CobraA1

To each his own. But I should note that getting new players to enjoy the game tends to be a priority if they want to keep getting new players into the game. KSP relies almost entirely on new players for funding, as it's not subscription based or anything like that. . . . and even subscription based games tend to have some turnover, and need to bring in new players all the time. Parachutes are something that players encounter pretty early, and the less friction in the early part of the game, the better. Also, there are plenty of realism mods for players who really want to crank up the challenge, so I'm not terribly worried about veterans going away because parachutes are a bit easier. I've played several long-term games like World of Warcraft, some older MMOs, and World of Tanks. There is always a tension between appealing to new players, appealing to players who want things easier, and appealing players who want to crank up the challenge. It happens in any game that lasts a decent amount of time. I think KSP is in a decent spot. New players can start with a pretty good base game, players who want things easier can grab MechJeb, and players who want a challenge can grab some realism mods. You can even mix and match automation with realism, if you want (NASA does a lot of automation anyways, so it's not unrealistic to use some automation). There's plenty of room for everybody.

Any idea if there will be contracts in career mode to help you establish the network?

Any idea if there will be contracts in career mode to help you establish the network?

I'm talking mostly about other planets. Jool, Eve. Returning from Jool to Kerbin is actually a big problem.

Re-entry heat is fine as a concept, but I'm not liking the way it's currently tuned. Aerobraking is practically impossible at several planets. I also think we need the inflatable shield in all sizes. I'm not sure about CommNet. I tried the mod that did something similar - and I can tell you, setting up satellite constellations is a superbly tricky task. How many satellites will I need? What kinds of orbits? How can I ensure coverage? A new player isn't going to know any of that stuff. I would have to go scouring the internet again to figure it out. Not to mention, it really make you prioritize the communications network, because if you don't have anything up, you can't do anything at all. And it really sucks when you're behind the Mun or in low orbit around another planet and you basically lose your ship. In the end, I found it to be too much work, not enough enjoyment. Maybe the new system will be different, but I wasn't impressed. Now - life support? Basically a time limit on all of my missions? Eh, no. I'm already struggling to meet delta V requirements on my missions to Jool's moons, the last thing I need is a time requirement on top of that. Sometimes saving some delta V does mean taking extra time. So that would mean more mission failures and a real struggle to keep reputation up. What I'd really like to see reworked are the tech tree and the contracts. The tech tree is a pain because oh hey look, what you need to get more science is locked deep into the tech tree, and you need science to get deep into the tech tree. It's a chicken and egg problem. You should get the "raw science" parts early in the tech tree. I don't see why the Gravioli Detector should be locked up in the late game, when you probably don't need it anymore. With mining in the game and advanced communication coming up, there ought to be enough late game tech available, and I think it's time that side of the tree got re-balanced. Contracts also needs a bit of a rework. I think that the player ought to have a bit of control over the general direction of the game. Like, I want to focus on getting science from the Mun instead of going to Duna. I like that contracts can give me some direction if I'm unsure of where I want to go next, but I'd like some control over the direction if desired. Right now, it's either pure player direction (sandbox) or pure AI direction (campaign). Hoping for something in-between. Also - THREE (or six) SCIENCE FOR EACH OBJECTIVE?! Even in the mid to late game? Why even bother giving us science at all, if it's going to be so little? . . . and just allow us to see the missing science reports in the archives. Please. There's not much reason to visit an archive of stuff I've already seen. Mods are already doing a much better job than the archives.

The number of PC configurations is virtually unlimited. Just because it doesn't affect the performance of your machine(s) doesn't mean there aren't machines out there that benefit noticeably by changing the setting.

Thanks. Finally made a successful mission - hours later, sigh. I definitely need to use a checklist for these things, keep forgetting things, making mistakes.

KSP and NMS are very different in their design, so it's very different to compare memory usage. I should note that the mods that make KSP realistic put a huge strain on memory, even on my 16 GB machine. I can't have it open with some other types of software, otherwise it crashes. There's not a whole lot of room left for new content, which is actually kinda sad. I think that's one of the reasons why they are pretty slow at releasing new bodies to visit.

