Vermil

Exactly my feelings as well. I play the Science Sandbox game (100% stock) and only getting access to more and better technology successively, as you progress, makes a lot of sense to me. "Rebalancing" rarely does. It comes with a lot of problems for many people. So logically, what the game needs is the addition of a 'modern' 2.5m Mk3 pod, and a modern 3.75m Mk4 pod. IMO, any modern command pod should also feature a rear-facing door (unless you choose to close it off with a heat shield) for access to other spacecraft crew modules, such as habitat modules, labs etc. I also note that with the exception of sub-orbital Virgin Galactic, all other Earthly space agencies all agree that reusable pods is the way to go for future manned space vessels. Safer, stronger, lighter, cheaper, more flexible.

Well, some time ago I finally got my Laythe mission together. A goal I've worked hard on for a long time. So the old hard nails, - who else? -, Jebediah, Bill and Bob started their long journey towards Jools and laythe. The real crux of this epic mission is getting into orbit around Laythe. That perhaps requires a bit of luck with slingshots. I've done it before,.. ...but I'm not comfortable with that kind of maneuvering yet. (That was an unmanned dress rehearsal) Meantime, I didn't have the energy to rush things, so I let the boys cruise along in space and did something else. Started work on my new generation of rockets, based on the Mk3 Spaceplane cockpit as command pod. First out was a new moon rocket. I hired some more astronauts, three green girls, and let some old hands take them on their first trips to Mun. After that, the planets lined up and I figured that Ikaros E, the latest iteration of my trusted Ikaros family of Duna rockets, hadn't been tested on a live trip yet. What better job for the three new gals? So they loaded up and away they went. Now they have about a year to spend on Duna, before the routine return trip. Meanwhile, I will concern myself with the boys' rendevous with Laythe.

Well, if you feel confused, you could maybe question your assumptions. I will always hesitate to ask for any specific part. I leave the design details of the game to the developers. My feedback (or complaint, if you will) concerns the lack of consistency and rationality. A holistic view. I feel the game has to make sense. How they achieve that is up to them. When I'm 'forced' to deploy a spaceplane cockpit as rocket command pod - because of the huge weight savings - and then have to offset a monopropellant tank in an overhanging position, to stop the rocket from crabbing sideways and toppling over during landings, and build ingenious and highly complex swirls of ladders around, taking hours to align properly, in order to have crew being able to reach the ground and board again, then the gameplay rational fails. I do not specifically ask for any specific part. I ask for the gameplay to make sense. But like a Mk 3 pod, that sort of thing was more in my mind than a rebalancing of the Mk 1 - 2. *** You bring up a point that is worth consideration though. Rebalancing. Again, it's not something I'll meddle in, but if the developers feel they need to do anything like that, I suppose I have to accept it. My comment comes from v1.0 reaction to my existing rockets: "Contains locked or unavailable parts" or "Unavailable experimental parts - Unable to launch" This is perfectly acceptable in a transition from v0-versions to v1.0. But I hope to not see it often in the future. How the developers accomplish that is really irrelevant, so I perhaps shouldn't have assumed that changing existing attributes is the one and only factor.

The physical simulation is more complete. While I agree that proper aero and heat are nice and satisfying, my point ignores how 'complete' the sandbox is. It's a peripheral consideration. You can have a complete game regardless of the depth of the simulation. And it will never be 'complete'. We will, for instance, hopefully not have to spoonfeed our Kerbals or take them to the bathroom. But the v1.0 gameplay is less complete. The gameplay is about achieving space exploration goals by designing and building space crafts from parts made available, and then fly them. You have a nuclear engine. You have no tanks. The gameplay does not hang together, and it's extremely hard to understand why not. To clone existing rocket tanks, paint them black and yellow for distinction, and edit the attributes, is less than an hour of work for one person.

Some comments on various responses. I never said I wanted another planet between Duna and Jools. I quite clearly stated I felt an attractive challenge, that was between Duna and Laythe in difficulty, was needed. It is more incomplete to me, because some of the parts are no longer well supported by other parts. They did remove something. Yes, I use some LFO tanks for nuclear propellant, and I do remove the oxidizer to save weight, but removing the oxidizer does not make them hold any more propellant in my game? Both the oxidizer and fuel were previously propellants. Breaking the game didn't come from v1.0 save files not being compatible. It came from changes to existing parts' existing attributes. This made the previous rockets unusable. I accept the statement that plane parts were previously lacking. I wouldn't know since I didn't build planes. I apologize for the font. I wrote it elsewhere and the font carried over with the pasting. I wasn't even aware of it. I will try fix it by editing.

