404james

I am ashamed to say that I recognized exactly none of these.

I made a thread about a related, but distinct, Idea, before I saw this one. the thread is located at http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/77047-Another-take-on-development-of-parts. I was a bit wordy in my thread, but the basic idea is, instead of having parts level up passively, give the player control over how much to optimize each part, at a cost for each individual part, then make it cheaper as they gain experience/tech/whatever.

I've been thinking. there have on numerous occasions been suggestions to have some species of system by which a part, as it is used, gains 'experience' of some description, such that later ships that use that part will have it more efficient, or more powerful, or some such. this is a good proposal, and I would be quite happy were it to be implemented. But it does introduce some issues. Take, for instance, the sharing of craft files. If someone with full experience on an engine, which might make it more efficient, builds a spacecraft for a mission requiring a certain amount of delta-V, and shares the craft file with his buddy, who has less experience on that part, who launches the same mission with that craft, the shared version may not be able to complete the mission. This has negative implications for challenges, among other things. There may be a solution, though. when a real space program builds, for example, a rocket engine, they build (or contract a company to build) it with very specific parameters, one at a time, varying their parameters, and their budget, to be tailored to the mission. I think this could be done in KSP. When you build a part, such as an engine, there would be a bar on the tweakables menu, for budget. Increasing the budget would make engines more efficient, reduce dry weight of fuel tanks, and so forth, but would increase the cost to build and launch that part, on a case by case basis. So, if I make a rocket engine, and I need it to be very efficient, I can put a lot of money into building it, and get an appropriately powerful engine, but if, the next time around, I'm on a tighter budget, but don't need it to be as powerful, I can spend less on construction, saving money and getting something less powerful. There could also be bonuses associated with it that change costs. for instance, if I just unlocked a part, it could cost a good deal to improve the performance, but I would still have the same range of capability. Then, as I unlock technologies related to the part, or gain experience using it, or even just buy a lot of them, the price to optimize it would start to decrease. This way, if person A builds a vehicle with a highly optimized part, which he has invested a lot in, then shares the craft file with his buddy, person B, who has invested less in that part, person B will still get the same vehicle as person A, with the same performance, but it will cost him more to launch it.

I do like the idea, as I certainly agree that achievements with new capabilities should grant some scientific benefit. One other way it could be done is to have each tech node have tasks that can be performed in lieu of some of the science cost. For instance, if you successfully make an atmospheric flight of a certain duration, and land safely, that could mean less science needed to unlock better aircraft parts.

Maybe not magnetism then. perhaps it could just be some sort of gravioli generator. Odds are it would be quite heavy, expensive, and power consuming, not to mention the late placement on the tech tree, but the uses are, as has been mentioned, endless.

I agree. perhaps, the more kerbals you abandon, the less likely skilled applicants are to sign up for astronaut candidacy. alternatively, (or in addition,) the crews family could sue you, or you could lose reputation of some kind..

I agree with this, as a low priority thing. perhaps a "Mission Archives" building that would track the logs for each mission, and an "Air and Space Museum" that would have exhibits of all the craft you recover. Edit: this just occurred to me: if there's ever an option to reuse the parts recovered from a craft, perhaps there could be an option, on recovery, to either reclaim the parts, which would add them back into your stock, or to sell it to the museum, which would give you a lump sum of cash, based on what sort of things the craft did. (a ship that went to the moon would be worth more than a suborbital craft.)

I don't see why it wouldn't be possible, and it would certainly be useful.

I don't see what you're trying to say. I wasn't sure if they had weight in the capsule. they probably should, but I digress.

This could be even better with the coming tweakable parts, so you could specifically tune your ballast.

I tend to play in a somewhat realistic way, and I would like to be able to test my designs for manned vehicles without having to risk losing a crew. as such, I would like to suggest the addition of parts that are identical in weight and shape to each of the manned capsule. It would function identically to an unmanned probe, but with traits to approximate the manned ones. Alternatively, after unlocking the appropriate technology, you could choose, in the crew menu, to fill the seat of a manned capsule with a computer rather than a crewman. there might also be an option to fill the seat with balast, to simulate the weight of the rest of the crew.

So, right now, when you select a craft on the tracking station, you have an option to switch to it, to terminate it, (removing it entierly,) or, if it's on kerbin, to recover it. The first and last of these make sense, but it seems strange that I can completely obliterate all of a craft's parts without a trace. Instead, I think that it would make sense for it to be replaced with a "decommission" button, which would represent the KSP giving up entirely on maintaining a mission. The craft would turn into debris, and any kerbals inside would be considered KIA. When currency is implemented, this would also stop the costs of upkeep for the mission.

You could simulate other levels of gravity in a building. Just hang the rocket from a crane on the ceiling, pulling upwards at a calculated rate. Not in the least bit accurate, and terribly unsafe to have rockets firing uncontrolled indoors, but since when have we cared about either of those? it is a bit of an oddly specific thing to have built from the start, so perhaps it could wait until we can build buildings for ourselves.

I like this Idea. One more advanced variant might be to allow for the player to construct their own facilities, in a hexagon grid. You could have hexes for assembly buildings, segments of runway, launchpads, vessel storage hangars (so you could launch multiple vessels rapidly without assembling each one after launching the previous,) Tracks for mobile launchpads (connecting VABs to launchpads,) Taxiways(connecting SPHs to runways,) R&D buildings, parts factories, comms stations (if remotetech style comms ever gets implemented,) training buildings, etc. All the road-style things (Runways, taxiways, tracks, etc.) would have different segments for straightaways, bends, forks, etc. I'm starting to realize that this would have been better served by it's own thread, but whatever, it's still on topic.

