nikokespprfan

And there is the third mod for you ChrisD. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/107471-1-0-5-TextureReplacer-2-4-11-%2817-11-2015%29?p=2313616&viewfull=1#post2313616 You could also use this mod for it: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/108704-10x-dmagics-modlets-latest-update-portrait-stats-v70-12-15-2015/ (see potrait stats). -Niko

A great help in designing things (whether it is products, software or game mechanics) is a List of Criteria (LoC). It is a list that describes what you expect of your final product. It is a list you can look and evaluate your product to. So what do we want from Career mode? Do we want players to be gently introduced to the game, or to have an intensified space program managing experience, or just another way of making science mode more hardcore? Do we want all, and have them depend on the difficulty setting? What must reputation do? What should reputation represent? Here is an example: I think having a LoC for Career mode, as well as for it's major components, is a good thing to have. For us, when we are coming up with solutions, and for SQUAD, that gets to know what the players think Career mode is/should be.

Playing devils advocate here. You could also argue that, in space, since there is no up and down, calling it an ascending or descending node is kind of ridiculous. They are basically the same thing, just the orientation differs. The symbols aren't much different, they are the same, but the orientation differs. Instead of learning which one is the ascending node or the descending node, you would learn to read the orientation of the 'scending' node from the orientation of the symbol. TL;DR, It spares new players from having to learn the difference between two things that are the same (apart from orientation that is).

I've added all your suggestions to the first post. (Tell me if I missed some) Cool idea, maybe you could add this to a rover camera.

If you have to believe Asteroid day is an appropriate source (which I do, as it is an official mod made by SQUAD, but you don't have to), there is actually a valid reason for that. According to the mod, (or at least in the way it behaves), asteroids are everywhere. The things is, the tracking station can see small objects only so far out. The rest of the asteroids flying around are hidden. To see the asteroids in a particular area you'd have to send a telescope there. For huge asteroids in an asteroid belt, this would not be a problem, as you can just say they are just big enough to see at that distance. All of this is if you see an official mod as a good source, though. If Kerbin would really be in an asteroid field, which could also be the case. It would explain the lack of buildings on the surface. It would also mean that Kerbin is a dwarf planet. Guess only the dev's know.

I don't have any knowledge or experience with modding planets, but I wondered if this kind of planet could be made using the current planet making software. Take a look at this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1J4iIBKJHLA YES, donut toroidal planets. And yes, it probably would be difficult to do it. But is it possible to mod one in the game?

If you are plugging the Plock-Karen system into the game, then I suggest that SigmaBinary (which adds a barycenter) addition gets added for that system too.

Just wanted to let you know, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1J4iIBKJHLA (suggestion should be obvious)

what are you suggesting? I don't really know how to link "multiple positions", "strut connection when close enough" and "also allow resource transfer" and translate that to a suggestion. (that might just be me, apologies if it is), could you explain further.

Ok, maybe it shouldn't be EXACTLY like the science system, a window that shows you the picture taken would make things so much more interesting (and less like another experiment). Yes, you see whatever is on your picture before you take it, but that doesn't have to be all there is. There are a lot of things you could implement. It will probably not solve the problem of clicking through experiments becoming boring, but if squad thinks good about this one, it could make exploring alot more interesting. Possibilies are: -infrared, gamma, radiowave etc. camera's (great potential to make the planets "fuller", as you could use these pics to see details that are normally "invisible") -things outside the Kerbol system, just as @Veeltch suggested. (I believe one of the telescope mods do this, too) -Video recorders, -sonar camera's -and many more things In the end it adds immersion and it adds to KSP's ability to teach about space.

So you want to port your minmus station, with orbital characteristics and all, to another save?

@Cupcake... That is a really cool design. +1 from me. why not? (the science and funds thing I mean) And thanks a lot . It was a very nice surprise.

Do you still have the link? Maybe there are some valueble ideas in there.

For experimental parts, this might be a good addition (or maybe difficulty option). I always wondered why it states "experimental part" while you can be sure that it will work just fine.

well, of course you need to specify the end goal of your mission. The utility of the science lab, its not necessary. The deadline though is important as it tells the game when to stop generating contracts. Not every mission has to succeed, after all, so there has to be a second way for the mission to disappear, next to succeding.

