I always have multiple things in the air in KSP after about the first week of the game, lol, so I always need to be careful about time warp (particularly with LS modded in). It's also FUN to have time constraints. I had a, dunno, kraken explosion the other day (I keep having some ships just explode when I switch to them). It was a munbase core, and the hapless new recruit pilot was on a now suborbital trajectory (periapsis was ~60, but apo was not much above 75, so it was gonna decay fast if focused) in a cupola module. I had a "tug" I made (really a pretty normal CM/SM combo with the mk1-2 I use for rescue, etc) at the station nearby, and I tried to rescue him FAST, even though without focusing on him while he was in the atmosphere, nothing would ever happen to him… because it was FUN to do the fastest intercept, rather than the best intercept. Such a generalized time-based scheme that OP suggests (or KCT, etc) allows for a space race as well, even if totally abstracted. The game could spawn in competing ships at some points in time (like it does for stranded kerbals) that would be en route tot he mun, or duna, etc… could be fun.

I'd like to see some 3.75m non-propulsive parts. A single floor hab/command pod (like a giant mk2 lander), a single floor hab with a garage/ramp...

I would like to see the "strategies" office actually include broad mission strategy for the program, then have the contracts a little more tuned to that. For example, you can pick from a few choices (or default to none and it is like it is now) like: Choose the overriding X-year of your space program: 1. Pure science. (Planetary exploration, space exploration, via probes, manned missions, etc) 2. Orbital presence. (stations, etc) 3. Private launch company. (satellite launches, other people's probes, stations, etc). 4. Mun/Minmus bases. 5. Duna exploration and habitation. 6. Others that I can't think of right now. So you'd pick one, then the contracts become more narrowed, in a way that presents you with appropriate tech to progress through (contracts can give you tech before it is unlocked, after all. For a starting game, some might be greyed out. You must do 1, 2, or 3 complete to some level, then you can switch to 4+, for example. Contracts would appear in such a way, and with useful tech to complete them. Manned Duna might include testing nuke engines, for example.

Yeah, I found this because I just grabbed KCT, and was gonna try it soon. Life support adds a time limit, and I have been playing with that for a while (just snacks, I like the idea of a simple abstraction of all consumable LS in one unit), and it really changes things as you need to resupply, etc.

There is nothing about having things take time that forces waiting if it is done right. A simple set of buttons by the time counter that step time forward, discretely (jump 1 day, 2 days, 1 week, 1 month, etc). Ideally, any such Squad designed feature would drop you back to "normal" time if there was a node coming up… try to jump forward a day, but you have a node in 2 hours, so it jumps you 1:50, and pops you to the ship with the node needing attention. This would be nice regardless, frankly. Right now, a player can easily go from ~1955 to 2055 in maybe 100-200 days without really trying to unlock everything past just playing. In career I tend to wait for a Duna window for missions, for example, and given instant construction, etc, I have the Kerbin SoI packed with stuff by the time the launch window is there. If things got spread out with a few weeks here and there for construction, my first Duna mission in a career might be a probe instead of Duna-direct with Habs, multiple vehicles with nuke rockets, etc.

Given the description, when I heard him say "pufferfish" I assumed that the wing parts are arranged radially.

I agree completely on both counts. I put FAR on after playing a few weeks, and honestly I have not noticed it was there (though I added PF to deal with things like landers, station parts, etc). This is perhaps because if it were not for these forums, I would still be assuming that aerodynamics was in the game anyway, and I would still be putting nosecones on things, making rockets that look like rockets, as I did from the very start. Related to aero, they certainly need to make reentry meaningful.

Importantly, he also said science was added before the rest, and was in need of the most work.

In terms of tech tree and KSP, it's not at all complex. You increase tech, and the nominally same engine gets better. The player need not tweak it, but better is better. More Isp, more thrust, else weight and same stats, adding an alternator, improving gimble. Same with fuels tanks. Same diameter/height, better wet mass vs dry (composites, etc).

I'd say predictable would apply to a noob whose only experience with atmosphere is the one they are breathing.

