tseitsei89

I dont see how this would have any significant impact on the gameplay. Maybe some nice eyecandy but nothing more and thus I dont really find it necessary... Again not really needed. The one we have now is at the equator which means that you can already launch to any orbit you want if you just time it properly. But could be fun to fly planes between bases or something... So again an OK idea but not necessary IMO Yes. Career mode needs an overhaul, but I'm not sure how to fix that... But as it currently stands it is something I will not play. Maybe this just is a sandbox game and there is really no good way to implement career mode... I dunno. Maybe somekind of story could be good but the replayability value would be quite low... The ideal would IMO be something like creating a new procedurally (is that the word I'm looking for? Sorry not a native speaker...) generated solar system for every new career (and leave the familiar system as a common ground for everyone to play and compete in sandbox). And then just only showing the basic orbital information about the planets at first. So you would actually have to send probes to the planets to take photos/map the planets to find out more about their size, composition, atmosphere and possible moons and stuff. That way it would be infinitely replayable and you would have the same "excitement" of discovering something new every time. The downside is that this is probably hard to implement and would take lots of time and money... Not needed. KSP is mostly a game where you use mouse and many buttons of the keyboard. And if you want to use a controller or a joystick or something it is currently possible even though it takes some configuration first. Yes. Mods add so much new options if you get bored to the stock game. Squad really should try to make modding as easy as possible and inform people about the awesome modding community we have. MP will never work because of timewarp. How can you keep all the players in the same timescale if one wants to fly Kerbin circumnavigation in real time and the other wants to do an interplanetary transfer to Jool system while third player is going to minmus and fourth to Moho? I really really dont see the point of this no matter how hard I try. If you dont like or get bored to musics in ANY game you ever play, just turn them off and put your own favourite playlist on... No reason to throw time and money on this really... These are my thoughts on the subjects

Didnt read the entire thread but what we need is IMO: for 2.5m parts: 1. LF tanks to use with nukes!!! I really cant stress this enough... We just really really need them. 2. Bigger SRBs 3. Maybe a bigger rapier/jet engine but I'm fine with using quadcoupler and 4x rapiers 4. Bigger nuke maybe? for 3.75m parts: 1, Bigger landing legs. It is irritating to spam loads of of them... 2. Bigger chutes. Same as above 3. Bigger nuke maybe?

Is there an easy way to make kerbals actually die instead of going to strike if they run out of supplies?

This is the answer here. You can get more speed out of rapiers in jet mode which means less need for inefficient rocket stage

Nope. This is fundamentally different since this one allows using rocket engines and the one you linked only allows airbreathers...

Yes I believe it will. You can however test that on the launchpad before the launch if you want and see what happens....

That's good then But speaking of the flight time I think that the craft getting lighter has quite a little impact here only. Because the area facing forward will remain the same the drag force trying to brake down the craft will remain the same. And since you are moving at constant velocity here you should counter that force with your thrust --> your thrust must also remain pretty much the same during the whole top speed part of the flight even though your craft IS definitely getting lighter. As for the overheating issues. Yes I havent tested it but that was just something I noticed and yes 3300K is very high but so is 2000 m/s at sealevel But it might still be survuvable Very nice craft anyway.

1. Lots of wing for low takeoff speed. 2. As little as possible of your plane should be touching the water since water gives you huge drag and lowers the speed you can achieve before liftoff by a lot. So use light and buoyant parts. 3. An engine that has a bigger thrust at low speeds might also help but not so sure if that is needed...

Yes you are right. And I can't see a reason why the station actually NEEDS a command module. So your solution would also work and lab should work just fine without it too. BUT that said if you havent done docking before it will make it a little easier to dock if both crafts can rotate themselves to make docking ports face eachother. But then again it is perfectly doable and not that hard even if you can only control one of the crafts...

Just attach to the fuel tank. Or the other way around if you want (attach pod to fuel tank side and dock lander to lab side). It doesnt really matter since when you are docked the game will consider everything as one single carft and you can transfer resources (fuel, electricity, science...) however you want. It doesn't matter which side you are docked at...

Because the lab doesn't have any control over the craft. It is a lab and not a cockpit. It has science equipment but not the stuff used in cockpits/command pods/probe cores to actually control the craft. And as for the second question I dont really understand what you mean here.

Yep some mechanic for kerbals aging and dying as well as reproducing would be fun when trying to build a permanent self sustaining colony to some other celestial body. But it is probably best to leave that as a mod feature...

I will just quickly answer to everyone saying things like "It wouldn't really bring much new to the gameplay" or stuff like that: IMO it definitely would since as it stands now time is an infinite resource in KSP. It doesn't matter wether your transfer takes 1 hour, 1 year or 100 years. Your kerbal will just as happily still be sitting in the crammed command pod. If we had life support time would actually become a manageable resource like fuel or electricity. That in turn would create a reason for using different transfer orbits than just energy efficient hohmann transfer. Such that use more dv but are (significantly) faster. And that is a good thing since there would be more stuff to learn and more stuff to do. And that is what makes the game fun (at least for some people) learning how new things work. And again, if you dont want to use it because it is too hard or you just want to fool around with crafts, you could just turn it off/adjust it (just like infinite fuel/electricity or adjusting reentry heat are handled now).