Short version: The v1.0 game is less complete, less rational and less intuitive than v0.xxx. Long version: I maybe haven't been any active on the boards since my first posts, a long time ago when I started off, but I have continued to play the game intensively and extensively. Thus comes a time when I really feel I want to make some of my thoughts known around, hopefully to someone who cares. So this is a bit of feedback. Let's start with where I (and thus the feedback) come from: I play Science Sandbox. My main interest is in manned expeditions to surface, and – of course – return. That is what I pursue, even if I also send unmanned probes everywhere. I have played two games. One before v1.0, and since everything was rendered useless by the v1.0 release, I've then started from the beginning again with a new game. The state I reached in v0.xxx was that I had landed everywhere on Mun and Minmus, manned Duna surface missions were routine and I had landed probes on EVE and Laythe. Finally, I eventually also succeeded with a dress rehearsal for a manned mission to Laythe. An unmanned, but crew-capable rocket landed on Laythe and managed to return safely to Kermin. I never had time to repeat it with a crew, because next v1.0 arrived and managed to break everything I had built up to that point. The state I have currently reached in my v1.0 game, is that though I've made many landings on Mun and Minmus, there's still a couple of craters left. Manned Duna landings are routine, and I've also done a manned landing on Ike (all return, of course). I've landed a probe on EVE (non-return). Additionally, I've made return probe missions from orbit of every planet in KSP system (and boy, was Moho and Eeloo difficult). Finally, I've done the dress rehearsal for the big Laythe mission. It was horrendously more difficult than in v0.xxx, because of the new heat model, aerodynamics, split of fuel systems and lack of suitable tanks for nuclear engines. But in the end, after months of development and testing, I hacked together a rocket that could do it, - and did it -, unmanned. And as we are talking, Jebediah, Bill and Bob are on their way on their biggest adventure yet. The trip will take almost 9 years, and it's not certain that they will get into orbit position to make a landing (the dress rehearsal may have had a lot of luck with slingshots, as it got into orbit around Laythe; fuel is critical). - So that is where I am. I do NOT use mods. I will at some time. But I feel it's important for your understanding of my feedback that you fully comprehend WHY I don't use mods. There are a lot of mods out there which makes a number of challenges easier. That's not exactly what I want. Not using mods provide a consistent challenge, consistent game and a fixed measurement of achievement. Thus all helpful comments that there's this or that mod that will solve something I mention as a perceived problem, are not useful at all. Neither is any comment that assumes I'm irrational and just want stock parts to fill a purpose some mod already takes care of. My problem is NOT that I lack some parts, which will solve some problems of mine. I will happily try make do with what's available, and have done so. My perceived problem is that KSP v1.0 feels like a LESS COMPLETE game than v0.xxx was. And while the v1.1 talk is exciting, it doesn't really mention any of the things I feel are lacking. (...And there's the question in the back of my head: Will v1.1 again break everything in my game?). “But there are mods...†- No, no. That's not what I'm talking about. I will make do (and I have). I'm talking about that the rocket part of this game feels curiously incomplete. What is a newcomer to KSP supposed to think? What is the use of this or that part? - There are no supporting parts! There's a lot of focus on planes and space planes, lately. So much that I'm using some plane parts for my rockets. In fact, I'm forced to do it. But doing so, leads to a lot of funny problems, stemming from the original, intended use. Some examples: No suitable propellant tanks for nuclear rockets. Resorting to use a few available models of usable space plane tanks leads to a number of symmetry problems when building rockets. And it sure as hell is not intuitive! Using other tanks leads to an irrational weight penalty as you're not using the oxidizer part. The default game and gameplay is incomplete! No advanced Command Pods. The three-seat Mk 1-2 pod suffers horrendously in every attribute comparison to the Mk 3 space plane cockpit. Using space plane cockpits in rocket design leads to a lot of symmetry problems. Try getting crew down to the ground and try getting them aboard again. The game makes some very curious assumptions of what the orientation of the spacecraft is. Try making a soft rocket landing (on the tail); lots of artificial balance problems, originating from the plane cockpit. Sure, I man up and contrive solutions. But it's ridiculous. In short, it feels to me like no one in the development team has been playing the rocket game for years? ...And completely botched/forgot it during the v1.0 upgrade? This comprises and concludes my main feedback on KSP 1.0. It's those rather big problems which can be easily and rapidly fixed, and I'm somewhat alarmed that there seems to be no plans to do so? I have a bit more things to say though. My personal wishes for where the game is going in the future: With a manned landing and returning from the surface of Laythe, I feel like I'm coming to an end of sorts. What do I do next? Eve is close but seems almost impossible to return from, except for a mod-enhanced, very brute-force approach, which frankly doesn't stir my enthusiasm or interest much. In passing, I'd also like to say that the gap in challenge between Duna and Laythe is way too big. There should be something attractive in-between. At some point it's time to consider what content to add to KSP. I think that the planets and moons could be a lot more interesting to explore. More diverse details, exciting scenery. Wonders/rewards to discover. (That goes for Kermin itself as well). More planets/moons. As I mentioned, I think there should be something exciting between Duna and Laythe in difficulty, but there should maybe also be some more distant planets? A Saturn, Uranus, Neptune. They could relate to future rocket technologies. Speaking about future rocket technologies. I nurture the hope that someday, in the future, KSP will include interstellar flights. Parts and functions that I feel are missing from KSP: I'd like a programmable (positions) hinge and actuator. This could be used to build moving structures of varying kinds, like ramps, supports, cranes, unfolding/folding constructions, etc. Habitat modules. Both for long rocket journeys and planet colonization. I currently role play and put together empty structural parts, like diameter adapters, and pretend that they're habitats. No way I'm sending my Kerbals away on several year long journeys locked into a small pod. Nope, in my imagination they have four floors of individual sleeping quarters, kitchen & mess, relax and recreation lounge, hygiene & fitness. But it would be nice to have purpose made parts which maybe could include airlocks and windows? I'd like a way to unload (and load) a rover from a rocket. If there is a way, I apologize, but I haven't discovered it yet. - Oh, and I'd like a class of even bigger rocket parts. ...And a bigger launch platform. Finally: Please try to avoid changing existing parts' existing attributes, in new versions of the game. The reason is of course that this breaks existing rockets (and thus games), as you did in introducing v1.0. P.S. I am not the author of the "789 hours, I quit. Here's why." on the Steam KSP site. It's merely inspired by it, because I happened to be exactly at 788 hours.

