karolus10

One viable option would be enabling parts to have fraction of the part "added" to the center of mass of entire craft, this would be also a good solution for parts like ladders or parts that have numerous other components hidden "somewhere in the hull".

I think that I may be blunt with this one but I think that realism is the wrong word in this case, it's not about realism but plausibility, it's not possible to perfectly model everything so always there have to be some simplifications to make it viable. I think that we need to ask themselves if all basic mechanics makes sense and if the model is good enough. Good enough means that it's simplified because of the game limitations but it is still believable. Making aerodynamics to work in the similar way it would be expected in real life is actually more intuitive (especially with airplanes) and it may add some challenges at the beginning but also trial and error learning is one of the most enjoyable parts of the early game.

I think that the most important thing about procedural and tweekable parts is not making them mandatory, at first you can still just slap together couple default parts and still be fine, also ability of choosing from some way of pre-set list would be useful for having couple default (or even few variants of non-twekable part that essentially would be few nearly identical parts grouped together) variants of one part grouped together as well as having quick access to our own saved custom parts.

Mk3 Parts are pretty much a placeholder parts from spaceplane update released 2 years ago, they where basically a C7 mod parts with couple improvements and they will be most likely replaced with entirely different spaceplane parts later on, when game will be pretty much completed and devs will focus on improving existing content and features.

When it comes to "procedural" parts, in most cases I think about tweaking and adjusting features of existing part so you don't need tens of variants of fuel tank of one type, but I don't see that without some limitations - for example some fairing or fuel tank would had own standard values (unchanged part you take from catalog ) as well as maximum and minimal length so you can adjust it in reasonable extent so you would still had few different variants of tank or fairing that offers different properties. Other possible example would be a different converters, structural parts or engine cluster assemblies (like adjusting amount of engines in 3.75m cluster from ARM update ) Saying that adding adjustable parts kills creativity seems to be pretty counter-intuitive to me as how having more choices and control over your design can limit creativity ? Also I would not worry much about content until all essential mechanics are already in place, adding as little content as possible makes a lot of sense if there is still possibility that it becomes obsolete with next updates.

Maybe it's just me but that feels redundant to me as I can use computer to play KSP whenever I want to play the game in home and I guess that work and school aren't really about playing games (it sucks, I know). Also I can agree that synchronizing mod parts may be an issue.

I would say that only career mode could made be harder by offering you more limited budget, but it's not very necessary as You can try to limited expenses by yourself. Also there is really no need to fear reentry mechanics that much as it will be much more forgiving than IRL, because of smaller reentry speeds in KSP. You must mind that maneuver nodes and flight planning (not available in current game besides nodes) may be expanded in future so you could design mission profile before leaving the launchpad, with such capability and proper instruments you could achieve precision similar to the mech-jeb. EDIT_1: diffrent system scale options would seriously affect delta V required and difficulty to get anywhere, but as far as I know It's not gonna happen.

Ok, let's add my photograph, too.

In such scenario humanity would be pretty much doomed as a whole, even if we would had couple decades to escape on moon/mars from doomsday event on earth much more than 99% of population would stay on the planet. Also I'm not very sure that we would be able to send enough people and equipment to moon or mars to preserve our social and technological level even with few decades, not ever mention situation when we would had less than 5-10 years of warning time.

Actually KSP dosen't need powerful laptop to run, especially with VAB... Personally I don't see much sense of having limited (you can't do a lot on slow tablet without keyboard and mouse) editor app on your phone or tablet and if you had no free time with computer you can use your imagination and good old paper . If anyone think that using calculator aren't bad-ass enough you can get sliderule... or modern replacement.

By the way, Apollo capsule and main modules will be 2.5 or 3.75m parts ?

Actually KSP standard 2.5m capsule is smaller than Apollo capsule - it can only hold 2 kerbals in row, so 2.5m size is more close to Gemini or Soyuz capsules, as much as most parts are scaled down in KSP, it doesn't work for capsules and cockpits as kerbal proportions (even if they short, they aren't much smaller in different dimensions) doesn't allow to scale down capsules too much.