New players EXPECT aerodynamic designs to work, because they have not yet been taught that every single aircraft/rocket they have ever seen or heard of in real life is nonsense in stock KSP. I'm still kind of surprised that anyone has nay problem with FAR, I have honestly not even noticed it is installed.

Thanks for this. They really need to make sure that the descriptions match what happens in game at whatever level. New players see the descriptions, and read them (I did). When a landercan description says it can't possibly reenter… I assume it cannot possibly reenter. If aero is so hopelessly fubared such that FAR won't work, or won't be updated… I don't want think about being stuck in 0.90, but it will be effectively useless as an update.

Other games use instancing... Which is invariably awful. But they will do what they will do. I prefer the idea of semi-multiplayer. Have other player missions appear in my game as "NPC" window dressing. It can also then become a source of interesting missions (rescues, space race, etc).

I've had a few ships lately that have become "sticky" when you dock them together. I docked a couple mini-landers to a munbase, then landed the whole thing. Perfect, and the contract was fine. I had done this before, but forgot a part that was required on that, so I landed next to the first one. In the first base, Jeb transferred to the mini-lander (beats a rover to hop around nearby, though it does run out of fuel), undocked it (they were pointing sideways, along the ground), and my design as it so that when I put the gear down it stands up). Perfect. 2d base lands, now with the part needed to fulfill the contract. Do the same thing… mini-lander now a new ship, it is undocked, but it won't fall. I hit time warp… BOOM blows everything up, the parts even hit the other base 400m away and wipe that out as well. Yeesh.

Yeah, He-3 is best left to a near future mod, the usual suspects (water, etc) are perfectly reasonable. I'd actually be fine with Squad making actual parts to get some resources, and adding new facilities (like KSP) as an abstraction at the very top of the tech tree. Deliver "base parts" (they'd be large fuel-tank sized cargo pods) to a designated area (say you place a marker on the Mun where the water is, and have to land/store all within 1000m). Once you have delivered however many, along with a base to support 20 kerbals, you can build a permanent base. Small tabs, buried in soil, airlocks and antennae sticking out, and a power plant (nuke) away a little bit. It might include a landing pad area with a few lights. After that, you could add the mining/refining area. Yeah, they'd all look the same (maybe you could place/rotate the facilities?), but they could be designed in such a way the player can connect to them (they'd all have airlocks as well as at least one clam-o-tron sticking out).

"Crew report" could just as well be "science from orbit above Minmus" as ANY science or crew report triggers this. so the mission could be manned, or unmanned. The "Photography" could be a "survey" above 5000m or whatever, then the surface collection needs to be from that area (the FP stuff is in there, might as well use it).

MP and games that require time compression are mutually exclusive, or result in a cruddy game.

I have no idea if this is possible via modding, but couldn't a few technologies be new parts (what all nodes do now), and many would just buff existing parts with no change in their model? In "buffing" some, we'd actually nerf entry level parts, as well, so don't get focuses on "buffing" as a word. So there would be an initial lv-30 that might be heavier and lower stats than stock, then the current "stock" version at some tier, then maybe a late version with composites, etc that is lighter. Not vast changes. The only trick would be if there is a way to do this for NEW builds that won't upgrade ships already in flight. As for getting hung up on reality, I'm not saying kerbin needs to be identical, but my point of size vs quality still holds true. As long as the "tech tree" is dominated by quantitative differences in parts, and not qualitative differences, it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Almost everything in KSP is tier 1 if you use reality as a benchmark. The Apollo CM and LEM are mid 60s. With those maybe man-rated hypergolic engines are later? KSP doesn't require them, however, as all engines throttle and restart, and there is zero chance of failure. Spaceplane stuff varies between 1950s, STS, and beyond. Seriously, what KSP tech needs to be invented via "science?" Yes, you'd think that there should be a progression, but there mostly isn't, hence my horse/cart commentary. The problem is that KSP parts don't increase in stats, they increase in size. What tech should do is increase in efficiency. Better versions of the same parts using newer materials, etc. for example, solar panels right away, but they make very little charge, later versions get better.

Missed your RTG question. They were developed in the 50s and the USN launched one in 1961 on Transit 4a, a satellite used for Polaris missile guidance.