Spricigo

@Andrey.gr your mission should work. You just need a way to transfer the science between the modules holdings it (e.g. an astronaut in EVA using [take data] and [store data] Less likely us to get a reply from those people that posted in the thread years ago.

Two words: Low Wide

With my preference for smaller vessels, no doubt that is the Glacier with 845t. A model rocket when compared with the stuff others posted.

A suggestion was made to change the start screen, quickly the discussion veered to the subject of how many player would like to see the change and how important the change would be for those players. The intent off this pool is to give a better answer for this question without worries about the other aspects of the implementation (or not) of the suggestion. Feel free to post explaining the reasoning of your decision but let theother aspect for the suggestion thread: In particular avoid to post in this thread to express: -Your suppositions about what other players think about the idea. -your disagreement with the reasoning of other posters -How difficult or easy do you think is to implement the idea -Which other features should be implemented before Edit: note to self, when creating a pool, and setting an automatic close date, make sure you set the date correct. ..also D'oh! I didn't find a option to reopen it. A moderator can do it?

That is why I included a two warnings it is an opinion. I have no evidence/data for more than assumptions. And no, I don't think assumptions are enough to justify changing the start screen(or anything). In any case, is a hypothesis to work with. A point to consider and look for actual info that corroborate or deny it. Maybe in a few days we may have some info there:

Not sure if I followed you. May you give a bit longer explanation why the fantastic mod is fantastic?

Not like the time and effort to make those mods. And similarly features in the stock game. Sorry for the bluntness, but I don't think there's a soft way to say that.

Maybe. In any case, I really don't think that debate will be productive. I'd rather discuss the possibilities/difficulties for improvements. Are the devs aware of the 'issue'? (They think is a issue? Should it be report in the bugtracker?) How many players are 'affected'? (IOW who cares?) How much works is necessary? Is that something a mod may solve? Should devs still look into it after a mod solution? With all confidence only an ignorant can have, my opinion: The extra page in the start screen is a unnecessary barrier to get into the game most players want to be removed. There's no apparent technical reason to not remove that barrier except the typical work related to any feature/issue. The non-technical reason it's not solved yet is an inaccurate perception that this wouldn't be such noticeable improvement. Yet again: this is just my very speculative opnion.

It may be a glitch solvable by the ancient technique of switching to Space Center/Tracking Station/Other Craft and then back to the tourist ship. Or quick-saving, loading.

Unfortunately, I can only offer my sympathy. I have the very same gripe with the game. Just, I try enjoy the game for what it is. My advice to break the rules is not because we are entitled* to "our game", but I'd rather prefer a loss for not playing The Game than a loss for playing it and not having fun. *maybe not the better word (non native speaker here)

The argument is not about it being included or not. A mod feature already exist, just happens to be provided by a mod. So the request for "make [insert mod] stock" translate to "give me something I already have". This game is being developed with mods in mind, "there is a mod for that, use it" is a valid response to any "give me this feature" request. PS: If you are a console player you have more pressing matter than "feature of mod X is unavailable for me". You have my sympathy, I'd really like mods to be available for you also and, even before that, craft/save sharing.

Yes, that is the issue. The very nature of KSP prevent the research system to be more meaningful. The 'board', and the 'rules' of KSP are there when you start the game and remain the same. Research allow the use of new 'pieces' you didn't start with. The end result is that the game ''advance' it become easier. This is not in itself a bad thing, it induce the player to start with more modest goals and move to greater ones as new 'equipment' become available. So, there is no solution, at least not without a complete overhaul of carrer/science modes itself. What can (realistically) be done is to make the system more bearable. For this we have a lot of mods that change the tech tree and how science is generated. Many of those are light enough that even if your computer is hamster-powered the little critters will not notice. Another 'solution' its change how you face the 'problem', don't thing about KSP's "science" as something it is not, but like the game gimmick that make access to 'more advanced' technology gradual. At this point you will be a lot more comfortable to change science rewards, automatize the gathering with mods or even use "cheats" to get/block access to technology. It's your game, you don't need to keep the rules you don't like.

That is my understandment also. From what I knew a vessel could only get older*. Maybe something changed along the way or one of us is remenbering it wrong or it may be act one of the many mods I use and you don't. My advice is to never dock a old module/vessel to a new station. (be in the safe side) If you want to use the resources you alreay have in space there is the EVA resource tranfer mod that don't require docking and keep the vessels as separated entities (util even for other applications ) * if that is the case, a odd result for undocking: child vessels being as old as their parent

I just hope the OP had solved his issue months ago or that you have a time machine.

