ArgenTum

I would like a concrete runway already as T1, but it should be much thinner (less broad) and much shorter. Then the wheels wouldn't break, but it would still be harder to start from and land on. And T2 would be in the middle of length and broadness and T3 like it is now. This would IMHO be much more "realistic" AND "fun".

A whole thread of a delta-v readout!!! I want in! I have skimmed the thread, read NathanKells posts, but not every single post, just so that you know. Just want to have my say how I think it should be done. 1. I think a delta-v readout in flight and in VAB are two different things, and I would say that the game doesn't need an in flight readout (but I'm not against it), but i seriously needs a readout in the VAB. That way you would have some guidance while building the spaceship, but still leave some room for error while in flight, which for me makes good gameplay IMHO. And, probably would be slightly easier (=less hard) to code. 2. A VAB delta-v readout for me is top priority, before fiddling more with the contracts, or implementing the new radar range or any graphics upgrades. A delta-v readout is the single one feature that is needed for a complete game, IMHO (for reasons other have stated above, about accessibility and that this is after all a game, you really shouldn't have to do a lot of research online or calculations with pen and paper or to install a mod to be able to play it (I'm sure there are those who thinks it is playable under any of those conditions, but for me it's really not. I have installed KER, but I really don't like to use mods, for many different reasons.) 3. The delta-v readout in VAB should look very much like KER does today, because KER is really good. But in stock it probably should come with a warning from Wernher ("Remember that the delta-v readout is far from perfect, but Gene (or whoever) kept nagging us about showing at least some basic readout for the most basic designs, because he got bored of all the Kerbals stranded in space when the fuel ran out." That way, it would be explained in game that it is a basic help, not an advanced tool to give a delta-v readout for every possible and impossible contraption. 4. The ability for this KER-like readout to calculate TWR, performance of different engines at different altitudes etc would depend on the experiments performed by the player. Haven't measured the gravity on Mun? Then you can't use the readout to calculate TWR for Mun. No readout in high and low atmosphere of its composition? Then you can't pull the slider and find out how your jets/engines will perform. This probably would need a re-balance in the tech-tree so you unlock the most helpful science parts early on, but it would in my opinion make for a really, really good game play.

That I can understand. Just always nice to hear from someone on Squad that you at least have heard the community, then of course it is a whole other matter to find the time, resources and balance to implement new ideas in a good way. I have full understanding that such features will not be in 1.1, but no harm in coming with ideas for future updates, right? And if you ever need ideas, I can provide them for you, I have a bunch (some of which I posted in the suggestions forum a while back). But then again, I guess everyone have their own ideas on how to make KSP better. What I am still actually lacking is Squad themselves explaining: "This is our vision for career mode. This is how the game is meant to be played [in career]". In my opinion, career should have a stronger "linear" experience in accordance with how Squad thinks KSP should be played, while sandbox is there for all those who just want to play however they want. Right now I get the feeling that even Squad isn't quite sure how they want the game to play, and instead try to please what they think the community wants, but often you don't know what you want until you see it before you, so it is important, IMHO, that at least someone has a clear vision where they want the game to go.

This. But my solution would be (as I've seen others suggest) to have buttons in mission control to let you specify your preferences before hand (and not let the system guess my preferences after I select a contract.) Would it really be so bad for the game to have toggable buttons so I can choose for example: "I want contracts on/around the mun and minmus, with part tests, tourists and space station building" and these choices would count towards the weight of those contracts? Ie let you directly influence the weight of the contract, but still use 1.1s system, so some randomness would remain. This way the wheighting would reflect where I want to go, not where I've been. (But I would even more like some seperate, overarcing "main missions" where I could choose "I want to explore the Mun", which would both affect the weighting of the contracts, but also give me a big cash up front to accomplish the Mun exploration, and a big reputation boost after collecting "all" science on Mun. ("All" shouldn't be truly all science, rather for example run 20 different experiments in 5 different biomes.) And then of course a big rep hit if it expires before I can accomplish the mission, but for that to work it may require the "only one rocket launch per day rule".)

