Bej Kerman

The music syncs perfectly with the KSP title theme

One of the things I want as a difficulty option is for the robotic parts to not wobble, or maybe have a slider that controls how strong the joints are, and have locking joints eliminate all wobble. I've got 2 craft that suffer particularly from this problem: a GLaDOS replica, a little robotic rover with a little head and a mech with a rather primitive run cycle. GLaDOS and the rover sometimes end up headbutting the terrain if I drive them too fast and the mech can't support itself and ends up doing the splits on the floor. I've never used infernal robotics, but from the stability of some of the craft built using it, it appears people have a better time controlling craft that use the IR joints, while craft that use the official joints are floppier. What do you think?

Given how important weather conditions are to real life rocket launches, I want to see a difficulty toggle for simulated weather effects sometime in the next few updates. Not asking for clouds and rain particles, I just want immediately launching after building a craft to be riskier.

So we should trash every planet beyond Minmus? Maybe put them in a shredder?

The Breaking Ground DLC is getting hinges, and I assume we can put girders on those, so maybe we'll get the ability to make our own rigid landing legs.

They could try experimenting with proper caves and try to have crystals do their things in there, maybe that would be a bit less awkward. Other than that, I can't wait to experiment with these new parts. Will it be possible to build a proper docking arm, or is that not possible?

This seems like it would go well with the new Breaking Surface Breaking Ground DLC.

How would seasons be done on a planet with little to no inclination and axial tilt?

I regret not doing that. Imagine all the old, outdated mods I could play, like Romfarer's lazor mod. I loved that mod. Not useful but fun. Seriously, devs. Please release the legacy versions (before 1.0) as a DLC. Please?

SAS works perfectly fine for me. It's been working since some versions back when SAS used to punch the pitch and yaw in the direction of the selected marker then completely miss. I would like a more advanced SAS module that can hold a custom attitude though, for shuttle re-entries. I would also like Persistent Thrust to be implemented into the stock game because using ion thrusters, despite benefitting my Delta-V, lead to terribly boring and long burns.

I would pay to legally download installers for older KSP versions like that time the developers of Heat Signature let you download the prototypes. How!?

Terraforming is way beyond 1.8. Maybe sometime after 2.0. Anyways, I vote for inflight action group editing so that I can set action groups properly for stuff I construct in orbit.

Ditto. I found 1.7 fun at first but now I regret not waiting for this mod to update first. It was nice being able to circularize your orbit in a dime but Squad seems to prefer making players waste time getting a circular orbit. Really hope this mod doesn't become obsolete even though the first flag I planted in the update stated that I can't wait for every mod to go obsolete.

The Kraken accepts your apology.

I agree. It'd be nice to have the launchpad so I can test landers without having to use hyperedit which often just teleports me into the ground

How do you know? Jeb could get back to Kerbin just using his skill to make the rocket somehow more efficient and powerful.

Whilst this has already been explained, I want to make an explanation that's a tad more detailed. If you've ever used time warp while controlling larger vessels, you'll have noticed the game likes to lag. Not only that, but calculations are done less accurately leading to exacerbated wobbling and structural problems. If you set time warp to 100,000x while still doing physics calculations, then the game would probably crash, so at time warp levels over 4, the game stops calculating drag, joints, staging events, thrust and pretty much everything so all the game has to do is calculate encounters and escapes, and stop time warp when entering atmospheres so the game can calculate the effects of the atmosphere again. If you stop the game from checking if the vessel is in the atmosphere by going into the tracking station then as a result nothing will be calculated and your ship will just remain in its current orbit until another celestial body captures the ship. Actually, if you don't time warp at all, anything that is outside of a certain radius of your vessel is not calculated. So, time warp is not needed for your vessel to be locked on rails. Now that I think about it, I wonder what would happen if you entered the physics range of an object on the exact same frame said object entered another SOI.

I mean, half of what people make in KSP can only fit in the SPH.

Do you make planes in the VAB?

There's actually a mod for that

The only tutorials I see are for either very basic spaceflight or capturing an asteroid. KSPedia's useless on teaching me how to make an SSTO too.

When I look up tutorials on how to balance the CoM and CoL as the fuel drains so that I can make an SSTO that I don't work on for 5 mins then give up, I get next to nothing except for a few outdated, low-quality, unedited videos that never get straight to the point. I feel like this is something KSP should've done a long time ago, and it doesn't help that the only guide about planes is completely trash and only tells you about a few things about flight before just saying 'Here's 2 pictures of basic planes, this'll TOTALLY be enough for you to make a plane that can fly' No. KSPedia is sometimes terrible at explaining things and lack of training scenarios doesn't help. I tried making a passenger plane using KSPedia's example but failed miserably.

Being able to build massive rockets and still play at a decent framerate is more important than you wanting your screenshots to look pretty. Also, if you want a standard on how graphically advanced most modern games are, don't cherry pick specifically the top 10 most pretty games then act like all games should look as good, then call everyone who hasn't got a game as pretty as your way-too-high standards some person who can't afford basic computer components. [snip]

1. You act like switching the engine of a game is an easy task. 2. You don't need compare me to a communist to understand that making the game look pretty for no reason but some stranger behind a screen wants KSP to look too realistic for its own good is ridiculous and has no benefits other than making said stranger behind the screen stop making ridiculous demands. Look, I've got a KSP install with ALL DA VISUAL AND CAMERA MODS but me not wanting Squad to waste its time on your demand somehow means I'm "envious of those with better hardware"? 3. In the case of KSP, having good graphics is not important considering most of the time you're only looking at either your ship (partly revamped parts), the skybox (which is already revamped for 1.7) or an airless planet whose looks won't change much with Scatterer installed. Then they should be fixing bugs instead of complying with your demands for KSP to look more pretty than it needs to be.

Graphics and people with lots of computing power are irrelevant to KSP when you need to be able to build massive rockets and not have most PCs melt. KSP probably isn't the game for you considering that you don't seem to care for gameplay at all and only care about graphics.