John JACK

dc;dr Whatever anyone can say about how Squad works, single thing is true: they do make the game better, and don't make it worse.

There is nothing interesting to do anyway. Fantasy engines will just cut some time waiting to do that nothing. I see the problem of DLCs as it should be something bigger than your regular mod, and mods are already very big. So just some more content would not tempt players to buy it. And DLC can not add "quality of life" features — that features must be in core game, otherwise justified whine ensues.

Plants adsorb very low percentage of sunlight. Chlorophyll use only narrow band of deep-red light and some blue light. Most abundant green light is just reflected, and IR too. The reason is not energy for photosynthesis, the reason is overheating. Black thing in bright sunlight can heat up to boiling water, to plants it will be obviously deadly. Plant may evaporate some water to control heat, but it's easier just to reflect excess light/energy/heat. Green Earth plants grow pretty well in monochrome red light. Blue is mostly to control growing and flowering cycles, and other wavelengths are just useless. Under red sun our green plants will thrive, thought may not bear fruit well. Endemic plant colouration should mostly depend on distance to sun and average temperature. Closer and warmer planets may have bright green or yellow (to reflect more red light) growth, farther and colder — more dark green to brown. Though not black leaves, they both overheat at day and radiate too much warmth at night.

Accelerating extra dead weight of tankage, ducts and redundant engines with payload 7000 m/v to orbit needs much more fuel than decelerating near empty first stage (without payload) less than 1000 m/s. SSTOs may be wicked cool, but they are ineffective. Wouldn't it be Liquid Flyback Booster?

It would be a motorcycle than. Regarding OP. KSP has no stock dV readout yet, so suggesting to nerf it is kinda pointless. And dV calculation is (for computer) simple math, it does not affect performance that much. All readouts and telemetry in KSP updates in real time. Why dV should be different?

Actually it's safe (mostly). Even aerial nuclear explosions does not pollute atmosphere too much — most hot waste is not from reaction itself, but consists of irradiated ground. No ground near the epicentre means no fallout. In space nuclear explosion just bright flash (do not look at it without sunglasses), and everything radioactive will just be scattered as fine dust through millions of kilometres of nothing. Also kerbals are immune to radiation. They treat LV-Ns like they are not spewing plumes of hot radioactive death that best are placed at other and of a very long beam (pointing away of course), but like normal engines, and place them inside ships without any concerns. So kerbulans should think of nuclear bombs not as "slow ugly agonizing beard-falling-out mulching-yourself death", but as "very-very-very big pretty murderdeath explosions". If it didn't kill you right away, you will be fine.

Hidden shovels and/or Space Madness cases, I presume.

Even in career (without masochistic low income rate) lifter price does mean something only at lowest tier. When you earn your first million after couple of "explore Mun" or "launch space station" contracts, rocket may cost 20 or 50 thousand but it's just a pocket change. That's a problem endemic to economical srategies (games that have some kind of economy and strategy) — grinding poverty at first, abundant wealth in late game. Short intermediate period when incomes are balanced with expenses may be or not be there. Though, 2.5 m parts do not actually cost much more per mass/capacity than 1.25 m, so for once economy is not a reason to want 1.875 m size. @GoSlash27, sorry if me quote bothered you. I often quote just some statements to tie my answer to, it may not mean that I argue with you personally.

Is lifter price really that meaningful? In stock engines may cost less than tanks, and both of them may cost less than decouplers. Thus abundance of asparagus designs, jet stages and too muck TWR everywhere. There are even no mods to rebalance prices and economy to more sensible, like "every engine costs much more than any tank it can lift".

That's right. But heat shield should not be able to protect from heat absolutely everything. Aerobraking fragile space-only parts at upper atmosphere is okay, but cardboard landing cans should not survive reentry by any means, bar being shielded from all sides by a cargo bay. Actually, even heat shield is not necessary. I often land not just pods but entire orbital ships, with tanks and engines. With heating at 120% they barely but survive reentry from LKO speed. And that's absolutely not right. Procedural fairings are procedural. But fairing is not exactly a part. It's more like a wrapping to protect your model from elements while you carry it to space. You build it fast and shed it fast and forget about it. It's not a pod, it's a can. With full crumple-body technology, not fit to survive anything more than a sneeze. 2 kerbal pod must be heavier, have more crash and heat tolerance, and look like a pod. The lack of pods in stock KSP is just another problem. We have a generous assortment of two pods, two cans, a cupola, and FIVE plane cockpits. Because plane parts recently got attention (as in stocking entire big mod enirely with it's author) and rocket parts did not. Devs has more pressing problems to solve RIGHT NAO™, but some new shiny tanks and engines would be greatly appreciated.