Hi. Thanks for the good read. I too have been puzzled by the mechanics of EVA RCS. I don't do it in orbit anymore. Maybe after I've tried and trained docking, it will be clearer? I'm (only) 60 hours into the game (Science Sandbox. It's, like, only tax payers' money . Right?) myself. I have to find a way to stop playing. I spent all yesterday. But it was such an exciting day.

I lean towards thinking you're right. KSP does punish with aerodynamic drag quite hard. I don't know why. I'll keep experimenting, so the last word remains. I get my kicks from developing my own rockets from scratch. So thanks, but I avoid looking at other's stuff. Also, my science has been very basic, with only early components available. Recently, that has started to change, since I'm discovering how to earn science points. Meanwhile, there's been progress. I finally learned what a maneuver node is. O. M. G! I was wondering why people talked about "green" prograde and retrograde, since mine were yellow. You click on the orbit and choose 'add maneuver'! Then suddenly everything makes sense! Those are green. And I can do anything and watch the results before committing and burning fuel. What a cheat! Lol. Anyway, that was exactly the kind of navigational aid I was looking for. Just in: Newsflash, Kenbus Kerman today became the first Kerbal to set foot on another world. It was the pinnacle of a series of events, that saw the first soft landing on, and recover from, the moon Minmus. It was an unsheduled event during development testflights of the 'Crazyrocket' program. Though both MegarocketZ2 and Munrocket_C5 are still highly viable and capable lifting vehicles, potentially able to put a lander in a moon orbit, Dr Vermil Kerman, head of the space program, decided to apply the learnings to an entirely new rocket project, aiming at putting an as heavy as possible load into very low orbit around Mun or Minmus. Progressive testflights and modifications followed. The testflights almost always ended up in orbit around Mun or Minmus, since that was the design target. So it came around that CrazyrocketD, piloted by Kenbus Kerman, a highly respected astronaut, ended up in a circular 7000m orbit around Minmus with a spectacularly healthy fuel budget. Not only did the last stage have both a FL-T400 and a FL-T100 tank for 25% extra fuel, but also the penultimate stage was still operational and had decent amount of fuel left. Probably enough for the return trip without using the last stage. The last stage was however only marginally equipped as a lander, featuring only three primitive landing struts, precauriously tall due to the extra fuel tank, and void of ladder, any extra control, science or electricity setup. So positive was the fuel situation, that a landing was contemplated, the fuel-paranoic Dr Vermil Kerman for once at ease. The electricity situation, however, was something different. Battery charge was low. No extra battery technology or solar panels invented yet. It became clear that to succeed and return, utmost maneuvering economy must be achieved. Dr Vermil finally suggested the return flight should be made without an attempt to land, science points be used to develop solar panels and larger batteries for a future attempt. At that moment, Jebediah Kerman is rumoured to have snatched the microphone and yelled: - Go for it Kenbus! Whatever may be, fact is that Kenbus successfully landed CrazyrocketD on Minmus Greater Flats, planted the flag and cavorted around before boarding again and successfully launching the return flight. On re-entry, the Minmus lander still retained 75% of its fuel. Something Dr Vermil predicts will give credence to plans for a future Mun landing.