I have been thinking about this, since I also have earlier suggested a weekly wage and a weekly/monthly economics/balance report. In my opinion it should be small enough to let you go on a 3-4 year mission to Eve and back (on normal = not very efficient burn) without risking going bankrupt, but big enough so you wouldn't warp a few months just to harvest science from a science lab. My suggestion is 500/week for every Kerbal. If you have for example 8 Kerbals employed and go for a 3 year mission it would cost 624.000. Or perhaps Kerbals on a mission costs 5 times a Kerbal not on a mission, so a 3 crew mission for 3 years would cost about the same (624.000) where 5 kerbals at home cost 200/week while the 3 on mission costs 1000/week each. 624000 I just made up, since it for me represents a large sum on normal, but not overly large at the point in the game where you go to other planets. For early game, having 8 kerbals for a week costs 4000 a week and should not make early game harder. And I would recommend a retirement fund for those MIA/KIA kerbals, perhaps 20/week.

Agreed. And it would be a way to balance mid- to late game, where you often have very much money. If the upgraded facilities cost more every week, your budget would be bigger, but you wouldn't necessarily have more (or at least not near infinit) money to spend. And for you wondering about my 1 launch/day suggestion, it is mainly a way to balance weekly costs. Otherwise you can do hundreds of launches in the first week, which is not only unrealistic, but would be kinda cheaty if your expenses for the first week is in the area of 2000 roots or whatever.

This is my view of career as well, and I guess thats what my suggestions are (somewhat) aiming at. To have in game features that encourage exploring by unlocking in game content, for example a delta-v readout, or a selfupdating wiki. Right now I don't even know what career mode is about, and why it is called career at all. (Maybe the easiest solution would be to change the name to "contract mode" or "reasearch mode" or "economic mode" or whatever, because "career mode" is actually quite misleading.)

Ok. So lets see if I finally get this. If the slider is low (0,04) I probably get more FPS, but also more real-world seconds pass per in game second, resulting in the game running slower. If the slider is to the left, ie higher number (0,12) I will get fewer FPS, with larger input lag, but with probably faster running game, where 1 second in game continues to be 1 second in the real world. So for me, who don't want to spend forever in the atmosphere, I probably should move the slider to the left, and accept a drop in FPS (as long as the rocket doesn't become uncontrollable due to larger input lag). So those who uses mechjeb to launch very large rockets and gets a slideshow as it is, would probably save time by increasing time-delta? One actual question: Why exactly at 20 milliseconds? Because that's how Unity does it, or because Squad has chosen 20 milliseconds? In the latter case, could it theoretically (or practically) be possible to change to every for example 25 milliseconds and thus gain 20% performance?

In my opinion, my suggestions wouldn't make the game more difficult. Actually, an ingame wiki, a delta-v readout while constructing and an economic overview would if anything make things easier. Slightly more complex perhaps, but not more difficult. And I do like playing career on hard, with no reverts or quicksave, but to me, setting science to 10% doesn't make the more difficult (depending on how you define difficult), only more grindy. Thats why I like my point #5, because you can chose to make easier missions multiple times, or a harder mission once, and end up at the same place in the tech tree (well, you can actually do that already in the game).