No there is. One is a cheat to get parts of exactly sone size you need them to be. Other is more different parts to toy with. Think as buying box of new shiny blocks vs sculpting in plasticine. I do not want same old LV-909 or Reliant all over again just bigger, I want something new. Mods are good, but Squad approved is better. Reductio ad absurdum duly noted. I explained a point in previous posts. With MATH! Blame Squad for adding 3.75 m size, not us. Difference between 1.25 and 2.5 m sizes is too big, and that sizes are most common in kerballed spaceflight. Well, that's not a cheat, but surely not proper use of parts as it was intended. Mk1 lander can need rework, not to be used as reentry pod, but NOT to be used as reentry pod. I.e., "full crumple body" tin can should have next to none temp tolerance. And pods should have more crash tolerance. There is a need for 2-kerbal pod, more than any. Single seater is good only for footprints-and-flag missions. Two-seater can house pilot with scientist, or pilot with rescue. Rescue missions are very common, and in stock they need either pod with drone core, or a heaviest 3-seat pod.

In other words, it's a cheat. Right, there are no cheating in a single player sandox. But there should be at least some balance, to ensure usefulness of any part, not just one Twitch or LV-909 for every size. Engines of different sizes have different stats and are not just scaled for a reason. Tanks, batteries and wings in stock are actually scaled, but for simplycity only. Also different stats in different sizes is realistic. You can not scale nature, and for example engine bell of twice size will not provide same ISP with quad thrust. Smaller structural parts are relatively more strong but bigger parts are more rigid. Not even mention fourth dimension, like gimbal rates or spool-up times. They use clusters of smaller parts instead one big all the time, from laptop batteries to Merlin engines. One big engine IRL may have better ISP, but be heavier and less reliable because greater mechanical stresses. And of course bigger engines cost much more, even big enough machines to make parts are very rare and in high demand. TweakScale may be okay as a mod, to allow people do whatever they want for their own goals and funs. But that mechanic is totally unsuitable to stock game due to being at same time unrealistic, unKerbal and unbalanced. I think, reasons there are no 1.875 m size in stock are mostly historical. Once upon a time, there were only three sizes: "normal" 1.25 m, "tiny" 0.625 m (half size) and "big" 2.5 m (twice size). But then Squad added "huge" parts, and not double size again (5 m) but just one-and-half of previous. That set a precedent of sizes being closer. Next was Mk2 size, that is wider than 1.25 m Mk1 and lighter than 2.5 m. So why not do the same again and incorporate a "size 1½", even just nominally? Or stock some mod with that parts and community will do as always.

Career progression! New players will get 1.875 m parts only after being already familiar with 1.25 m. And 1.875 m parts will be less confusing than that HUGE 2.5 m. No you can not. Scale tanks — maybe (though still no), but engines and pods are complete and complex units by themselves, they must be totally remade for any changes. 3-kerbal pod is not a single kerbal pod three times bigger, and 2-kerbal pod is not average of 1 and 3. KSP is lego, and lego is good, we just want some new bricks for it. It will be good too. Also 1.875 is mostly a booster/lower stage size, so no batteries or even docking ports are needed. Just adapters to smaller and bigger size.

Actually, not getting 1.1 prerelease should count as being a 1st class citizen. Because getting is not playing for fun. It's for a dirty work of testing. Though I suppose Steam users who opted for prerelease are more like heroic volunteers than 2nd class citizens to Store elite.

Spaceships are so easy to control that even an engineer could fly them. It's only logical that astronauts/cosmonauts wanted to be known at least as a honorary SPACE!!! pilots.

Or they are just kerbals. You know, the green guys who willingly climb into trash kans on top of exploding barrels?

Only selected kerbanauts wear spacesuits. Because how they may prove they are real kerbanauts otherwise? Construction workers and KSC staff run around in ordinary clothes, with hardhats as a best enviromental protection.