I, personally, think it would be an interesting touch, but not, strictly speaking, necessary. it would certainly be cool to have some wandering beasts, but I think more diverse flora would be a more important addition, not to mention easier.

Right, so, I am well aware that there are no plans to include aliens in KSP. This makes perfect sense. I am unsure, however, if this applies to things like bacteria, or only macroscopic extraterrestrials. Perhaps, if a planet is capable of sustaining a microbiome, like Kerbin and (possibly) Laythe, would have a hidden map of the integrity of the microbiome. so, if you land a craft or EVA that is not properly sterilized, it would damage the integrity of the microbiome in that area, which would do little besides lowering the value of microbial experiments and, perhaps, surface samples. The microbiome would repair itself after a while, but it would take some time. Thoughts?

I have always found that people being silly about things is one of the better ways to discover new ideas.

You raise a good point, actually. Perhaps there could be a tag for certain kerbals, such as Jeb, with nothing to loose, who are in it just for the thrills. They would be easier to keep satisfied, and more willing to tolerate unfavourable conditions, but there may need to be some trade-off for those benefits.

Disclaimer: I understand, and, to a point, agree with what you're saying, and I agree that my suggestion may be a bit much. however, in the interest of continued dialogue, I will continue to argue in favor of it. I have included this preface so as to prevent this from becoming a more heated argument. That said, I would say that your proposition (regarding specific solutions, rather than your suggested path of implementation, with which I agree,) lacks one crucial point, that being choice. I built my suggestion around the idea of allowing players to continue using the same couple of kerbals, mission after mission, but with the risk of some sort of penalty, either in the form of a risk of losing that kerbal in the case that he decides to quit, monetary risk, in the form of lawsuits, or some other risk. The player could instead choose to regularly rotate crews, so long as they are willing to deal with less experienced crews. On another note, it may be a good idea to approach this issue from an additional direction: perhaps, if a kerbal that has been hired as an astronaut spends too long (depending on their personality) with out any missions, they will become irratated and quit, though not before making their complaints known.

While this isn't a problem at the moment, I was thinking that, when kerbals become able to gain experience, there ought to be some system in place to prevent players from just using the same kerbals on every mission, building up monstrous amounts of experience, or at least make it less optimal to do so. one way I think this could be done may be to require, or at least have incentives, for giving kerbals some time on kerbin between missions, proportional to the time spent in space. (a kerbal wouldn't ask for a vacation after a twenty minute aircraft flight, but he'll certainly need some R&R after a three year interplanetary tour. Perhaps it wouldn't be required, but if they spend too much time in space, you may find yourself on the receiving end of angry letters from spouses, notices of resignation, and eventually lawsuits. Perhaps a kerbal could have some sort of 'job satisfaction' meter that would be affected by that kerbal's family life (visible before hiring), personality, salary (as if), and time spent in space. doing things that they've never done (landing on a new planet, working with new people, etc.) could help, so if you keep him satisfied with novelty, you won't have too much risk. it could be helped much better by letting the poor guy get a vacation every couple of missions. Thoughts?

Here's a few ideas for classes, followed by some brainstorms as to what they would do. I suppose they would be differentiated by the colour of the stripe on the helmet, similar to how the later Apollo A7L space suits had a red stripe on the commander's suit. -Test Pilot: basically Jeb. they would be better at handling G forces, and increase the amount of science from recovering a vessel. Orange stripe. -Commander: increase the class abilities of all other kerbals in the same capsule. red stripe. -Scientist: increased amount of science from crew and eva reports (not from instruments, because it would make probes even less useful), but lower speed when running in EVA, because they don't get out much. Blue stripe. -Engineer: faster at repairing broken spacecraft parts (Repacking chutes, changing tires, and so forth). if it ever becomes possible to add struts in flight (for space stations and such), this would be the guy to do it. Yellow stripe.

Maybe, as your technology advances, the planning room could change functionally, as well as aesthetically. so, you start with a chalkboard, and only white chalk. then you get a dry-erase whiteboard, and a few colors to toss around. I also like the flipping board idea.

Actually, considering how heavy an airlock would be, and how much space it would occupy, it would be more efficient to just re-pressurize the capsule entirely after every EVA, like what Apollo did, at least on landers. Suitports (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitport) might be an interesting idea, too.

I've got a few ideas running through my head, in that regard. EVA Suit Ideas: - Jumpsuit: A standard blue or grey jumpsuit kerbonauts might wear while in the capsule, or on EVA on Kerbin. no RCS, no O2. Fast movement, so long as you have a breathable atmosphere. - launch escape suit: Partial pressure suit in a nice orange color. moderate oxygen, reasonable heat resistance, not much tolerance for low atmosphere. It'll save you if you're falling from mid to upper atmosphere, but wont help much in space. optional parachute. - extravehicular mobility unit: Closest to the current EVA suit. Reasonable amount of RCS, good in a vacuum, SUPER slow movement when walking about on a planet's surface. - surface operations suit: designed for use on planetary or munar surfaces with no atmosphere. reasonably mobile, no RCS. Any other ideas? also, it might be an interesting consideration to have some EVAs require a prebreathing period before exit, to acclimate kerbals to the suit's rarefied atmosphere (probably between 30 seconds to a minute or so in game, rather than the several hours in real life.) perhaps some more advanced suits could use a full atmosphere instead, negating the prebreathe, at the cost of mobility, or some such.

Also, regarding a release date, I really don\'t know. I need to remake pretty much every part, and there were quite a few...but, I\'m not ruling out earlier, smaller releases. Looks nice, but I would suggest having the small combustion chambers and tanks on the engine start glowing at higher heat levels too, so it looks more like it\'s about to explode, and not just melt.