Knaapie

That would create a pop-up before almost every mission..... Food to try to kill your computer with your keyboard.. Have you ever forgotten to set up your action groups? There should be a pop-up ..... NO Do it right or crash and burn.

I love career ! Read the topic bro. It put a different light on my /lol edit "joke" /edit 2 I'll try

Lol, Yes! That would be very cool with the mk1 cockpit you've suggested. This sounds perfect for us...... But we have to think about the noobs too, the learning curve in the game. Imagine building a plane without any basic knowledge to start with. Your plane will crash and burn without understanding why. You'll have to figure out aerodynamic stability, flight controls and in flight center of mass displacements by trial and error or wikis. If you can't figure it out soon, you'd be at pretty large disadvantage. That's a though start bro. I'd say Squad nailed it pretty much here, making planes optional and still provide many parts to fulfill our creative needs. /lol edit So, yes, planes are useless.... And that is ok..... Careers are for noobs anyways.

Everybody is right in this topic. Kinda funny after this wall of text. - planes are slow boring with (too) few benefits. - They can be cool and nice for variation (see pics above). Spaceplanes can even be useful. - They do give easier access to perform science on kerbin biomes (can give you the few missing science points at some time), which is considered to be inefficient by proficient players. They should stay in the game for variation and fans. The only actual discussion is if there are actually TOO few benefits. One could increase benefits by reducing the main downside: costs for unlocking. Perhaps the basic plane parts should be unlocked at the very start. Be able to fly planes before going to space. So you don't need to waste science points to get science points on Kerbin. I would want to go for that. Then again, I also like Kerbals to be space crazy and have rockets before they can fly planes. It is why I like science to be low on Kerbin. I'm undecided. And to answer your sub question: would it be cool to have a 3rd satellite around Kerbin? Imo adding the 2nd satellite around Kerbin has already done wonders. One could make more easy to reach bodies, but imo, it is time to explore further, you should plan a visit to laythe . Less gravity than Kerbin and a pretty thick atmosphere makes this a great planet to fly around (and easy to re-orbit).

Aha.. Well, I guess you can "park" as close as possible in the pro-retrograde direction from the space station. That should theoretically reduce "space floating". Reducing relative difference in orbit between the two objects will make it better for you. It would mean that a higher orbit, like you suggested, works as well. anyways gl, and imo.. dock faster

You mean kilometers and basically, the speed of your craft will not effect the ejection speed of your ejectable satellite. (Newton's F = m*a). 100km - 500km is a nice region to put your stations in. What you're doing wrong is hard to tell here. Not enough data (with what are you grabbing? did your Kerbal activate his/her rcs (press "r") during eva). It is possible that you have a very light satellite (tiny "m") and an overpowered decoupler (Huge "F") giving you high acceleration ("a") when decoupling. If this is the case: use docking ports ^^ /e Clipping parts ^^ yep, imo Katateochi nailed it.

To basically cheat your way to any place in the solar system and back again: Put a command seat in a service bay and get a Kerbal seated before launch.

I can totally see how these experiments can improve global durability and support them when i can. These experiment are actually already taking place in different parts of the world (or are already completed). I believe mars direct followers have a mostly self sustainable "mars pod" in the desert. 100% water reusability has been reached in closed environments during long term experiments. The technology is already there or in very close reach. Fundamentally one would need to ask why to send humans at all ? Robots can build the colonies, get the needed resources and even set a stage for human visitors way later. It doesn't make sense to send people even then though. They can only craw upon a barren landscape live in danger and use up scarce resources. Humans on a Mars mission would only be there for sake of propaganda.. Which I might be ok with, it is always beneficial to boost our technology. /e ow right i forgot to reply to the sustainability: well, oil can be used to create the infrastructure of a more sustainable way of living on the arctic. They need a lot of energy to get through the ice first. and since mineral resources are pretty scarce below the ice it is indeed pretty difficult to find building materials. I'm no scientist, but I still can't imagine it being harder than on Mars.

Still rubbish. Even if you'd want to mine most resources on Antarctica it would still be cheaper and easier than mining on mars. There is enough oil there to simulate the cheap way of living we are used to. (just need to lift the drilling ban). That's the thing. Nasa could do it, the EU could do it, Japan could do it, If one of these parties would dedicate enough funds. (Hell, even Bill Gates could do it, if he stops using his funds to save the world.). Elon Musk is trying to reduce costs, so investors with less funds can do this as well (like him). Would it become reasonable to do it? That is subjective. I'd say no, in our current economic system that seems to need a profit as incentive. That incentive would change when the Earth faces certain destruction or when exploration becomes more important than profit. Some people think this is already the case and for them, yes, it is reasonable ^ I am sort of worried how capitalism deals with global problems, but I have to admit that people like Elon Musk and Bill Gate do make me believe that it could actually work in some situations. peace