Thanks for everything :).

Trying (rather unsuccessfully) to get a mission to Pol, and a couple of times the time warp has simply killed a maneuver node far into the future (about a year or so). Often, it leads me on an escape trajectory from Jool. I suspect that I'm being flung by a moon or something. Is there a good way to avoid this?

Yup. A good start. Although I'd like a bit more than a few rocks scattered everywhere.

I've had an odd thing whenever I replace a standard engine with a nuclear one on some of my spacecraft - the delta V seems to go down, according to MechJeb. Even if I take out the oxidizer. Does this sound right? If so, what is the current role of the nuclear engine?

Maybe a better breakdown of what fuel tank combinations you could use would be nice.

I tend to avoid a lot of parts mods, just so I can be more sure of the balance and the feel of the stock game. I do use a lot of quality of life mods and some visual mods. In the future, once I have my entire stock tech tree finished, I'll be looking into extra planets and such.

One thing it could do well was to return large payloads from space back to Earth. I don't know of any other system that can currently do that. Interesting. What did the video get wrong? And one more note - that system at 1:20 looks very interesting! I'll have to try to replicate that.

I do think a few more procedural elements would be nice - especially for Kerbin, which apparently is a nearly lifeless planet with a space program. Cities, plants, and animals might be nice for Kerbin. Cliffs and caves might be nice for all planets. Procedural generation can also be nice for filling in the detail gaps when large scale items (like planets) are hand crafted, and thus has a limited resolution. I wouldn't go as far as NMS did, though. I do think that future planets and future systems should probably be hand crafted. KSP ships can't really go that fast anyways, so I don't see the point of trying to simulate an entire galaxy.

Might be best for a mod.

I've tried naming schemes - but when I came back to the game later, I found I had to decode them to figure out what did what. So now my names are all somewhat descriptive. A bit boring, but I'll know what they do.

Thanks for all of the advice, everybody! Using Tylo for a gravity assist worked. Got my mission completed. Still managed to mess up, though. I designed the craft to only return a single Kerbin, but I sent two out. So one of them had to be rescued. Oh well. I believe that's the first successful mission I've ever had to a moon of Jool and back. I believe I'm at the point where I'm comfortable with interplanetary missions. Again - thanks!

I have an app called GoodSync that can copy a bunch of files manually. I'll just do that with a sandbox save.

Humm, is there an easy way to transfer ships between saves?

Simulations, eh? Did you use anything that's publicly available? Well, I'm trying to run a legit campaign here, so I prefer to minimize actual cheating, and building ships does cost money. Although right now, money isn't much of an object, as I have plenty to spend. I don't consider getting information such as ballistic coefficients to be cheating, though. I'm sure NASA crunches all of the numbers they can for every new spacecraft they build. I'm also shying away from most parts mods, because I want to stick close to the intended stock balance. Humm, CKAN has Precise Maneuver. I will try that. MechJeb's (yes, I know . . .) built-in maneuver editor seems a finicky. Lastly, I should note that my current destination is actually Bop, as I have a mission for that. Hopefully all this will help :).

On lunch break at work, so this will be short. My current biggest aerocapture issue is with Jool to Kerbin. Thanks for all of the advice, it will be helpful. Is there a way to know what the ballistic coefficient is in game?

The trick is going to be making sure I can actually be in a position to do so. Returning from Jool to Kerbin is pretty high speed I've found as well. That heatshield is pretty massive for smaller craft, especially if all I have is the part of the ship that's meant to return to Kerbin.

Okay - I'm finally getting to Eve and Jool, and I'm hitting a wall with aerocapture. I'm having ships simply explode. I've resorted to having ships just use lots of fuel, but that's making them large and unwieldy. Would be nice to have some ideas on how to best accomplish aerocapture, as well as good altitudes - is the KSP wiki still accurate on this? Thanks for any help you can give.