pandaman

I built a plane with the lander can as a 'cockpit' and flew there. Added chutes to avoid needing a flat runway area. Not at all pretty, but functional, and a lot easier than trying to hit it from orbit, and no reentry heat to worry about either.

I'm not against adding things to the Kerbol system, but I don't think it would add a lot gameplay wise overall. Maybe a Pluto - Charon type binary system as a 'practice ground' for Rask and Rusk would work. Asteroids and comets would be good, of course, and maybe a couple of new small rocky moons. But I'd rather they flesh out the existing bodies with more places of interest than just adding more planets.

Try using the square bracket keys to cycle through controlling nearby vessels. (At least I think it's square brackets, not able to try it and verify atm)

I'm of the opinion that LS is too critical an aspect of space flight to just ignore. I think it should be represented in some way. Probably two 'resources' - Air and Food (which includes water), or perhaps have water as a specific third resource. But with toggleable effects - None, Death, and Hibernation as the default.

These are essential tools IMO. Not so bad at the moment given the overall state of the game, but once For Science drops not having a stock implementation fir these is a serious oversight.

I think, rather than all anomalies/discoverables detectable by orbital scanning it could be nice to have a mixture. Some could emit detectable 'signals' such as heat, radiation, gravity spike's etc, that orbital scanners might pick up. Others would just be big enough to be visible from low orbit or if you get within a few km. And some maybe give off weak signals that may help you 'home in' if you are close enough.

No doubt there will be a mod for it before too long. It doesn't feel as as it would fit in the 'standard' stock game/universe but it is something I'd like to see as an official DLC 'alternative' option.

Yeah 'Cadet Orientation' is very confusing. How about... Cadet Mode (for first time players)

Really? You don't understand NDAs to you?

Hmm . That could work as a toggled option. But the marker couldn't be too elaborate or the graphics performance would take a serious hit.

Optional original UI? No, not a good idea. whatever one's feelings about the respective styles are, two completely different arrangements to maintain is just plain silly. Making the 'new' UI more customisable is much more practical. Colour options and individually scalable entites (both good for visually impaired) and some facility for repositioning some items etc.

Why not use the runways. They are pretty long as they are.

Do I 'want' it to? Yes. Do I expect it to? No. Trailers like that are works of cinema created as adverts, not gameplay (unles it explicitly says so). It's simply unrealistic to expect it.

Yes, I do.

No idea how viable this is, but one 'possible' solution could be to have 'autoburn' related to pilot skill. Slight randomisation of accuracy at all levels, but much narrower margin for error and more accuracy with more skilled pilots.

I'd be more inclined to say 'unenjoyable' rather than unplayable. As well as the frustrating bugs, it may not yet 'do' what many of us want gameplay wise, but it clearly is playable.

Whilst I see your point, would you rather them give a date they know they can achieve, as opposed to 'making one up' when they aren't sure? There has been enough moving of dates already over the last few years, even if 'specific' dates weren't given.

Yes, I get this too. If you mean the 'Loading Ramp' part it seems to be if your wheels are wider than the central portion, but I haven't experimented fully. Other than that I haven't found a work around other than do something else instead.

I fail to see the real relevance of that metric, other than deliberately trying to paint a gloomy picture. Sure, that number is small, but I (and I assume) many others won't show at all. True, I'm not playing it as much as I would if it were in a better state, but that doesn't mean I have lost interest. And I would guess that many others are the same.

I suspect this is due to them not being restricted to the tips of wings, stabilisers and control surfaces. If other parts generate them then they will appear from wherever those parts are attached.

I am a little disappointed at the prospect of less frequent patches, as I do feel there are some issues that need addressing sooner rather than later, however that wouldn't in itself guarantee that my pet peeves would be addressed in them. Some issues are just harder to fix so take longer, or may be affected by 'future stuff' so why waste time on a non critical fix that will need changing again anyway before too long. Overall I would much rather fewer, but better, patches than more frequent ones that do very little or break stuff. Reducing, patch/update frequency does not in itself indicate slower development, and may even speed it up a little... If you are traveling from A to B and you need to keep stopping to tell your Mum where you are every few minutes your journey will likely take longer than if you just call every hour.

I do like the contrails, and it's a relatively unimportant issue currently, but I agree they could be 'activated' in a better and more realistic way.

Yes, I have been doing that, and it works fairly well, but the ability to work within the new SOI would certainly help. I think any planning for more than one maneuver ahead could only be 'provisional' in nature due to burn accuracy and other variables .

I had this too. But also with 'Goliath' engines, so it's apparently not confined to undercarriage.

Hmmmm. No... But, I do think it's a serious possibility. I think they certainly see it as a long-term investment and intend to give it a good chance, but there are obviously limits.