Uhhmm.. You're asking for a 200kg rocket.. If it needs to be lifted of Kerbin, it should be heavier than that. I'm expecting that you mean 200 tons . Or your desires are too steep ^^ Here are 2 basic ideas fast build and admittedly not perfect. They do symbolize two ideas, using different engines. in general: These are landers with return ability, all electricity needs are handled by 1 rtg and yes, an extra reaction wheel wouldnt hurt for turning speed, you could do w/o. No ship can land anywhere and return (unless you believe the dude on youtube who went everywhere with 1 craft ^^), these two could land on most planets. Tylo, Laythe and Eve would require redesigns. Both rockets have an "ant engine" as final stage for the final ajustments. Not needing a capsule would be a different story though.. and for Moho and Gilly, you should consider ion, if you have the patience. nr 1, 205t: use the interplanetary stage engines, as lander engines and return engines. Only ditch used tanks when you can. (Do not carry more heavy engines than needed !! ) Its downside is aerodynamic drag during take-off. You can easily upgrage this ship by adding a liquid fuel tank in the interplanetary stage... Did I accidentally create a Tylo lander ? ^^.. It needs the extra liquid tank and the landing/return would be too close for comfort, but nb at all. ^^ nr 2, 266t: cheaper and lower tier poodle and lv-909 as final engine prior to the ant. This is probably considered to be a "standard" rocket design. More streamlined but heavier with less dv. The poodle stage seems a bit large, but it is a strong engine and I went for it because I dont like littering space with debris ^^. Note the use of fuel lines, giving that last mainsail a full tank at stage 6 and getting pretty close to the perfect stage mass ratios Blaarkies explains. Note that using a single nuclear engine for the interplanetary stage would lower the total mass quite a bit. (It might not be able to lift off from Duna. It also could use a slightly heavier lifter with 200 more dv, yet it should be sufficient for most planets)

I'd rather have versatile wings than exact copies of the real thing. But euhhhh..: You can make them look alike useing stakes !!! /e my elevons might be from the "opt space plane mod"

suggested before and tried a few years ago http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/54983-oculus-rift-vireio-perception-ksp-within-reach/ http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/129434-why-not-in-a-virtual-reality/ <-- what a great poster ! You have my support on this

Eventhough I love my own topics, yes it does. Perhaps add it to some sort of collectors topic about "parts that need changing", since most like the idea. thanks for the response guys! As a final thought: about half of the probes have readable letters / numbers. They do give an orientation indication. I'd add these hints to all the probes, perhaps have some fun with the design of the indicator for each probe (kinda like blaarkies suggestion ) And, on top of that: it does give the confusion feeling for inexperienced rocketeers ^^ problem solved

Well... Imagine building a vtol moon rover, docked in a space plane cargo bay, with multiple probe cores facing different directions. Then it might matter. One could still work around it though. Either study your orientation keys or orient the entire ship instead of the probe itself. Add the knowledge that the direction to the hangar doors is the "up" orientation and problem solved. Then again, this argument can be made for decouplers as well.. And I really like the arrows on those parts.

The engineers keep messing up the orientation, can Bill repaint those probes ?

What if you could mod "scenerios" ? Share them with your friends. Where you can tweak beginning vehicles / buildings / resources / kerbals / part costs / research points / rewards and more importantly: skill trees, missions and achievements. All those factors can create a story, told by the missions from the start to the end. Modders would be able to create their unique story and the game would become endlessly replayable!

Isn't that what KSP is all about ? Launching a rocket blindly, not knowing the dV you have, hoping it will do the job. Failing is and learning is part of the fun. What you're asking is pretty specific, and thankfully there are modders to satisfy these specific needs, providing mobile launchpads. I understand that ppl would like to exercise their landing skills. Imo what KSP needs to do, is to provide the least possible tools in order to resolve the most possible problems. It would mean that the players will need to be creative to set the stage they desire. In this case, I'd say that the tools in the game are there, to create the stage you'd like to create. pce

That is the feeling the get with every ion craft. Basically, Ion craft are extremely slow, or be too heavy to be beneficial compared to nerv or spark engines. In my opinion, they should only be used at minmus for fun (not efficiently), or planets closer to the sun where the solar panels get more efficient. Moho is great . At all other planets it seems better to use conventional engines and save weight. I did try to use the fuels cells to mine on few Jool moons. It seemed to be working great, but then, when the oxidizer ran out, 2 RTG's did the job, with the help of time acceleration. That makes fuel cells only usable for ion propulsion. I do see the synergy in the item: works in the dark, has electricity storage and generation and is lighter than the solar panel. I have used it at the dark side of planets and yes, it does help a bit. But it still doesnt seem to make ion craft usable at any other place than Gilly and Moho. I feel like this part was made to change that. Probably more patient players have different stories, but I agree: This part might need some tweaking. I would go a bit further and suggest to reduce the electric consumption for ion engines. Making ion a bit more playable altogether. This would also reduce the total size of the cells for Foxster.