Multiple clothing (like jump suit or other outfit in sleeve-less environment) and modular spacesuit would be a great thing to had... for example we could had different variant of backpack, color schemes (custom color marks for each crewmen) or helmet... helmet would really use some redesign. Besides one-piece flight helmet (like in shuttle ACES or rather fold-able behind head like in Sokol suit) very useful would be to had Apollo-ish "fishbowl" helmet, smaller and more similar to kerbal heads shape, making IVA's feel more spacious as well as larger (similar to current helmet, not pressurized) EVA cover with glare shield, put on top of fishbowl (or rather jar in case of kerbals) helmet. Two piece (fishbowl+outer shell) helmet design makes a lot of sense in case for kerbals, as their head shape makes full-size, round helmet very big and cause trouble in IVA's, in this case we can shave off a lot of volume inside of craft, but not sacrifice helmet size and shape during EVA.

I guess that Physic-less parts should add additional mass to it's parent part, it's actually very useful, because You can balance Your ship much easier as every attached batteries, ladders, etc. aren't influence ship center of mass. EDIT_1: also please notice that OP suggest adding phyisics-less parts mass to total ship mass without making them physics enabled.

Actually I never was a fan of engine fairings as they are currently, they only for cosmetic purpose (no structural support) and they got in your way if You want to use engines in configuration other than sticking one stage bellow engine of next stage. I think that engines shouldn't be used for coupling stages together in all ship designs, but rather use improved decouplers and interstage shrouds with adjustable size and length... In such case we would had 2 flat decoupler rings (one under the upper stage and second on top of the stage bellow) with hollow inter-stage (one piece) or fairing (breaking on parts after decouple) placed in between of both coupling rings. Fairing could be created by stacking 2 coupling rings (it could be available as one integrated part too) under the stage and then "pulling down" (or up if you do it on top of the stage) second ring to stretch space between both rings and create fairing of suitable length and re-sizing the ring for changing the diameter of each end. Quick illustration: (This picture is bit misleading - actually, we would adjust decoupler and then stack fuel tank bellow it, like with decouplers now) Also for easier engines clusters we could had "thrust structure" part interchangeable with upper decouple ring and would be acting like a converter (like bi/tri/quad-couplers now) with adjustable amount of attachment points for engines as well as anchor for decoupler. (UCR/LCR - coupling rings) This design eliminates need of making rocket engines base as wide as the fuel tanks, making clustering easier and add much more space around engines for decoupler fairing between stages and other things like RCS tanks. Real (i.e. not cosmetic) structural inter-stages would be also useful for making hollow trunk/service module sections where we can put smaller parts inside (If I remember, there is a mod that add hollow tube parts for just this purpose) or even create fairing similar to one that housed lunar module in Saturn V rocket. Anyway, if engine fairings stay like they are, it would be good thing to had option of turning them off if not needed.

I guess You're asking for adding Russels teapot... ultimate challenge.

Actually the best way to get rid of such sleeping habit and set myself back on the track is by "skipping night" if you cannot fell asleep and don't sleep (coffee is your friend) during the day at any cost... then go to sleep at proper time. Sometimes I take Melatonin pill (natural sleep hormone, usually used to fight insomnia episodes and jet-lag, handle with caution) to fell asleep after such day. Also I assume that you don't work, running around city or operate vehicles during the time of day you would sleep otherwise, sleep deprivation can be more dangerous than being drunk. If you really had to sleep and you are sure that you will woke up (or had somebody to help), take only a ~30-40minute power nap (even 20, if you can fall asleep nearly instantly), no more. Also one nap during day can cut your total sleep needs by nearly 1-2 hours if you disciplined to keep proper nap time.

Welcome fellow users, I had different question for You today - do you use your non-dominant hand (left if you right-handed) to use the mouse and how often... how do you hold the mouse when you use your second hand ? Feel free to share your experience in this thread. Have a nice day !