First I'd like to point out I did look at posting in this thread, but since my suggestion is a sum of several suggestions, where I feel none would be that interesting without the others, I choose to start a new thread. Feel free to move/merge this if this was wrong. I would also like to point out that I have been thinking of posting this for about a year, so these ideas are not something I threw together hastily. Now, I do feel career mode in general is fun, but I miss something in career mode, and that is a Strategy layer. That's why I have some suggestions to make it feel like you are more in charge of a space program. Some of these things have been suggested before, I know, but again, my point is the sum of all these suggestions, not only one or two of them. So, in order to make you feel like more of a manager of a space program I suggest the following (they are in no particular order, with for example point 1 being dependent on point 2 etc). 1. Have a weekly economics summary, where it is shown how many launches you've made, the cost of rockets/planes launched, the income from recovery, the income from contract advances, the income from contracts completed, the weekly income from NAKA (see below), the weekly salary for all kerbonauts, the weekly pension fund for MIA/KIA kerbonauts etc. This summary would probably have to be tweak-able, so it doesn't show up every week of your year long journey to Jool, perhaps by progressing as the game progresses from weekly to monthly to yearly summaries. 2. Have overarching missions from NAKA (National Aeronauts and Kerbonauts Administration) where you are left with a choice of 1 of 2 to begin with - Explore space or -Explore Kerbin. (Later examples would be -Kerbins moons or -Inner planets, and -Space stations or -Outer planets) You would get (like a contract) some roots in advance and then some (diminishing) roots every week until the overarching mission is completed. You would also loose an increasing amount of reputation each week until you've completed the mission (so you get an incentive to hurry up, but it should be so small that you can ignore it for a while if you like. Perhaps starting at -1 the first week and like -5/week after 10 weeks or whatever balance feels right.) You should be able to change mission should you like, but would then get a reputation hit (-100 or whatever) and loose out on the roots advancement. The point would be to make ordinary contracts "side quests" and these mission "main quests". Completing a main quest would give you quite a lot of reputation (but almost no more roots, since for example NASAs missions hardly gives any roots when completed, but a massive boost in reputation.) 3. Only 1 allowed launch per Kerbin day (there already is the "warp to next morning", why not use it for something useful). Maybe airplanes could be launched 2 times a day, if there is a way to prevent "cheating", by launching rockets from the runway (for example the runway being destroyed very easily by rocket engines). This way, a maximum of 7 rocket launches in a week (and perhaps up to 14 plane launches), which is manageable for the summary in point 1. Perhaps this limitation should be upgradeable to 2 or 3 launches later in the game. Would also give a better momentum of the game in conjunction with the regular contracts, especially if their deadlines would be shorter. (And it is after all a bit unrealistic with unlimited launches each day, while the construction time mod feels a bit too limiting. I want to launch my rocket when I've designed it, not wait for a "random" period of time. Warp to next morning is fine I think, and quite intuitive in a gamey sort of way.) 4. An integrated wiki/self-updating encyclopedia, as proposed by me before here where suddenly the whole point of career mode would be to explore the entire Kerbal universe, filling in all the blanks in the encyclopedia/wiki. This could work well in conjuncture with point 2 in acting like an overarching "main quest", something to go back to when you don't know what more you want to do, but at the same time not something you have to do, being free to explore/play as you want. 5. Exponential cost for the tech tree, where you simply can't unlock everything without leaving Kerbin SOI (unless, perhaps, you chose to focus on -Exploring Kerbin and -Space stations when asked by NAKA, and thereby unlocking better bonuses for the science lab enabling you to get much, much more science. So there should be a choice) so you really would have to "struggle" to get to Eeloo to gather the millions of science required to unlock those last big fuel tanks (and then the next mission to Eeloo would become easier. The point being that the tech tree would be balanced so that you are always challenged to find that next science to unlock that next step, but would also be so abundant on worlds farther from Kerbin that it never would be considered grindy; one hard, long mission would be enough to unlock the next tech, you should not have to do 332 kinds of science on Kerbin to be able to unlock it. Unless you chose to, of course.) 6. Delta-vee readout, coupled to science (based on/functioning like KER). Haven't checked the atmosphere disposition in lower and upper Kerbin atmosphere with the Atmospheric Fluid Spectro-Variometer? Then the delta-vee (KER) readout can't show you how the engines are expected to perform at different altitudes. Haven't landed a probe on Mun and done a gravity scan? Then delta-vee can't show you expected TWR on Mun. Etc. That would really (in conjunction with point 4 and 2) encourage exploring and simply be fun in my opinion. Talk about mission planning, where you have to send out "scouts" to learn more of the planet/moon before actually doing your "real" mission. It also gives unmanned exploration with science-gathering by radio a bigger place in the game by paving the way for the more complex but more rewarding manned missions. Of course, such a system would have to have very clear tooltips telling the player what experiment they need to run to unlock the requested feature in the delta-vee. What a long post this turned out to be. Sorry. Well, the point of these suggestions would be to change focus in career: the contracts would no longer be the point of career mode, the contracts would be a stepping stone, a helpful tool to explore the system, something which at the moment aren't encouraged at all. (In sandbox it shouldn't be encouraged, but in career mode, I really feel it should. As an overarching goal.) In my opinion, when you have done all the experiments in all the biomes, completing the in-game wiki/encyclopaedia in point 4, you would actually win the game (with an option to keep playing of course). It feels like I had a couple of more points to suggest, but I can't remember them right now. Well, if anyone is interested in these ideas, a developer or a modmaker, I can expand my ideas more if you want. Otherwise, thank you for reading. (I do realize the chance of these ideas making it into stock or a mod is slim to none, but if they do, I would play the hell out of it).