We still need new 2-kerbal reentry pod, for times when Mercury is not enough, and Apollo is too much, and using plane cockpit in a rocket is just weird. And we need some engines near 400 kN thrust, in between Swivel and Skipper. Cockpits are for Mk2 size, proposed 1.875 "size 1½" is for rockets. Mk3 and 3.75 lack probe cores and reaction wheels too, so not every size must have them. There are neither Mk2, Mk3 or 3/75 m inline batteries. What do we really need is a command pod ot two, service bay, four LFO tanks, monoprop tank, pair of engines, one ore three SRBs, some adapters and nosecones. And most of al we need official acknowledgement for that size really exists and what precise diameter it should be. 1.875 is good, but 1.75 and 2.0 m are okay too and rounder numbers.

KSP is a lego game. You have limited number of limited parts and have to improvise to get what you need. That's fun. If you could just rescale every part to your needs, it will be too easy and not challenging enough. And tweaking scale is absolutely not realistic. As wise men say, you can not scale nature. Every rocket part is a product of research, development, testing, making tools and jigs to actually make it. Changing size means that total mass, cross-sections, strains and loads will be all different too, and engineers have to recalculate everything. Unified mass ratio of all tanks and wing parts in KSP is an oversimplification for sake of easier gameplay. Even batteries does not rescale. There is one best and most popular type of Li-Ion cell, 18650, near thumb-size. A powerbank or flashlight use one-two of them. Laptop or power tool battery may have up to dozen. Tesla car use several hundred of the same 18650 cells. As for engineering readouts, it must be done, and it will be done the best way possible.

1.25, 2.5 and 3.75 parts have ratios 1:2 and 1:1.5 in diameter. It may seem very close, but. Section, meaning surface area, drag and engine thrust, is proportional to linear size squared. That are 1:4 and 1:2.25 ratios. Gap between "size 1" and "size 2" already looks bigger. Volume, meaning mass and capacity, is proportional to linear size cubed. 1:9 and 3.375 ratios. In game largest 2.5 m tank has 8 times more fuel than largest 1.25 m tank, and largest 3.75 m tank is just 2.25 times more than largest 2.5 m one. And rigidity, meaning amount of force to bend something for a given deformation, is proportional to linear size fourth power. Thought bending force by itself is proportioal to length, so 2.5 m rocket is to be just 8 times more rigid than 1.25 m one. Also, in spaceplane parts Mk1 size is 1.25 m, Mk3 size is roughly 2.5 m, and intermediate Mk2 has no rocket analogue. There are mods that add 1.875 m or close size parts. But not big and not popular. So — stock 1.875 please! Or maybe 1.75 or 2 m size, rounder numbers may be better than exact ratios. Also MOAR bigger boosters!

Exactly one thing that stock docking lacks is some kind of relative roll angle display. Otherwise, navball Mk1.0.5 with Eyeball Mk1 work just fine. And stock "mocking UI" serves just one single function: it swaps rotation and translation controls on keyboard. Yay.

Dat imaginary totally evil almost beard.

Engines have exhaust, and rocket engine exhaust is pretty hot. Even more if it's nuclear engine. But when a burn ends, hot gasses dissipate and cool down fast. Kenlistar Redacted Intrepid sensors are real-time-only, not too good to spot something ztealthy.

But Steam is a Linux mod. As for KJR, may I say that it helps greatly with some designs, but as for 1.0.5, moderately big rockets fly acceptably well without excess strutting. Thought there some weird glitches like 180⁰ bend under thrust at 4x timewarp. Stock joints are too flexible, but not game-breaking (or game-bending) flexible.

Making changes to config files is a word: "modding". Mod is something that changes a game. MM does not change a game, it allows changing it [easier]. If MM is a mod, than your favourite text editor and file manager are a mod too. MM without changed config files does nothing — therefore is not a mod. Is changing config files such important, so you'd better not play KSP, instead of tweaking them manually (and keeping a spreadsheet of all diffs)? I have vague feeling that someone is too obsessed with keeping status quo, not rocking a boat and resisting every single motion to actually make the game better. Even if devs does think that it can be made better, just not right nao™.