It will be a big tree, but hiding some of it is to be avoided, in my opinion, as it prevents the player from setting some of the hidden milestones as mission goal. I do agree that it will become a very big tree, so any maybe an option for the player to hide some of it is a good idea. The milestones themselves are predetermined by the game in the progress tree, in such a way that by achieving the end goal, you will have achieved the previous milestones (unless you use hyperedit). You make a mission by clicking on any milestone in the tree and setting that as an end goal of a mission. The milestones in you orbit duna missions would be launch ->height records -> escape atmosphere -> get to interplanetary space -> entering Duna's SOI -> orbit Duna. The land on minmus thing would be a separate mission or a second end goal of said mission You will not be forced to accept super specific requirements (those are for the contracts that will spawn, but you don't have to accept those ones). You design your own missions, you can make them a specific as you want. And if you want to specify having a science lab on board. (maybe it just HAS to be a Science station that goes there in your mind), you can, but you will not be forced to specify it at all. The only thing you would probably be forced to specify is the deadline date, and maybe whether it is manned or what kind of craft will do the mission. I think the constraints should be for the contracts and the physics involved in your missions.

It is such a shame. I feel you.

The addition of a 0.625 m heat shield gets my vote. A heat shield is a very important part on a craft. and thus having an extra size is a good idea.

Thanks, I changed the poll.

So career seems to have its problems. The following thread is one of many complaints I've seen.(http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/127964-my-disappointment-in-career-mode-and-10-in-a-whole/&page=1). The following posts in that thread got me thinking: (by archnem) http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/127964-my-disappointment-in-career-mode-and-10-in-a-whole/&page=2#comment-2325754 , (by tater) http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/127964-my-disappointment-in-career-mode-and-10-in-a-whole/&page=2#comment-2325821 , (by pthigrivi) http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/127964-my-disappointment-in-career-mode-and-10-in-a-whole/&do=findComment&comment=2339140. This is the result of that thinking. I have an idea to tie up all the loose ends of career. It will work alongside with the current contract system and the future contextual contracts. World Firsts -> milestones If you were to order all the world firsts in order of achieving them, you get a tree. Let's call it the progression tree. This is already in the game. Now, imagine an extra tab in mission control that shows you this tree, and expand it to contain all possible milestones (I call the world firsts from now on milestones) that you could achieve in the game (for example: achieving stable orbit, getting a Kerbol escape trajectory, enter the SOI of Jool or landing at Eve and coming back safely). A milestone that you have passed will be shown in a different colour. Now you can easily see your progress in the game and the game will always show you new possible challenges to do. Missions But why is a progression tree useful, why put in time to make this? because missions. Missions are the game's equivalent of NASA saying "We are going to the Moon within this decade" or "I want to send a probe for a fly-by mission of the Pluto-Charon system". This means, you get to decide what YOU want to do. You choose ANY one or multiple milestones from the progress tree and set them as your end goal (ANY, its a sandbox game after all, the progress tree wont stop you from doing too ambitious missions). Ten you specify some more things (type of craft crewed/not crewed and deadline for example), it will all go in a mission contact and there you go. You will see a mission contract appear in the contract menu. These missions will generate contextual contracts within the lines of the mission, and thus you will have to do less boring contracts to pay the bill. Reputation So you will get these contracts, but the quality and quantity of those contracts will depend on how seriously all the companies take your mission goals. This is determined by the ambitiousness of the missions, but also by reputation. This balances the entire mechanic and makes reputation worth more. More reputation means more thrust in your capability's means more better more useful contracts means less boring sidequesty ones. This mechanic shows the player what he/she has achieved, and will show more possible challenges to undertake. You decide what mission (you design your own mission, even) you want to do, and then you find contracts that pay for that mission (you could now too, but that isn't very apparent, as some players saw contracts as missions). What do you think, is this a good idea?

But I do remember a mod that made some kind of thrust during warp possible. I don't remember the name though. IIRC it was a realism overhaul mod. EDIT, I found it, or at least another mod that does it. Its persistent thrust from mrsolarsail: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/120404-wip105-persistentthrust-v104-alpha/ so that means that it is probably feasable.

maybe it should be TWR that has to stay withing a certain treshold or the acceleration. If I have a big ION driven ship, with the TWR of an typical small ION craft, just alot heavier and with a ton of ION engines on it, I would not be able to timewarp, although I should be, as its a very small acceleration. Apart from that, I feel this is an good addition that will certainly give more attention to the ION drives.

got it here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/98948-102-kerbalmass-10-release/#comment-1703878 But as far as I can see it only affects the mass of the part wherein the crew is sitting, without accounting for the place where the crews sits in the part. That would mean this plugin cannot be it.

The other day I was involved in a discussion at the suggestions and development forum. Here it is: I thought this could be easily done with a plugin of some sorts, so I brought the idea here.

That means the ability to target said landing pad is a very nice quality-of-life improvement.