I'm having the same problem as everyone else on a Mac Pro from 2009 I think. (Writing this on my ipad, so I don't have my specs right now.) I was just thinking, if this is a VM issue, maybe the difference between those having this issue and those who don't might be other things that take up VM, gadgets for example, or spaces. I'm quite spaces happy and uses about 5-6 spaces regurlarly (but only 4-5 gadgets). I also run about 6-7 programs (like aperture, spotify, firefox etc) at any given moment. Could that be the reason for VM filling up more quickly?

I agree with everything in this thread. Career mode needs fixing. I wonder if Squad ever really sat down and though hard and long on what they want with career mode. Should it be about managing money and/or science? Or is it a kind of "tutorial", to make it easier for new players to get into the game? Or something else? It's hard to properly balance a game, it you don't have a clear vision for what you want with that game mode. Now, 2 suggestions: 1. Why not put contracts in the tech tree, so if you go for "rocketry" you also (apart from the actual parts) unlock contracts about mun and minmus. Or if you go for "flight" you unlock contracts about surveys. That way it would be clear to a player what you are expected to do with that research node and at the same time keep the list of contracts clean from contracts you can't really complete. (the unlocking contracts should be shown as a thumbnail before you unlock the node, just as parts are today. Maybe the node would actually be called "moon explorations".) this might also make it easier balancing the tech tree. "When you unlock this node, all the parts should be there for you to make it to the mun." 2. Maybe science and money should be more exponential, where early on you count you science in tens, but soon the nodes costs thousands and perhaps even millions. Then Kerbin experiments could give access to early tech node, but you could never grind to level 2 or 3. For that you would have to complete higher tier contracts (unlocked in tech tree) or go to the mun or Minmus. And then for level 4 or 5 (or whatever) you would have to collect science from Eve or Duna, or from even higher tier contracts.

I too find hard mode a bit grindy. In my opinion hard should be hard because of more "realistic" effects, ie stonger reentry heat, no saving, bigger penalty for crashing etc. Smaller marginals for error, quite simply. In fact, maybe you should earn MORE money than in normal, but also loose more money when failing. I also (as someone else wrote) think it is grindy in the start because I'm already so experienced, so I don't really have to think when I design my first 10-15 rockets. The fun challenge is to get to the Mun with no manouver nods. That is hard, and its not grindy. Then, I found in 0.90 you hit a (dead end?)/wall when starting to go to other planets. With no dV calculator and no mods (since were talking stock here) it is just dead (too) hard to design a good enough rocket to take you to for example Eve, and if I somehow still manages to do that, it is too hard to aerobrake successfully around another planet. One little design flaw, or a periapsis a touch too low, and you lost a bunch of money with no way of reverting. I have a good solution for that problem, but this post is too long already. (And when I posted about this problem a couple of months ago noone else seemed to share my problem with aerobraking.)

Of course they have a definite day in mind (internally). A deadline. Why otherwise hurry at all? And I guess they need a specific date to tell the partners in all those deals they keep talking about. The question is when. I'm also wondering if they plan on selling boxed versions? If they are, I would guess at a release day in late may/early june to have time to send a gold version to be printed and shipped. If not, I would still say early may. They still need time to up the hype by trailers, and I'm guessing with 1.0 they would want to announce it a couple of weeks beforehand, not just drop it on a (tuesday) as usual. At least, thats how I would do it. Besides, when they say they might not need all the time set for experimentals, I would still say they are locked in with a specific launch date, so that time would probably be spent doing other things. Conclusion: I'm guessing 8th of May. Or maybe 15th of May. Or later, I would be very surprised if its released this month (but very happy!)

