strigon

They're extremely commonplace, especially compared to Earth. As for what happens? An apocalypse is very possible. If by "apocalypse" you mean "expensive ship not getting enough power and going drastically off course, causing you to delete the save".

So, I was coming back from a Kerbin orbit, and things were going well. Heat was well in hand, and I was slowing down nicely. Suddenly, I started slowing down much faster; I thought it was peculiar, but I attributed it to being lower into the atmosphere leading to increased drag. Then, when I reached a velocity of 1,500 m/s, I started accelerating again. Not gently, as though air resistance was gone, but quite forcefully; the G-meter maxxed out, and in a matter of seconds I was back up to orbital velocity, and my ship exploded from the heat. The ship in question, at the time, was just a Stayputnik, a couple of goo canisters, batteries, parachutes and thermometers, with a mat bay and heat shield slapped on the bottom, and micro legs for landing, if it matters. To reiterate; during reentry I started accelerating toward the ground at 10+ G's. This wasn't my craft being too heavy for a gentle reentry, it was the almighty hand of God slapping me down toward the planet's surface.

Certainly, that argument has a place here. But the facts are that - for any scenario - the cockpit is objectively better. If you don't think it fits the aesthetic of your design, then you are free to change it, but quite literally everything the capsule does, the cockpit does better. This is exactly the problem I'm pointing out; a good portion of the tech tree is rendered less efficient, but not totally obsolete. Depending on what you want, to my knowledge every item has something over the other options - one specific circumstance in which it shines. Even if it fills a small niche purpose, it still fills a purpose. Every engine now has an area where it has a significant advantage, and another where it has significant drawbacks. Even if one engine, for example, has more thrust and ISP, it will counter that by being heavier; if you have a light, efficient engine, it'll be very weak. And, I disagree with you in saying that the difference is "not that much"; sure, the mass shaved off isn't all that much, but look what you get in addition to that. Actually, I'll put the differences right here in numbers, so that nobody has to go searching to get the facts in this debate. Cockpit: Cost - 10,000 Mass - 3.9 Crew - 4 Crash Tolerance - 60 m/s Heat Tolerance - 2700 Monoprop - 100 EC - 500 Torque - 40 (Pitch/Yaw), 20 (Roll), cost 1/sec. Capsule: Cost - 3800 (-6200) Mass - 4.12 (+0.22) Crew - 3 (-1) Crash Tolerance - 45 (-15) Heat Tolerance - 2400 (-300) Monoprop - 30 (-70) EC - 150 (-350) Torque - 15 (all) (-25, Yaw & Pitch; - 5 Roll), cost 1.2/sec (+0.2). As you can see, it's not just a minor improvement in one or two stats, it's large improvements across the board; look at the reaction wheels! The monopropellant! The EC capacity! The crash tolerance! The cost is significantly more, yes, but not when compared to the cost of a rocket. This gets escalated when you account for reduced fuel costs to orbit and the fact that - with it being a crew cabin - it's very likely to be recovered (and it's actually easier to recover, too!) The cockpit outshines its counterpart in every conceivable way - it only looks different, and marginally increases the cost of your rocket.

Oh, I never meant to imply that I don't like the Mk 1-2, and most certainly not that the cockpit looks better in every place; just that, as it stands, it's beyond ridiculous. Honestly, I think the reason it's getting to me now is that they just rebalanced the engines; I had this idea that the game was balanced enough that every part had a place in terms of functionality, not just aesthetics; this comes along and blows that idea right out of the sky.

So, I realize that it's not exactly news that the command pods' weight needs rebalancing. However, I had assumed that, provided you were willing to haul up that extra mass, there are some times where the Mk 1-2 happens to have what you need, from a mechanics standpoint. This assumption was flat-out wrong, as it turns out; with the exception of cost, the Mk 3 Cockpit outperforms the 3-man capsule in every way. It has more room, more torque - and requires less electricity to run the torque[!], it's lighter, holds more monoprop, has a higher crash and temperature resistance, holds more EC... it costs ~7,000 more, but that's nothing; there's a good chance you'll save that on fuel/monoprop costs! Now, to some of you, I have no doubt this is old news, but I'm sure to some it isn't. I was surprised to learn this while I was experimenting in the VAB - I always knew there were significant downsides to any capsule that help more than 1 kerbal, but for convenience' sake, I used them anyway. Now what seemed like a minor annoyance suddenly seems like a gaping flaw. Anyone else have any input? I realize you unlock the Mk 1-2 earlier, and it's cheaper, but A) Neither of those affect sandbox, and , The cash difference is miniscule compared to the cost of hauling up a command pod that big; as I pointed out earlier, you might end up saving money on the reduced mass. What do you guys think of this?

Nonsense; they'd render you virtually immune to alpha radiation. Even if it wouldn't altogether stop the other types, you'd still be better of with a suit than without.

Indeed; honestly, if you're such an old-timer, then you hail from an age where expansion packs were reasonably priced, and they breathed new life into a beloved, yet stale game. And you could pick up DLC for a quarter and still have enough left over to take your date out for ice cream and a movie!

Not really; keep in mind how slow airbrakes are to deploy. In my experience, large amounts of drag are only experience ~1 second into deployment. More than enough time to let go, unless you've got truly dismal reflexes.

