mcwaffles2003

Ok, I'm confused 29 people have taken the poll 8 people have said they either disagree with the idea (don't know why) or they would do it in another way (Don't know those other ways) Only 4 have even spoken So what does it take to really start a conversation about this?

Kerbalism handles data in a continuous manner so interruption isn't a problem, you receive partial credit depending on how much you've sent. Also with data theres no advantage to returning the rocket vs transmitting. The trade off is sample experiments can not be transmitted at all, which makes more sense to me. Why does returning a probe with temperature data on it return less science than simply transmitting? That's ridiculous... More experiments would be nice too. I almost always play with DMagic's Orbital science. Orbits and such, yes. biomes and atmospheres, IMO, no. I'd rather KSP start where KSP 1 starts so it still seems like a whole story as opposed to a continuation. All in all I'm hoping for a more robust, thought out, expansive, prettier, and versatile version of KSP (with modded multiplayer)

Honestly, I hope so. If that ends up being the case then I am on board with that 100% I hear ya. This is why I have been hoping KSP 2 comes with some form of life support. Under the hood it would mean constant monitoring of resources on craft. This should lead to modders not needing to make different and incompatible systems. A standardized system of measurements and resources would also go a long way IMO. Then we wouldn't have things like LH2 vs Liquid Hydrogen happen.

It's honestly not too bad, my kerbalism playthrough has about 80 mods included in it and the modders are releasing remote tech compatibility with the next update. Just need to be aware of the compatibility chart: https://github.com/Kerbalism/Kerbalism/wiki/Home-~-Mod-Support I understand the want for chronological uniformity, but prop planes at this point are more complexto put together than jets are as liquid fuel rockets are slightly more complex than SRBs and the point of the early game is for building intuition for new players instead of following history to create a steadier difficulty ramp. Agreed :) I think it's largely a chore because its a requirement solely for tech development. This makes science an obstacle to the objective of new parts. I believe the more open ended gathering of science to fill out new data may be less of a chore since that makes science the objective and not the obstacle to an objective. Also, the open endedness of filling out the data while also providing the guidance of what data needs to be filled create an environment that's neither constraining nor lacking direction. This is why I bring up kerbalisms method. You need to be aware of certain types of data collection more than others and organize your spaceship around that. You need to be prepared to handle the constant transmission cause an electricity drain to your vessel over long periods. Also, for instance, data from samples cant be processed until the samples are brought back, they also accrue mass over collection. Instead of nerfed, I believe it should be more specialized as in it's used for processing certain types of science instead of just multiplying any sciences returns. Instead of being a multiplier it could simply serve as a step in a process of science, like a refinery in a logistic network from raw materials to finished goods.

I've played sandbox mode a bit but the lack of direction mixed with the utter onslaught of new items makes designing difficult (I bob around between mods a lot) RP-1 / RSS has a very sensible tech tree but playing the campaign is pretty challenging (though its put together far better than the stock campaign), then simple mods like probes before crew mixed with KSPIE and kerbalism seemed a bit better than stock as well though the campaign is the same. When it comes down to stock career mode though, overall I'm with you. I feel like its the biggest failure in the game. The randomness of the contract system makes anything outside the progression contracts feel more like a chore, the rpg equivalent of "fetch 40 elderberries for me" quests. They add nothing to the game nor have any building effect to a space program, you just end up with 50 satellites bogging your game down. Instead there could be a much more fleshed out progression system that constantly prepares the player for the next step. For example, there is no "establish a communications network" contract preparing the player for going to the moon or other planets. There are contracts to establish a space station but what do you do with it? By the time you have one you're nearly done with the tech tree so the lab you put there is barely useful which was the only purpose given to having a station in the first place.... and now I don't need any more science modules so why am I bothering to unlock them? There's no "send x amount of fuel to the space station then dock and refuel with it" contract preparing players for deep interplanetary missions, instead were supposed to complete those in one shot straight from the ground at KSC? Sorry, rambling at this point, but tl;dr the career mode is the most disappointing feature to me in this game. Asking for a better science/tech tree relationship seems like asking a lot when this is the bar we're at so that's why I'm just advocating what I brought up in this thread. If career mode isn't going to take the reigns to guide players through the game then at least let science do it with some tangible objective like "fill out all the info for this planet" and if its done well maybe we could get some dark souls esque lore through what we discover where all the clues can create an undefined but cool picture so there's plenty of room for interpretation and no set narrative to a game that isn't about a narrative.