Um... thanks. It's not my fault everyone so far has misinterpreted my poll (or maybe it is my fault that I can't explain what I mean... :S ) To me, it's obvious that the game has both simulationy and gamey content (contracts, for example being more on the gamey side, and the new aerodynamic model being more on the simulationy side (even though some may argue it is not advanced enough to be a true simulation)). Of course, a thread can always evolve to include discussions and subjects that was not the original thread-creators intention (as for me in this case.) I would however like to make one final attempt to steer this discussion in the direction I meant for it when I started it. My concern is as follows: Most people (all?) who are registered here on the KSP forum, are people who love KSP. I would guess that most of you like realism in games, and feel it is necessary with, for example, a really good aero model (like FAR), to get the most out of your game. So when Squad asks this forum what you want more of, you'll answer re-entry damage, aero model, x64 version (stable) etc. Now, when KSP hits 1.0 and starts selling to average players, I think Squad might have a problem. I don't think many average players find realism in games that interesting. In my opinion, an average gamer won't find any (meaningful) difference between the new and the old aerodynamic model. My fear (a too strong word, but I can't find any better right now) is that KSP will flop with average players, because KSP is too realistic and too little "gamey". Now, does that matter? I would say it depends on Squads intention. If their economic calculations are that they will sell on the niche market "engineering interested persons who like realism in games, who are willing to mod their game to satisfaction", then I see no problem (unless perhaps, if all those in that market already has bought an early release and there are none left to sell to). But if they calculate to sell "to the masses", ie more casual gamers, I think they have to rethink some parts of the game (after my own observations playing career mode.) It is, without mods or pen and paper (which I don't think you can expect an average, or at least a casual, gamer to use) too difficult to go to other planets. I strongly suggest Squad to integrate some kind of delta-v map and delta-v calculation tool for interplanetary missions, it is really difficult to plan a mission to the SOI of another planet as it is right now. Now, I expect most of you reading this to do that with your left and right hand tied to your back. But then you are not an average gamer. Now, why do I care? Two reasons. First, I respect Squad and HarvesteR for their vision and what they have done and wish them a true success. Second, I want them to succeed, so that they can continue to produce updates and add-ons for a long time, and then, KSP 2.0. (Yes, I know they have promised updates. But everything can change. If they somehow run out of money, that could change quickly.) So, my reason for this poll was to see if my thinking was correct, ie that most people on this forum love this game because of its more simulationy content, and are not that very interested in the more "gamey" parts of KSP (which for me means they are not average players.)

This is a really interesting discussion IMHO. But I now realize 2 things. When I use the word "simulator", I made an error, I guess. I was thinking of the use of the word from for example "Microsoft Flight Simulator" (MSF), ie a computer program trying to simplify (without over-simplifying it) something complicated to a degree where a normal human can get a feeling of whats its like (in MFS, whats its like to fly different airplanes). I don't think anyone would use MSF as an instruction manual in a real world flight school. (That's what I believe the difference between simulate and emulate is. An emulation in my opinion tries to cover everything to create a truly accurate experience, good enough for a flight school student for example, whereas a simulation is a program which simulates (but not copies!) something difficult (probably making it easier/simplified in the process.) But that's me, I might very well be wrong. The other thing I realize is, I should have asked in the poll: "Is KSP (first and foremost) a game or a simulator/emulator to you?" i.e. what would you like the program to be (and not "what is your interpretation of what the program is today?") or perhaps: "Do you prefer playing KSP in sandbox mode like a Minecraft kind of game, or do you prefer playing KSP in career mode, like some kind of tycoon game?" - - - Updated - - - Me, myself, when I started playing a couple of years ago I definitely loved the Minecraft kind of game, but now (having grown a bit tired of sandbox) I would say career mode, the tycoon version, is really, really fun (having played it only on hard. No saves!)

Sorry. Don't know if I can change it now... On the other hand, I kind of made it that way on purpose, adding the line "first and foremost". To force you to take a stand, I guess. If I phrase it like this: "What would you like KSP to be?" or possibly: "In what direction would you like KSP to move?". Would that make it easier to chose?

Now a couple of references to HarvesteR. But what do you yourselves think? Should be interesting to Squad as well. If they release a game and keep updating a game, when the majority of those who play it want more simulation...

I agree, thats why I myself see it more as a game than a simulator. In a perfect KSP, all those game mechanics would be tied to your difficulty setting (or selectable), "hard" having them all enabled (life-support, re-entry heat, signal delay, solar flares). And some, like realistic science experiments wouldn't be interesting of course, but it could be tied to the in-game time, forcing you to time accelerate to collect surface samples. (Not saying it would be a good idea, but you could...)

