Jack Mcslay

Right now I have a propeller-driven UAV to be sent to Eve and take atmospheric measurements, so there's that. Also, we'll have more atmospheric bodies some of them probably without oxygen and there's a chance the devs could be inspired by space exploration in the past months and add a tiny double propeller that can be attached to a probe core and fly on Duna. If we're to get a good propeller aircraft gameplay they better have good automated cruise controls, it can already get tedious to cross the ocean on Kerbin on a jet, let alone doing so in a much slower propeller aircraft. Proper cockpits would be nice too, it's pretty silly to have cockpits that look like fighter jets for a propeller plane, not to mention unnecessary costly and heavy as they don't need to be pressurized.

Have a 1000 objects in orbit and watch the frame rate in the map screen. That isn't the engine's fault in any way, but some terribly written rendering routine that, given the game is apparently going to retire without fixing it I assume it might be a nightmarish piece of spaghetti code they didn't want to touch in fear of creating a lot of problems If the game's performance can be improved by hacking mono that shows the developers weren't using it properly, not that Unity's at fault; if mono's or unity's overall performance could be improved that way mono's developers would have patched it by now

I think this is needed. I want effective airplanes to reasonably resemble what real ones look like KSP's aerodynamic model is too easily exploited and trying to optimize planes eventually lead to designs that make no physical sense

An young planet with an atmosphere Breathable maybe?

This would require the planets to be built mostly by procedural generation, which for the base game would imply almost a separate procedural generation algorithm for each celestial body, and then they would have to develop their own planet editor for it. Sounds good on paper but far more trouble than it's worth as the resulting planets would look very similar to the ones already in the game anyway. Although, as I've mentioned in other threads about this subject, an editor that allows you to remove or choose the orbital parameters of each celestial body and maybe atmospheric parameters shouldn't offer many technical challenges and would be pretty interesting to play with.; for instance, you could get a solar system analog by setting each of the original planets and their moons to their real life equivalents. Plus, this feature could make adding modded planets much more easily

And why would it have to be that it only gives money? In KSP1 they're also good to get extra kerbonauts on the cheap; currently you can also get rovers and satellites although they're not particularly useful. They could just as easily make contracts as a means to gain access to entire space stations and bases

If a civilization created a black hole all that would remain is the black hole.

I don't think that rules out contracts, only that their scope would need to be reworked. You'll definitely start off landing an Mün and Minmus, and eventually reach contracts where you are tasked with launching a massive ship from Bop or populating a base on Rusk with 1000 Kerbals

Although, this is very close to how engines work. if they're fresh out of the hangar they work great, but if they run for a long time without inspection then they start malfunctioning, if running for even longer they may explode. It would be perfectly reasonable to add a durability meter to parts. A phone's screen shattering isn't random, all objects can either have elastic deformation or plastic deformation. Applied force up to a certain point causes elastic deformation meaning if the force is removed the object returns to it's original form, if the force exceeds the elastic limit, it creates plastic deformation, causing a permanent deformation. Whether the phone screen cracks or not it depends on the speed it hits the floor, what the floor is made of and how it hits the floor (if it hits perpendicular to the floor it gives much greater impact than if it hits at an angle or parallel) KSP1's joint system is well on the ballpark of how that works as excessive stress causes the ship to bend at part connections, greater stress can cause it to bend permanently, even greater stress causes it to separate altogether.

Probes where you have to manually tell them to do stuff. If I put instruments on a satellite if should start gathering data automatically and not have to wait till it gets over a certain location. In KSP1 the most obvious usage for probes would be for missions where you have to take readings above x altitude at an specific location yet that is easily among the most tedious things to do

I think it would be pretty interesting if the game requires you to send survey satellites in order to gather details about each celestial body's surface in order to get elevation and biome information This shouldn't affect the Kerbin-facing side of Mün as it's so close that Kerbals should know it in a fair bit of detail, but Minmus would be small and far enough that it would need it

I think many people have already succesfully landed one, but what about putting it back in orbit? Let's see who can get the largest asteroid out of the largest celestial body

We've had a few scenes with bases and space stations but none of them appear to have any impressive comms components. If we're going interplanetary then we should need some pretty large communication infrastructure, we could definitely use some Arecibo-sized comm dishes

Ability to sort crafts by nearest periapsis, apoapsis, ascending and descending node, SOI change and nearest maneuver would be great too. Hiding crafts from the list not orbiting the same parenting body would also be of great help

Seems like it's perfectly doable to tell a kerbal to drive to a specific location and preferably at a specific speed. Would be awesome for mobile bases, specially on Moho where you can be left in the dark for several days if you stay in one place.

Apparently they're going to implement a system where if you successfully launch an specific ship, the game records the result and you don't need to launch the same ship by yourself again. It's quite possible the same system could be used in a way you launch a test flight in which you launch a payload into orbit, and do another test flight in which you land the booster stage and the game uses the data in such way the game recovers the booster stage by itself in subsequent launches. It is also doable for the game to save the game as soon as a detached controllable stage gets out of physics range (or preferably just far enough that one stage's turbulence should not affect the other's trajectory), start recording the trajectory of the active rocket and after you've done maneuvering the payload stage you can go back to the booster stage and land by yourself while the games uses the recorded data to reenact your payload launch profile and put it safely into orbit

It might be fine if it's constant, like if Jool gets biomes where each location gets a different weather pattern similar to Jupiter today with it's multi century-long storms, but if you could randomly arrive at a sandstorm on Duna that makes landing inviable it would be more a frustration than an interesting gameplay mechanic. I'd rather leave it to scenario challenges if it's to be implemented.

you know what it needs? A rocket bat!

I'm pretty sure that's not what my experiences catching asteroids tell. Sometimes it thinks there's an intersect only after multiple orbits after the asteroid left Kerbin. And I specifically avoid 0-distance intercepts because they're stupid, they offer little advantage in saving time or fuel compared to sub-1km intercepts and are a good way to frustratingly collide with the target if you miscalculate the orbit matching burn

If you're trying to argue it takes an intersect far smaller than what the game starts showing intersect markers I call that glitchy. Also, the stock game won't measure intersects below 100 meters, anything lower than that counts as 0.0km

To be fair, KAC's intersect alarm is pretty glitchy. Sometimes even with a very close approach on the orbit it says there's no approach point. They probably left it out to fix it for now.

You can also land on them, each launch site you land at is unlocked to be launched from

If someone were to mod in wormholes to very distant stars additional skyboxes makes perfect sense. Also, I think it would be neat if nearby stars are to be implemented using particles and have the skybox only deal with the galactic ring. It would look far better, specially if there are individually flickering stars.

There's no official roadmap that I know of. At this point I think they're going to skip it entirely and go straight to 1.12.1 after they've fixed up ground anchors.

I haven't gotten a mission to land on Eve yet (last time I got one it was like 200K for mining and taking off with 600 ore, and I was like 'eff that' and declined) but I would probably make use of mining. Have a mining module that you can use to fill up your rocket and dispose it when returning, and have a return module on Eve orbit to dock with and return to kerbin