Have you tried any modded careers? There are other more sane tech trees out there

I agree that things like measuring the surface gravity on kerbin to unlock a tech node for engines is a bit ridiculous as is tech unlocking in general. A more "realistic" mechanic in my view would be running engines for x amount of time in various conditions mixed with finances progressively unlocking more engines but that sounds a bit convoluted and more difficult to explain. For the sake of simplicity I dont mind the current tech tree unlocking mechanism, just ultimately I would hope science have a more impactful and long lasting application. Also, I'm surprised no one else has tried kerbalism. I highly recommend it and there are even configs which only apply the science mechanism. Seriously I hope some of you give it a try. It's a bit different but I find it delightful

well I wish I could undo my vote Not trying to play spore again

I personally wouldn't like the experiments having to be run for long periods of time so much as having some need to complete a goal. Though I will say, having to do so does create some more challenge to building a rocket and having to do so has changed the way I build. For instance thermometer/barometer need to go through the whole range of altitudes for full science points, whereas mystery goo or surface samples could still be an instant collection. I just think adding some more intuition building into the process could be more involving and fun. Not to mention with constantly active experiments there's no more waiting for a condition to change and racing to press a button in time, the experiment just continues taking readings I'd hope the experience not be invasive, but involving and enhancing. I just would really like to see science fulfill a more discovering role than that of a chore to get the next tech node. It will still have that purpose, but after the tree is filled it means there will be a purely fun aspect of science. If you bring it along to help gather data it can help your approach to a planet or help you discover some nuances to the kerbol world (non-story based lore). Perhaps on approaching a planet and doing a surface sample of it and its moon it could be revealed that they are made of similar content and at one time a collision cause a piece of the planet to break off forming the moon, similar to our story on earth so far. It would make it feel like we're having a more active and immersive role in the universe to me. And if none of this interests the player then they don't need to bring science, they can still build and fly, just the details of the worlds they explore will remain somewhat hidden.

How have more people voted yes on plant alien life than on alien life?... Plant alien life is a sub set of alien life. Therefore, by definition, it should be equal to or less than alien life

Does this really matter? It's a single player game anyways If your motherboard has a slot, don't get an SSD but an NVME instead. They're the same price now and NVME is like 5x faster than an SSD

I would like a use for science beyond progressing the tech tree An in-game wiki whose contents are revealed as the relevant data is discovered. Each part should contain its own page with details to its specifications and perhaps a bit of lore (company that built it, silly facts about it, the stuff in the tool tips, etc). Each biome should also have a bit of data about it as well as the celestial bodies as a whole. This could be done via having the whole wiki written out and each facet of it (whole pages and sections of each page) hidden until a condition is met, where the data then appears as if it were added in. I feel this kind of in game reference would serve both as being useful and fulfilling to fill out. We wouldn't need to go to the internet to find things like the height/characteristics of an atmosphere for a planetary body since we could just send a probe to it with a barometer/thermometer and let it fall through the atmosphere while relaying the data back to the KSC. Upon data transmission we could look into the wiki and have something like the following graph appear: Now I dont know how many of you have played with kerbalism since its 3.0 update came out where science is done in a continuous and gradual manner as opposed to the one click and its done way but I personally like it. I think this should be possible if the base game is going to have continuous monitoring of background resources anyway (I believe thrusting while warping/not focused was confirmed, correct me if I'm wrong) . This might be over reaching but I believe implementing a similar system of continuous data collection could be fun, challenging, and would allow for sensible impartial data completion. For instance, the graph above could partially fill out for the atmosphere heights where data was collected/transmitted. If you sent a probe to Eve and it burns up at 75 km down, you would only see the 75 km - 90 km portion of the atmosphere and the rest could remain blank. Another example, maybe once a gravity scan is done we could see something like a diagram of the boundaries of the SOI of the scanned body with the altitude of things like stationary orbits placed in tables Parts, like engines that have been researched, could have wiki pages with a table of ISPs and thrusts for each acceptable fuel type or a list of compatible nozzles (if KSP 2 goes full KSPIE) I feel this kind of dynamic info source could bring a new type of life to the game. A more earnest adventure of discovery. And maybe when every entry is filled out we can say that's when the game is finally "beaten" and all the accomplishments have been fulfilled or something. Ultimately creating a form of goal in a career mode (beyond filling out the tech tree), something to constantly strive for, where a form progress is traceable, tangible, and applicable. I'm not a great programmer, but personally this doesn't seem like it would be THAT hard of a task to create and would bring a lot to the game. It would give players a "direction" without being a guiding hand, it would give us reference to know whats going on without giving spoilers to things we haven't attempted yet, and it would make science finally feel like we're doing something more than just filling out a dumb tech tree that when it is completed then science loses its entire appeal and becomes unnecessary weight to any future craft... All it should require is a written out wiki and a set of conditional statements for unlocking relevant hidden information. Video example of kerbalism mechanics I am referencing: 6:18 To any of those with disagreements or constructive critisisms, please discuss below. I'd really like to know what people think