Since my first post went largely unnoticed about 30 pages ago, I will make one more post about why I don't think KSP is ready. As I just started a poll about, I regard KSP now as a game, in contrast to a simulator/emulator. Mostly, because I think HarvesteR and Squad tries hard to make KSP a game. (Look at all the latest updates. Have they added anything really for the simulator/emulator part of the game, i.e. sandbox. Well, a little, but mostly for career mode - the game.) So, is sandbox ready for 1.0? Yes, and it has been for 1-2 years. (Seriously, you can add a new aero model, or better water textures i 1.1 or 1.2. It is not a requirement. You can have fun in sandbox mode without it. Even re-entry damage, which I greatly look forward to, could be added in 1.3 without any harm done.) But, is career mode (the game) ready for 1.0? No, I would say. Why? Because of 2 things (that I can think of): 1. No cut-scenes and no story. If we take another game as an example, what would, say, Mass Effect be without story and cut-scenes? (You would run around on different planets, killing unnamed enemies in different clothes. Are they good guys? Are they bad guys? No, idea, you just kill them. Would that be fun? Yes, somewhat. Is the game better with cut-scenes and a story? Yes, immensely so!) Can a story be added in 1.1 or 1.2 in KSP? Well, to me, that would be really, really strange, to have it added after the full release. 2. No higher purpose. Again, in Mass Effect, (with the cut-scenes) you know what you set out to do and why. You have a mission, a goal. In KSP, its easy to get confused. Sure, you know why you start playing. To get to space. Possibly to get to the mun. But then what? What is the long term purpose of the game? How can I "win"? (Maybe it doesn't have to be an exact winning condition, but still, something to aim for.) My suggestion to this problem would be a self-updating encyclopaedia (as proposed in this thread: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/108810-Wiki-integrated-into-KSP-career-mode), where everything you do updates your information about that moon or planet (or sun) you just performed a survey on. That would be one way to add some kind of goal (to complete the encyclopaedia). But even if nothing like that would be made, I miss a way to win. Can that be added in 1.1? No, that (to me) would also be strange. So, my conclusion: if Squad aims to make a space program simulator, it is absolutely ready for 1.0. If they aim to make a game, like for example airline tycoon (or any other tycoon game really), I would say it is not quite ready (but not very far from it.)

After the discussion about whether KSP is ready for 1.0 or not, I got the feeling that many on this forum regards KSP as a simulation of a space program. The way I see it, one can look on KSP in one of two ways. Either you think KSP is a simulator/emulator where you construct your own rockets, fly to the places you want just because you want it and explore the KSP universe simply because its fun. Or, you consider KSP to be a game and load up career mode, struggling to manage your base, upgrading the right building at the right time, choosing the right contract and try to make as much roots as possible (to get to that next upgrade.) The reason for this poll is that I myself used to see KSP as a simulator/emulator, playing a lot in sandbox just because it was fun (for a few hundred hours since a couple of years), using mainly MechJeb as a mod. Lately though, career mode on hard has grown on me, and I have started to look at KSP as a game. Though when I start to express that I think that career mode on hard stops being fun when you start going to other planets (it works beautifully while inside Kerbin SOI) I got shot down by many who suggested for me to find a mod to fix this. The way I see it, using a mod when you play the simulator/emulator part of the game is perfectly fine and fun, but to use a mod while playing the game... Consider for example Mass Effect. If you just play random fights and chose to install a mod which makes the weapons 500% more powerful, just to see the enemies explode in cool ways, I think that is perfectly fine. But if you load up a new campaign on hard, but then uses that same mod making the fights super-easy, I fail to see the point. To me, when playing a campaign in a game, I want to play "the way the creator intended", i.e. without mods that seriously change the way you play the game (ruining all balance.) Now, to the poll. Before I make another try to discuss whats wrong with career mode on hard (and career mode only), I would like to know what others think about this game. If everyone see this game as a simulator/emulator, there is not really any point for me to start arguing whats wrong with the game part. So vote and argue. Am I wrong? Are there not two ways of looking at KSP? Is there only one? Or are there more?

I have thought about that as well (rocket simulation), and think it really is a missing feature. I would fit nicely in. After finding out enough info about Eve, you could (automatically) import Eves parameters into the simulator and let you test/simulate a landing craft before launch. It would cost money and time of course (being the "downside" of it.)

I disagree. Or, it would be cool. But mostly (I think) it would be fun. And that is the point of games, after all, to have fun. Besides, if implemented in the way I suggest, exploring would give in game advantages to accelerate further exploring, also increasing the fun. (For example finding out the correct amount of oxidizer and fuel to be extracted from moon dust. One could find that out in the online wiki of course, but where's the fun in that?)

Yes, I am thinking that also, but I guess that's even more complicated to implement than the encyclopedia itself (should HarvesteR ever actually implement such a feature, or if someone should make such a mod.)

Encyclopedia is of course a better word for what I mean than database or wiki. Because that is exactly what I mean.