^This And at same time none of them in particular. An individuals player will have its preferences but what really matter is the plethora of options available.

I wish I had the skills. * From the top of my ignorance this seem to be a case of dev motto "not broken, don't fix" in action. *notice the implication: from my perspective is not easy at all, is impossible.

Which research concept? KSP have only a bland minigame based on visiting places to collect abstract points. It's a weird system but meet its purpose: make the access to 'technology' gradual in career and science games. May also serve as a measurement of the player "progress" (have you explored all KSC micro biomes, found all Kerbin's 'rare biomes', etc?). But in the end of day is just a game abstraction that have nothing to do with real scientific research.

I really don't recommend this from players struggling with planes, more likely it would make the failure more spectacular instead of helping to solve the issue. Is one of those mods that one should stay away until become confident enough he can deal with what it bring to the game and can easily overwhelm a less prepared player. Don't get me wrong, FAR is a great mod, just that is better to learn to walk before attempting to run, and the more forgiving stock aero may help with that. Other than this, spot on advice.

Well, the robot in question have a reasonable built-in program that may be smart enough to carry you. In any case, I agree that without some piloting knowledge/experience is easy to overlook when the robot is struggling to cope with a flawed design. And the walking analogy fits perfectly: KSP's experienced pilots started, like anyone else, crawling from the launchpad. nothing impressive but worked. The improvement to a walk was accompanied with the struggle to stand. Now they are in a point of this process where the falls much less likely to happen, they run and make it looks easy.

No it's not necessary like that for any feature. Take for an example satellite networks, before Comment there was the Remote Tech mod. Remote Tech is still an option for those that prefer the way RT handles the communication, stock Commnet didn't 'kill' or "replaced' RT but rather added a third option (no network, RT, Commnet). Granted that now Commnet is part of the stock game there is no "KSP install without Commnet" but that is besides the point, @MiffedStarfish's concern may as well be about the 'big' mods that makes extensive changes to the game, not the simple "add this part"/"tweak this readout" /"provide a simple mechanic" variants. Keeping the example, Commnet can be seen as a "lesser problem" or even "a good feature" that besides the worries add something good for the majority of the player without much hassle for anyone while the "make Remote Tech stock" option would be a bit more intrusive Of course that is not a big deal for a few 'good mods' , but as we add more and more some PotatoesTM start to become crispy and some hamsters start to get tired after a quick exercise in the wheel that runs the CPU, and the less fortunate player that need to play in those conditions have reason to be concerned. It's not really the decisive factor but something the devs should consider. Personally, I have my list of mods that "should be stock" but also a number of mods I use and see no necessity (and even reason against) to be integrated in the core game. I would not mind if those become stock but can understand who will be bothered by the game becoming more complex than 'necessary.

At some time this thread made me think: I may design something along those lines. I prefer much smaller rockets but sometimes a change of pace is interesting.

As said a fellow players: Good luck, waiting for KSP VR.

Maybe not much for you, but certainly not small task for the people doing it. Ask the devs of IL-2 if was 'easy' tfor then.

A few comment: As a rule of thumbs it's the more 'pointy' one. I suggest to instead of usign the adapter just put everything that don't need to be ascessible inside a fairing with staging disabled. On the other hand the little extra drag of a shielded docking port will not make a dent on the performance of this rocket. It's possible that it can be solved with a different reentry trajectory, either coming higher to slow a bit before facing the worse of the heat, or just diving into the lower atmosphere to slowdown before you heat get you. In any case this is a heavy ship that certainly will not accept any trajectory. Mj consume a lot of MP to dock because you designed the vessel to use MP to dock. (You need [advanced tweakables] enabled in setting) remove all the RCS thruster blocks and use either PlaceAnywhere RCS Thruster or Vernors(For a rocket this size probably the better option) to provide translation only (in the VAB right click on RCS/Vernors, [show activation toggles], turn off [pitch],[yaw] and [roll]) As for the landing part, you dont need any RCS, make the rocket stable and able to survive reentry an you will have a defined place where you do a deffined reentry burn and it will land at KSC grounds each time.

As far as my commentary go: No, its not impossible. But, at least in my mind, its highly improbable. When i ask myself: -How many actual KSP players would at least try VR KSP? -How many new player will try KSP because of VR? -How much it will cost for SQUAD to develop it? That all sum up to a pepective of VR KSP not making much of an effect on player retention or increment of player base, while my ears are already in hurt with all the ragequiting crying of "I waited for ages for [feature] and SQUAD wated time in this VR [expletive]" And I really think a similar reasoning will put the idea very low in the dev's "ideas to improve KSP(and make some bucks)" list.