Baythan

That escape tower diagram you linked is almost exactly what the in-game escape tower looks like. The aft protective cover/fairing would only be necessary if the drag model gets updated. What the in-game LES needs is a built-in decoupler so it can be jettisoned once the rocket is near space in an almost circular orbit. I also find it kinda sad that the LES is not available in career mode until Tier 6, when it should have been available in tier 2 or 3 (so, an LES for the mk 1 module), when players are still probably making rockets that fail. The only 2-man capsule currently in the game is the Mk2 Lander-can, and the regular capsules go from 1 to 3 crew. I'd like a 2-man capsule earlier in the Tech tree along with docking ports so that we can do Apollo-like landers early (ie- first. Though I'd like to be sending probes before a Kerbal ever hits orbit). 4-6 man capsules can be done already by adding Hitchhiker Storage Containers to a regular capsule, but it is a rather large behemoth at that point. The Mk1-2 capsule looks like the orion capsule to me, except with the limit of 3 crew. Also, do we really need more conical command modules? I think I'd rather have a 4-man version of the lander can for space stations and base building. And I do like the idea for being able to limit the part counts or some better ways of sorting the parts in the SPH and VAB, even without mods it gets annoying to be constantly tabbing all over the place to build a simple rocket (HINT: put fuel lines and space-tape as the first item in their sections. I could do a whole paragraph on re-sorting the VAB). And mission emblems would be cool, and I bet people would also love a flag editor/emblem maker too... but that might be too much. Maybe we need an external mission-patch maker on the KSP website or something? Stock it with images of each planetary body, a star field, orbital stripe... well now I'm just listing all the things I had to go make for my own flag editing...

I'd like to be able to be more efficient with nodes by being able to zoom in on the center of the navball. As it is, targeting the center of mass for a large asteroid is not easy because you can have that little gold dot right inside the pink dot of the target, but still end up pointed far enough off-center to get a spinning asteroid (which is why a lot of us pull them instead of push).

I like the idea of upgrading parts through the tech tree, making them more efficient than their original version. I'm wondering what they are going to do as far as the first round of rebalancing parts for Career mode. I hear some people don't like the new SLS parts from the ARM patch because they are WAY too powerful (in their opinion, I like them). Right now most parts are designed/balanced for Sandbox mode, so most parts are good for certain situations instead of 'better' than another part earlier in the tech tree. But to make science something to keep gathering, it'd be nice to be able to upgrade parts to become better. More efficiency in vacuum or atmosphere for engines, more science gained from transmitting from the antenna, etc. Of course, I'd also like more lights, but that's a subject for a different thread.

Awesome, someone answered this already. Could you mark it as answered?

Yes, this is possible in the settings menu under the General Tab, third option down. For those willing to edit the settings.cfg it is possible that way too by setting "KERBIN_TIME = False" around line 31.