Rofled at this topic, very nicely put into words. It's a bit of a daily irritation where everybody emphasizes with, applied to structure of ksp. We need to confirm our choices a bit too often: Do you really want to download this file?, "yes". It is an .exe, do you really want to run it? "yes". Accept terms and conditions, "yes". Do you want to allow this program to make changes to your harddrive? "yes".... "sigh, how many times do i need to say yes?!! . Formed by daily society, I'd agree. I think ksp would feel more userfriendly when exiting the game would be made easier. I liked the "exit to desktop" from the ksc screen idea (YargJay9991). And if something similar will not make it into the game, then I will make it my life's mission to inform ppl of the power of alt+f4 peace

I can understand the emotional argument, but not the rational one. Maybe this helps: Alright, so lets say we add a slap of concrete, which is always nice, give it a targeting option. Then what would you like to do with it, that you can not do at this moment ? I'll give Hcube some time to give an answer as well ^^ pls be patient

Soo.. if im getting this right, ppl are discussing addind a larger landing pad because they saw it on youtube ? What if Spacex decided to build a ssto. initially boosted up to speed by maglev on a inclined takeoff strip ?? . Should that be incorporated in ksp as well? It is admittedly very cool to recreate actual space missions. But I don't see how this would enrich the core game (might be because of my limited imagination, since someone amazing already modded it, see post above ) As for the beacons, they are already there. Make a small probe, put an antenna and a light on there, park it at the end of the runway and call it: " ILS beacon ". Rofl,, yeah just ship the booster back, would be cheaper, what were they thinking at Space-x ^^ (I'll +1 you on that one)

B-29 cockpit ftw. so ppl can build better millenium falcons The OPT spaceplane mod has three 2.5m cockpits. One of them is quite similar to the b-52. (see pic below). Imo download the mod, especially if you like planes.. however.. delete most of the op engines. As for the cargo bays, yes I do still miss them. Them not being stock actually surprised me not too long ago. (I choose this in the poll). Imo both the 2.5m cockpit and the cargobay should be stock to complete the sets and provide more options for spaceshuttles, which seems a pretty core element to the game and yet, the need for these parts are there after 80h of gametime... I was thinking what I'd miss after those parts.. It is probably a never ending wishlist. Thankfully ksp has a few modders, and making extra parts doesn't seem to be that difficult. Eventually the only mod to satisfy your creativity after 200h of gameplay is the procedural parts mod (which I still have to download). It also enables you to make your 2.5m cargobay peace

This, my friend, is amazing. I can already see an intro scene of Bill, Bob and Jeb driving around in a rover, looking at the stars as the final frontier, when a fireball emerges!! It is a pod crashing down with a half broken parachute, nearly killing everyone. Valentina steps out of her broken space craft with urgent news: "we need to start a space program!" Building it all up from nothing is great for story telling. I love the idea and possibilities !

exactly. I've done my research this time around and found out that someone already tried to mod VR for KSP (2 years ago :/ . Unity 5 seems to support VR, so why not ? VR games should be about exploration, discovering new worlds, great views, an adventure to a place you can only dream about. KSP does all of that, while potentially giving the option to take your uncomfortable VR mask off and work on your new ship behind your flatscreen. This unique feature to the game can create a balance between prolonged play-ability and being overwhelmed by your imagination. I am no programmer, but lets assume that incorporating VR has huge programming issues. That it will be costly and that it will not increase profits. Let's assume that there are competitors far ahead with these ideas (EVE, lunar flight). These are real world valid reasons why no-one should do it. and we would put the idea back in the dark place where it came from. Does that mean that we should abandon our "far fetched" dreams? Live with profit as the only valid incentive ? Should we not aim for greatness, because someone is ahead? No.. we should not. This forum is meant to inspire, it is meant to express our dreams and maybe... however unlikely, maybe, some great programmer will be inspired to make our dreams come true.

Hello guys, I'm new to the forum. Have played the game quite a lot and fell in love at the moment I got completely lost in space with my first space flight "aiming" for the mun. And finally got that succesful landing (yay), to only find out I didnt bring enough fuel and that I had stranded Jebediah . I had to save him ! And now, after a long time, I was thinking: "How amazing would a first landing be in a virtual reality" ? The technology is there right? If you ask me, the core of the game is the experience of being an engeneer and an astronaut at the same time. You could potentially walk around your ship in the VAB, Land your mk1 lander can, while looking through the window at the planet and be amazed at the feeling that you are actually the one doing this, in your virtual "real" world. Not to even mention the marketing stunts that this would enable. Would this be possible ? Was my first post off-topic? ^^ did not yet read the rules. peace