bv1

I'm serious. Did I do something wrong?

I think that Squad should do the following in an awesome expansion pack, once the game is actually released for real: 1. Give the player hints which point them toward activating a series of monoliths spread across several worlds. 2. Once the monoliths have been activated, a wormhole/stargate will be activated. 3. Once a craft is flown into the wormhole/stargate, it will be transported instantly to another solar system. An entirely new solar system would be perfect for an expansion pack to be released long down the road, IMHO.

I must admit that I don't really use the Poodle much. I'd say that its mass should be reduced to 1.65 in order for its TWR to be on par with the LV-T45.

This mod should be disabled in the map view. It shows phantom flares in places where they shouldn't be when using the Map view.

Do you have a source?

OP is talking about constant linear acceleration, which is indistinguishable from gravity as in Einstein's equivalence principle.

Yes, please!

Easter eggs. Everywhere.

This can happen with payload crafts with landing gear, and nobody is complaining. I think that it would be wonderful to have a special button just for solar panels. They could even make it into the GUI next to the altimeter, where the lights/brakes/gear buttons are already.

Oh really now? Awesome. I haven't downloaded Fine Print yet to see what kind of changes are on the way. I'll be happy so long as there is some real incentive to use the larger capsule in stock career mode. Well, I guess that means that I need to pick a new suggestion! Change: Make the staging screen altimeter show altitude above terrain when in surface mode. Why: Facilitates landing, especially for people whose computers are too crappy to render shadows. I think that this is one of the easiest changes they could make. I'd imagine that someone could bang out the code in under an hour.

I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be stock behavior. It also seems like it would be extremely quick and easy for Squad to implement.

I think that they should just bite the bullet and integrate Kerbal Alarm Clock, with its orbital transfer calculations included. Considering that they're adding upgradeable buildings, they could have it as an unlockable feature that gets attached to the Tracking Station and thenceforth becomes available to all spacecraft.

I heard somewhere that Squad did this because they don't want people to be flying by the map view so much. Well, what do they expect? That's how they teach in the tutorial!

The point of this thread is to pick your one suggestion. If you could only have one, which would it be?

ok den Well it was spooky for me

I found a rather creepy easter egg just now when I started KSP. At the start screen, instead of the normal Kerbal looking at you (without a sand castle), there is one kerbal facing to the right. He is not wearing any helmet. Then, when you press Start Game, it scrolls over to the wrecked ship. Now there are several kerbals without helmets on, all looking at the ship. While scrolling, a kerbal's face flashes past. It's looking right at the camera, smiling, without a helmet. Spooky. I tried and tried to get a better screenshot, but I didn't want to spend any more time.

Which one do you have in mind?

I get nervous every time I do a named quicksave and press the button extremely carefully. It's like they've put a two buttons next to each other, one to turn on the windshield wipers, and the other to self-destruct.

Something like this? The green dot is the barycenter (KSP would consider it to be a surfaceless "planet"), and the red and blue dots are planets (KSP would consider them to be "moons"). There are two big problems with this hack. First of all, for unequal double planets, the larger and smaller planets must have identical orbital periods about the "barycenter." However, KSP would think that the larger body, being closer to the barycenter, should be moving faster and have a smaller orbital period. Thus, they couldn't have standard orbital elements, and would have to be programmed in to move along special kinds of rails. Secondly, the barycenter in this situation would be the most stable position in the system, while in reality, it should be unstable.

I didn't include my one suggestion when I started the thread, since I want the thread to belong to the community. Now that it got going, though, here's mine: Change: Make some career contracts require landing multiple kerbals at once. Why: Right now, there is no incentive in career mode to send more than 1 kerbal when completing exploration contracts. This means that there is no incentive to use the Mk1-2 pod or Mk2 lander; these heavy parts necessitate larger, more complex, and more expensive rockets. Requiring landing multiple kerbals at once would nudge the player into designing and flying with the larger parts.

We all have multiple ideas and suggestions on how to make Kerbal Space Program better. However, there are some changes that would be hardly noticeable, while there are others which could vastly change the feel of the game and which have the potential to greatly improve it. In addition, some suggestions are small and should be easy to implement, while others could require wholesale rewriting of the whole game. I'd like to see what suggestions people have come up with that are on the both extremes: those that people think would bring about the most improvement, but which would not take much time and effort to implement. So, I'd like people to answer the following question. "If you could make one small change to KSP in order to cause the greatest improvement to the game, what would it be and why?"

Would this kind of situation even be possible with the patched conics approximation?

Why not just give better incentive to use larger tanks? Simply reduce their dry weight and cost.

In the stock game, the only reason I look at the map screen during launch and ascent is to see my apoapsis and estimate my periapsis. Adding these two values to the staging screen would cut down greatly on having to switch to the map screen and back constantly.

I thought of another suggestion while at work today. In the difficulty settings, there should be a setting which greatly nerfs reaction wheels' torque and makes them dependent on angular momentum. In other words, once a certain axis gets spun up to some maximum speed, it will be unable to provide any more torque in that certain direction. This way, in higher difficulty settings, you'd have to rely much more on gimballing, control surfaces, and RCS. It would also give the option for some more realism, since real reaction wheels provide much smaller torques and do not violate the conservation of momentum.