Thankyou. That might come in handy.

Than you so much. My main pleasure from playing KSP comes from imagining something, wondering if it's possible, and trying. So I'm not so sure this is what I want. But some of the tutorials might come in handy. There are some pretty terrific navigation problems to tackle, if one wants to visit another planet, for instance. I'd love to try to do that by hand and my trusty old HP50G, but I'm unsure if the game actually gives up enough information in the UI. But we'll see.

Well, I'm an engineer, so I understand the fundamentals behind rocketry and celestial bodies in motion well enough. I've found the game a wonderful learning and revelation experience when it comes to the actual details though. Another thing is that I only play this in one science sandbox mode. That narrows down the choices early in the game, so maybe I have better focus? The game is probably more finished now, with whatever that involves. I've logged 43 hours so far. I've been in orbit around both moons and returned. Now I'm thinking about trying to build a moon lander. Observation: I actually try to avoid watching Youtube movies, but I've looked at a few harmless. To me it seems a common mistake, even among the more experienced, is to not have enough Oomph in the first or early rocket stages. Strong acceleration from the start is the key to a successful lifting rocket design. Just saying.

Thanks a lot guys. I was hoping to avoid installing mods, so I'll wait until I'm totally stumped. I did manage to figure out the forward and backward markers, thanks to one of the ingame training sessions. But the rest, well I still don't see the point of the target markers? I didn't understand them because I actually figured they would/could be of some use, but I now see they aren't. So no more experiments burning in their direction... I actually played the game the whole time without SAS. I had no idea 'T' activated it, and I didn't care since I assumed you would have to have some stabilizer module to use it. And such was not available. So I did up to the Mun orbiting and return, without using SAS. Now, with SAS, everything is much, much easier. In a way I'm disappointed . Anyway, I've managed to visit the other moon too now. I've not gone into orbit yet though. I came from the wrong direction, my orbit being clockwise, so I didn't dare risking being slingshot into some orbit I wouldn't have enough fuel to return from. I did that once before, with Mun. My lowest passage was still some hundred km when my fuel ran out. In sheer desperation I just turned up time and hoped for another disturbance from a Mun encounter. And crazy luck had it it happened, after a while. I wasn't sure Jebediah and the pod would survive the 'collision' with Kerbin. But they did. Burning up in reentry is apparently not implemented yet. My ambition is to not kill the Kerbals. I did kill Bob, though. Not my fault but the game's, so I loaded the game immediately again, before the state was saved. The game's fault because the EVA rocket physics are implemented wrong. At least it seems so to me. I'll experiment some more. One advantage of playing without SAS: You learn to build better rockets. :-P

Hi. OK, I've played this game for a few day. I play the science sandbox, as I need to experiment a lot, rocket builds etc. I like the fact that I'm forced to accomplish things with limited technology, before getting access to more. I don't really want to know too much of the game, as a lot of the enjoyment comes from exploring it, just like exploring a real space program. But sometimes it's tad frustrating when you feel you lack keys of information in the UI, and suspect there is, somewhere. You just haven't found them and the tutorials don't get into them, but perhaps mentions them (WTH is 'maneuver nodes'? It sounds like something I've been looking for.) Also, on that note, the asteroid tutorial is incomprehensible to me and I'm getting nowhere. State of my game, currently, is that I've managed to go into orbit around the Mun and go back.