A game is meant to entertain; a simulation is meant to simulate. While a game can simulate, and a simulation can entertain, the first priority for each should be their respective functions; that is, a game shouldn't try to simulate if it comes at the cost of entertainment, and a simulation shouldn't try to entertain if it comes at the cost of realism.

Just because two things aren't mutually exclusive doesn't mean there's always overlap. KSP is what it was designed to be, and what it was marketed as. A game. No room for ambiguity there.

Some people (myself included) do, yes; but what those people are looking for is a simulator, not a game. I'll concede that not every change to realism will make the game less fun or more fun, but some things that are realistic will make the game much less fun to an awful lot of people. And I sincerely doubt anyone is saying that any increase in realism comes with a proportional decrease in fun, but KSP is a game. Any change for realism's sake should first be tested to see if it makes the game less fun before it's put in. That's what people are saying when they say "gameplay over realism".

Someone once said that the final stages of landing on Gilly bear more resemblance to docking than landing. It might be an overstatement, but if you approach it as you would docking, you probably won't go wrong.

While true, I must say that a lot of people here seem to think that changing one will simply never affect changing the other. There are some things that, while being realistic, are not good gameplay and should be excluded; the reverse is also true.

In this case, not at all. You might have a case if it were simply new parts, a new planet, or something along those lines, but what is being discussed is essentially an entirely different game. It would have entirely different parts, physics, graphics, and presumably a whole slew of new challenges, while hoisting out the old ones. It's certainly not forcing realism; that would be if they put out a game update with RSS incorporated, with no choice. This is the exact opposite; the old game is still intact and as functional as it ever was, but there's a more realistic option out there if you're into that sort of thing. That's not forcing anyone to do anything. And this DLC doesn't force itself because it doesn't objectively improve the old game with extra content, it replaces it with something that might appeal to other people. I honestly have no idea where you got the notion that it forces itself onto you from. But, back on topic, I would absolutely buy one; the only reason I don't play RSS is that it's so buggy, and such a pain in the neck. Fix those, and I'll be throwing my money at you!

What, the water on Kerbin? That would explain why so few make it to adulthood

Can you give a specific time? In any case, it's not that hard to do. The winch has several attachments, including a grappling hook, harpoon, and electromagnet. Any of those could be used as a tether, but again I'd need the time code to know exactly what you're talking about.

Same here; the name intrigued me, so I downloaded the demo, and now I've bought the game!

I don't use an awful lot of the structural section, for starters. The beams, and most of the girders, I find to be particularly useless. I love the toroidal fuel tank; I've found some great designs that make wonderful use of it, but I never seem to use it myself, which makes me sad. I also rarely use the super large wings; the Big delta wings in particular I don't think I've ever used. And finally, most of the probe cores; I use the Stayputnik for maybe one mission, move on to the Hex, and then I only ever use the really tiny one.

I have never had that experience; my ablator drains at a variable rate, based on temperature. Normally it's < 0.1 units per second, and that's what I consider a safe reentry. Between 0.1 and 0.35 is safe...ish. You might run low on ablator, but you won't burn up. Anything above that is suicide, I find.

kOS, actually; I made a program that put my spaceplane into an acceptable orbit, and manually took the drop pods in myself. It's the main reason I'm so psyched for the Mk3 cargo ramp; it'll feel so awesome to be able to drive my rover off that ramp and let 'er soar! Practical? Not in any way. Awesome? Check. Kerbal? Double-check

I once flew a Mk 3 spaceplane into Laythe's atmosphere, dropped off a drop pod, and went back into orbit to dock with the station I put there. Got a whole base done that way, complete with ISRU.

I am really excited about everything I just saw - the new jet textures in particular make me want to weep with joy, and it's best not to get me started on the Mk 3 cargo ramp (I'll be doing some very interesting things with it on Laythe ) But I kind of agree with the whole FS argument; not that this isn't something I love, because this is amazing, but I feel like I'll be satisfied with that side for a while after this update. The next update, I'd love to see something interesting added to the planets, or something interesting added to spaceflight. Now that we can build awesome planes, how about giving our spaceships awesome uses?

I was kind of tossing up between 70% and 80%. It's 80% of what I think will be considered complete, and 70% of what I hope will be complete. As other have said, it needs more content. Features, I think, we're good on - landing, orbiting, docking, building, mining... all things that are here now, and the only possible extension I'd like to see is (optional) Life Support and colonizing. But we're missing content; we have these huge, diverse planets with nothing at all on them. It's very time-consuming to put together an interplanetary mission, even more so to land and explore there, and we get nothing but Funds for our trouble. Someone above mentioned a sort of story mode - I'd love to see that, as a first step. Polish the game --> add more content on the planets --> story mode --> complete game.

Sorry, but you absolutely are; you know how a gravity turn is the most efficient way into orbit? (if not, there are plenty here who can explain how to do it) Well, the same maneuver but in reverse is more or less the most efficient way to land. When you do that, you are basically burning along the 2 shorter sides of a right triangle. A gravity turn is a burn along the hypotenuse, which is far more efficient.

Am I the only one who thinks the Mk 1-2 is ridiculously overweight? Actually, screw that; that all of the command pods, save for the Mk 1 and 1-man lander are ridiculously overweight, or at least that those two are underweight? There's an awful big discrepancy between the single-man and multi-man pods, that I just can't make sense of. "Oh, you want a one man lander? That's about 2/3 of a ton. On the other hand, if you want it to hold 2 people, that'll be 7/3 tonnes." You what?