Even though your numbers are a bit off I believe you might be actually correct... If we look at the very end of the video(where the F3 menu is visible) we see that: 1. Craft has 618 units of LF left 2. The craft is burning 0.84424 units of LF per second (see the RAPIER window on the left and notice that it also approves with the number on the top right corner). 3. The craft has been flying 2minutes and 35seconds at this point. No let's see. 618 units / 0.84424units/s = 732.019s = 12.200min = 12minutes 12seconds. And flight time to that point is 2min35s and the remaining flight time is 12min12s so total flight time would be 2min35s + 12min12s = 14min47s which I think is still reasonably close to 15min so we could assume that it is capable of that flight time BUT once we notice that it took more than 1min30s to actually reach top speed we can pretty safely assume that the craft runs out of fuel before it has remained it's top speed for 15mins. And the other possible problem I noticed while taking a closer look are possible overheating problems. It only has 172 units of ablator left at the end of the video and is using 0.39units/s so that means it only has ablator left for about 172/0.39 = 441s = 7mins 21s. Now I dont know if the heatshield is capable of surviving those speeds without any ablator left for several minutes of flight still remaining, but at least that is a very possible problem and needs further testing/proof. EDIT: @Redshift OTF I'm not accusing you of cheating or anything I just think these might be some things you honestly missed during testing. But if I am wrong for some reason with my calculations/reasoning I apologize...

Define starting orbit. You can choose that by launching at a specific time of the day and to a certain direction. And you get 2 launch windows per day for any given "starting orbit". If I understand your meaning of startimg orbit correctly If I don't please elaborate. Because obviously you choose your "starting orbit" so that the ejection burn puts you in the same plane as the target planet. And that is defined by inclination rather than by axial tilt. For example if I want to go to Moho (without any of this 'gravityassistfromeve -stuff because gravity assists are hard) I'll launch my craft to an inclined orbit (i.e. away from 90 degrees on the nav ball) and the inclination is such that when I do ejection burn when Kerbin is on the ascending/descending node I will be at the same plane as Moho. This however has NOTHING to do with axial tilt and DEPENDS ON THE inclination of the planets orbit... Do you now understand the difference between axial tilt and inclination of planets orbit? The former has very little (no effect) on interplanetary burn and the latter is VERY significant when planning an interplanetary burn...

VERY FASTT!!!! this one......

Everything produces lift if you go fast enough........ That is why a car might want to fly at high speeds.

1. Interplanetary burns are exactly the same. Period. They are only affected by how far the planet(s) orbit and what inclination they have. This is a fact 2. Yes you have to launch at a specific time of the day if you want zero inclination (or whatever inclination compared to the orbiting plane) orbit and and yes you get 2 of these launch windows a day. 3. No you don't want to change your ejection angle because of axial tilt since ejection angle is related to the target orbital SMA and inclination (Just check your thinking again and you'll get it 4. Figuring out how much more you need (about) is quite trivial with trigonometric functions (cosine and sine...) and that is enough for any design purposes at least. I would like to draw a picture but I cant just now...

1. Screenshots or video 2. What it actually does (well it goes to Dres but how fast is it?) 3. CAPS + YOUR FONT GAVE ME A CANCER

I find this information completely useless but very intriguing nevertheless. So the best kind of information Well done good sir

It will definitely work. You'll just arrive at non-equatorial orbit but that should be fine. Landing though (as I said) will take (somewhat) more dv than before since the planet is not turning the way you want it to But I think you are confusing axial tilt and inclination here since I am quite sure that interplanetary transfer burns are not effected by axial tilt at all...

I know that there are many mods that offer LS in many forms but I think LS should be a stock feature since that is one of the fundamental restrictions of any (manned) spaceflight. Of course you should be able to turn it off from the difficulty settings if you just want to fool around but you really should be allowed to actually enforce the living space/food requirements without roleplaying the whole <snip> thing. If you want a manned flight to Jool you need actual living quarters and supplies for the journey (or then you dont if you just turn LS off but that is what it should be IMO since no creature can live without nutrients)... People who dont want to play with this can turn it off if they want (not too intimidating for new players) but it would add a new challenge for us veterans...

Nope. It would be pretty much the same. You are just plain (maybe pun intended :P) wrong here. Interplanetary burns would be just the same but you would need a few hunderds of more dv since the plant rotates in a different direction but that's about it. N-body simulation would allow LaGrange points and other nice stuff. Unlike axial tilt. Also Jool system is HIGHLY unstable in N-body simulation. I modeled that by myself with a simple bruteforce code and 1 moon ejects instantly and the second one after a while... Other than that the Kerbol system seems quite stable to me. Some vibrations with Eeloos and Mohos orbits but nothing significant... Plus this, So it will never be worth the effort. Ever. Since it will be harder for new players that dont know what they are doing and it will just be a minor change (just add few 100 m/s to your landers) for "older" and more capable players...

Or then maybe (just a thought though) you could learn how to build (space)planes... How much mass can you get to orbit with 1 rapier? Since I honestly believe that the problem is not the length of the runway but rather the way you engineer your aircrafts. If you can get 30+ tons in stable orbit with ONLY 1 rapier you know what you are doing but if it is lower (or even a similar number to that) I find that the problem is your own design and not the length of the runway... In my experience the limiting factor is breaking Mach1. If you can get above that speed you start getting s**tloads of thrust. And in my personal experience that takes significantly more engines than just the takeoff...

1. Not sure about that but 600kg identical craft (without the wing) with full tanks can be landed (Craft with 520kg mass can be flown to orbit by taking out the excess fuel) since I have ~400 m/s dv for landing if I fly it correctly 2. The wing is totally unnecessary. Engine gimbal (and sufficient use of hibernation state of the probe core) is enough to keep the craft in the right direction. Will post a video if you want to see how that works but I will stop cluttering this thread anymore. (Please PM me if you want to see this in action or something...But it really isnt anything special. I have already described quite well how it works)