Ok, I trimmed your original post to try so sum up what you are getting at. I'd like to think i understand what you are saying, but because my opinion differs from yours, I'm afraid you're going to just say I don't understand (or are you ONLY looking for responses that agree with you? If so, you're in the wrong place). You read the forum posts about what not to suggest, what has already been suggested, and the planned feature list. You also seem to have made the assumption that the planned feature list is a complete list of all that's going to be in the game and nothing else thats not in this list is going to be added. I feel its safe to say that this is a false assumption, as just about everything added in the ARM patch(0.23.5) was NOT on any of those lists that I can recall. Most of the items marked as "Not Happening" have no citations, but Devs at one point or another said they would not be adding those features so its safe to assume they'll never be stock parts of the base game. Mostly because they don't fit with the Dev's vision of this game at the time they said they wouldn't do it. They reserve the right to change their minds, thats life. But then, the SEVEN(thats it, just 7 measly things they've nixed) listed 'not happening' features aren't what KSP is about anyway. It is an opinion, we are all entitled to them. No need to be calling people stupid for disagreeing, we're trying to discuss the matter in a civil manner here. This entire section of the forum is about what features people think should be in the game, why have one thread in that forum to do the same? Most people are going to post their suggestions in separate threads, not here, so this thread is going to remain a response to your post and any additional posts you make. Career mode is going to be much more than it is, it is in it's infancy right now. The tech tree is still being rebalanced (right now all the parts are balanced for Sandbox mode). I love the idea of having to manage a budget and upgrade the KSC with whatever rewards come from the contract system (feature still in development, we have no idea what kind of rewards there are, or how 'money' is going to work). I don't like the idea of having to travel all over the place and mine minerals to build individual parts. I'm leary enough of having to manage a budget that gets wiped out with every Duna mission I launch, or each Eve mission that can't come back because I calculated my D-V wrong, or mis-timed a burn. Orbital space stations? Awesome, tons of us want 'em, that's why people have already made mods to add them to the game. Not because Squad isn't going to do it, but because the modders WANTED to make a mod. Squad hasn't "left it up to [them]," they probably jumped the gun. If Harvester and the other Devs want to add that feature, there are people out there that have already figured some of the problems out. Orbital telescopes gathering science? Sure! Why not. Career mode is still in the works, still needs balancing, I don't see why this can't or won't happen. Just what is it thats being left up to the modders? The seven features they decided not to implement? The 1,001 other features it would take them twenty years to add? If a mod is out there that ALREADY does what people want, why should the Devs waste time re-doing all that work? They've already hired two or three modders from the community to help them work on this game, nothing says they can't or won't do that again. Some mods have already been rendered obsolete by features they had becoming stock, it may well continue to happen. Theres no set release date for this game, it may stay in development for years, growing well beyond it's original scope.To assume the base game is going to be stale is to look at a sapling and assume it's going to be a crappy tree growing bitter fruit, when it could be a redwood or an orange tree. The future of this game is as yet unwritten, and I believe it has a bright future, as do hundreds or even thousands of other people who play this game and either suggest interesting features or decide to mod them in. So, really... what's the problem? If you don't like the game then I'm sorry, I love it. If you think it's incomplete, well.. it is. If you still have no respect for the hard-working makers of this game (did you know SQUAD isn't a game developer?), then there's nothing anyone here can say to change your mind.

I will check the atmo options and see if the numbers match up or change. I would have thought that VAB settings would be Launchpad atmo instead of vacuum, because you have to LEAVE atmo before you reach vacuum, but thats just me. Edit: Same craft as last time(yes, I know, its a poorly designed lift stage): VAB normal settings(vacuum, as Mun and Minmus show the same numbers) S2 = 5,309m/s S1 = 699m/s Total = 6,009m/s Atmospheric settings(Kerbin as reference body just to be sure) S2 = 4,719m/s S1 = 538m/s Total = 5,257m/s Launchpad: S2 = 4,846m/s S1 = 721m/s Total = 5,567m/s So the numbers still don't match up. Now my best guess is that the Kerbin settings assume you start from 0m(sea level), because they show as WORSE than launchpad settings. Though these numbers are better for what I was trying to do, which is design vessels that have just enough fuel in each stage that nothing gets left floating in orbit(a tad bit of OCD, I don't like space trash).

Having an issue with KER delta-V values changing from the VAB to the launchpad. Using KER v0.6.2.3 and the dll from this thread(Updated 12:02 08/04/2014) with KSP 0.23.5.464. Only mod installed is KER. Using this craft in the VAB my delta-V stats are: S2 = 5,309m/s S1 = 699 Total = 6,009m/s but on the launchpad: S2 = 4,846m/s S1 = 721m/s Total = 5,567m/s I deleted the mod, re-downloaded and re-installed both mod and dlls, and the numbers still changed. If I can provide any other information that would be helpful, let me know. Edit: I'm starting to think part of the problem may be that the vessel can exceed its terminal velocity(and I have no idea what speed that is), so it's possible to waste d-V on launch.

I think it's really awesome how you guys work together even though some people 'might' consider your mods(or those you work on even if it's not 'your' mod) to be competitors. In the end it makes both of your mods even more awesome. In other words, this KER simulation code is working quite well in my game, and I'm super stoked that MJ is getting help with some of its bugs because I like that mod too.