like this? I think something like this would be nice, but with literature and maybe a compatibility chart. Overall I would hope there would be a large in-game reference source, kind of like a wiki that filled out more as bodies/techs are discovered For instance,at the start of the game there would be some literature/stats on the simple SRB we start with, the command pod, experiments, etc.. This would also include the planetary bodies but not have anything but rudimentary info on them like distance/color (at the start). Then as new parts are brought fourth each gets an entry, like a fleshed out tool tip. Also, as new biomes are explored info about them is recorded as well (like the reports we see when doing science). Maybe when you reach space for the first time (with a pressmat barometer and thermometer) you can look up kerbin in the reference and see a chart like so: In the case of engines a table of ISPs and thrusts for each acceptable fuel type or a list of compatible nozzles (if KSP 2 goes full KSPIE) Finally when other planets are researched their wikis fill out then you find a new solar system and you need to work to fill out the wikis on those too. This kind of dynamic info source, I feel, could bring a new type of life to the game. A more earnest adventure of discovery. And maybe when every entry is filled out we can say that's when the game is finally "beaten" and all the accomplishments have been fulfilled. I'm not a programmer, but personally this doesn't seem like it would be THAT hard of a task to create and would bring a lot to the game. It would give players a "direction" without being a guiding hand, it would give us reference to know whats going on without giving spoilers to things we haven't attempted yet, and it would make science finally feel like we're doing something more than just filling out a dumb tech tree that when it is completed then science loses its entire appeal and becomes unnecessary weight... We could finally have a tangible and useful interaction with the science we obtain. That to me sounds like a far more fulfilling structure. Maybe add in a scrap book feature too so when its all complete you can see all the moments you planted flags, see an obituary of all the lost kerbals, have pictures of a few breakthrough rockets (first rocket that got to the moon, another planet, another solar system, on n on... you know)

its like colonel campbel joined the forums

Making something orbit a gas giant while in its atmosphere isn't physically possible because of air resistance? EDIT: Okay I see that OP is probably not talking about orbit but instead stationary, in atmosphere

Have you looked through the forum? There are already threads on this very topic For instance:

Are you talking about in atmosphere? If so, no that wouldn't work. If you mean in orbit, then yes. Have you seen any of the trailers?

Funny thing is that the smaller a black hole is the more dangerous it is to approach due to tidal forces... Also, why the size limit? Having a larger one at the center of all the solar systems would mimic a galactic core

Such insight and wisdom, where would our community be without such thought provoking and stimulating input?

Dude, there are 2 tabs for kerbalism... Just like any other mod, click the tab, everything you need is in the tab... If you're going to put quotes around something as a response to someone, the person you are responding to should have said it >.> What do you mean "hidden" it's not that hard to find...It's right in the tab bar where all the mods put their tabs. Also, if you have found it, then why are you here asking for where the info is? It isn't hard to find It's better than spreading that tabs contents into everything and making everything into a disorganized mess I feel this is the crux of your argument, correct me on that if it is not. First off, did you try pressing the button next to data? It kind of tells you what you would like to know, if you're having trouble finding the button it's to the left of data, it's big and blue. Secondly, there's a lot more info in there than a yes or no to whether the data is being currently transmitted and if it were all put into that right-click window, that window would be big with lots of stuff and hard to navigate. For instance, which data is being transmitted? How much space is left to hold data? Which sets of data are there?

it shows the upload rate already next to the blue arrow (the number that doesn't change), I don't feel its that hard to understand an up arrow means uploading. Also if you hover over the wifi symbol it shows the transmission rate

Nice

That's what the blue arrow means, click the arrow and it wont transmit that set of data. In AUTO you can turn off automatic transmission as well

I forget, who's star theory and what trailer. Also when did they ever give a launch date and what game are we talking about

The date is not the same. Star Theory never told us FY2021, it was released in an earnings report but they did directly say spring 2020. They never backed off of spring 2020 until the interview @ PAX East deliberately saying it could be as late as march 2021