"Normal" and "Arcade" difficulty would fit better I guess, It would be less discouraging for players to try more realistic game mode... from other hand more realistic aerodynamics, fighting wind/weather, deadly reentry (not so much really because of much lower orbital speeds in KSP) crew needs, realistic engines restart or fuel boil-off and different things may add challenge, but also could make game more harder at first but from other hand learning from failures can be very enjoyable in this game :-). Other interesting motive about arcade approach is "simulations", KSP within KSP that would be utterly simplified (like flat∅ world, no aerodynamics, all parts rigid and indestructible) world that would allow test/preview some concepts for free in career mode.

Magic boulder would make sense as one of plenty possible captured asteroids and minor moons that would orbit other planets (mostly gas giants), discovery mechanics and asteroids probably could allow to generate hundreds of asteroids and minor planets (fancy name for slightly bigger rock) orbiting all over the system, waiting to be discovered.

Actually you came very close to the point, smaller universe is only one side of the medal and lower ÃŽâ€v requirements allow for larger payload fraction making rocket building easier (you use smaller rockets in KSP) and make travel shorter... "balancing" the game by increasing ÃŽâ€v neededs or making rockets with proportionally inferior performance aren't the way IMHO. Few engines mechanics are one of reasons why getting to orbit is easier (especially visible with ARM engines) as thrust/atmospheric pressure is opposite from real life - In normal situation fuel consumption would be equal on every altitude, but thrust is depending from engine optimal altitude (it's getting weaker above and bellow optimal pressure). This mean (extreme conditions) that vacuum-only engine would be weak (or flame-off) on the launchpad and first stage engines work best at launch and get worse with altitude... this one of reasons why staging is so essential (also areospikes don't had best ISP, but had similar thrust on every altitude - important factor for space-planes). Other problems with engines is limited throttling (~20-50% or even none) and adding restarting feature is getting much harder and costly (or just not feasible for it's size) with larger engines. Most engines work only once and don't start again after being turned off, so they're discarded with stage and another stage start next burn. This mechanics could also bring more complex choices (that would be unlocked with tech progressing in career) and content as one engine design (even if looking nearly the same) can had multiple versions (as tweak-ables of base version) with different features that would be more advanced than basic version (like LV-30 with minimal throttling, medium altitude and no restart) but they would be trade-offs in performance (better in some condition) and price for more complex part (career). Also one of "balancing features" already in place is kerbals physiology/body proportions that doesn't allow to scale down crew compartments as much like other rocket parts, (real spacecrafts scaled down to kerbin scale would not fit kerbals inside) so they had to be proportionally bigger and heavier when compared to other parts of the rocket. EDIT_1: Also I believe that a lot of demands and disappointment exist because of not understanding concept of "early access" release, unlike classic pre-order's you don't pay for finished game, but for access to current available version and free updates until full release (AKA KSP v1.0) when it came out.

Beale, did You considered making Your Soyuz-inspired craft as 2.5m (widest part of service module) capsules ? I guess it would had much more roomy IVA's than real deal and lander could possibly fit crew of 2. EDIT_1: Picture with Soyuz dimensions. 2.5m version would't be much smaller (practically same) from Soyuz, but I'm curious if it would be possible to put crew of 3 side by side, Kerbals take quite a lot of space in full gear, despite being short... also docking ports would be wider than in Soyuz if stock docking port is used.

I'm not very sure what OP exactly mean by standardizing, but for more advanced missions and payloads I was designing and testing launch vehicle components using mass simulator (Dummy payload made from tanks so you can control it's mass easily by adding more tanks or changing load of propellant) so You can design and save rocket stages as sub-assemblies and then use them to assemble launch vehicle for your payload. This approach remove some complexity from design process as you can design and test every component separately and then put all parts together as well as make your designs reusable for next projects.

Dear OP, there is only one problem with KSP aerodynamic model: there is no any yet. Every part is "generating" drag basing on it's drag coefficient and mass values and wings generate lift in equally arbitrary way. There is no aerodynamic simulation in KSP, only place holder that happened to work good enough. I guess that such issues may be addressed when all essential KSP features and mechanics will be in place (scope-completion)... when You build house, you did not care a lot about furnitures or making shower work before all walls, roof and installations are on place.

I like "stock-alike" mods - still realistic but with clean and simplified look.