dr.phees

My Kerbals are preparing to have a firework ready on every planet with a surface. They will be fired in queue from outer planets to inner planets, each a bigger explosion for new year celebrations. Sadly I have already stranded two teams without a way to return, but, hey, the show must go on. And they seem to be quite happy with that. Who knows, maybe some rescue mission will swing by one day. I have no pictures yet, but I hopefully will remember to take screenshots of the fireworks...

It is weird iconography anyway. Why not a triangle/arrow?

You can type the _e variant to replace an umlaut (ä/ö/Ü) and ss or sz for ß. But you pretty much never see that in german texts, pretty much only where input devices or fonts limit you to non-umlaut characters. I have not heard of any spelling reform with the goal to remove umlaute. There were some suggestions over the years, the last is from 2001, I think, but I have not heard of any reform being actively pursued. But maybe I'm wrong.

One wonders what has happened. Did they at some point loose their code and had to get it working in a hurry? Those pictures look positively awesome compared to the current UI. Whoever made the decision to abandon that theme should take a step back, look at it again and hopefully understand it was a bad decision. Revert and move on would be a good way to go.

The science implementation, compared to interstellar, colonies etc. is the easy one. I completely expect the other milestones to take much longer.

Exactly that. This is by far the better solution!

I wasn't even aware that was a thing!! Thanks! (And now I also hope for this feature to find its way into KSP 2)

That's where the huge parts catalogue bites the development. It is beyond me, why they didn't start with a smaller catalog while implementing systems and only flesh out the parts list when ready. Starting with design before systems is a very weird decision.

There should be one part that adapts to what it is being connected to: Attach it to one part and have it adjust to its form factor, then attach the other part and have it adjust as well. One slider would allow us to set a length (could be stepwise). This would cut down on the part catalogue's count and would be much easier to use. If you want to override the automatic selection, you could always manually set the form factor. As an alternative, this part could be made with one fixed form factor, the other side would auto-select. This would still cut down on the part count.

I posted this before, but I think it is more fitting in this thread. I have a suggestion, to make money really working and better than pure resources limitations - it would work well together with that and, most important, it would remove grinding. I always thought it would be nice to be able to play these missions if you wanted, but not to gather money for further playing. A good way would be for specific mission types to act as proof-of-concept milestones for other such contracts. You could decide to set each unlocked mission type to "automatic" and it would unlock that level of cost for later rockets, in the sense of: You were able to run a profitable mission with a rocket that cost [this much], so we will fund any future rockets of that cost, no question asked. The idea behind this is, that we are the designers of new vehicles and try the new stuff. Someone else is running similar missions with the craft we provided without us having to know, producing these vehicles for profit and we only have to fund further development. One could even opt for some monthly income to our budget, but that might collide with fast-forwarding. I would be fine for money/earnings to just expand our mission cost envelope. Every mission type could have escalation steps: (rescue from Kerbin orbit, Mun orbit, Minmus, Eve...) Another way to expand your budget could be to set a mission type, that you would be willing to do: Landing & return operation on Eve would give you a couple of generated missions: A rescue mission, a sample return mission etc., while orbital mapping operations on gas giants would give you exactly that. Maybe including some high-profit/high-risk mission like a low orbit mapping while within a planet's athmosphere or very low down, pushing you into dipping into a gas giant's athmosphere if just for a very short moment, etc. So, to make it short: You have a vehicle budget and you play missions to expand that budget. If your mission is successful, your approved budget is raised. If you mission is profitable, your budget is raised even more. From then on you may repeat that kind of mission to get more profitable in that mission profile/type. You can simply browse mission by type and set them to not bother you anymore. Why? It removes grinding, but still incentivizes you for profitable missions and cost saving. And it adds a new thing: Competing with yourself for more profitable mission setups. Why at all? Not having money/budget in a Space Program game simply does not make sense! Budget makes you go for efficiency, which can be a very driving factor behind designing good ships. Just slapping many tanks on and adding power is boring once you can build huge rockets. Science and budget are the way to go, but not in KSP1 style.

That also works with my suggestion, but you would still have to push the budget envelope from time to time. There might be a way to finish enough missions / milestone missions to unlock an unlimited budget for your personal endgame. I really think that resource gathering, especially with the mentioned automation in mind, is a poor idea in a game with time-warp. The budget way would be much more game-play fitting, in my mind.

Sure. But such limitations would only lead to grinding. My expandable budget idea would allow proper progress. While you could do that with fuel availability, or any other resource (but it would probably feel a bit ham-fisted), you still would have the situation, that at some point you will simply be swimming in resources. My budgetary approach would still give you limitations that will force you to properly design vehicles.

I always thought it would be nice to be able to play these missions if you wanted, but not to gather money for further playing. A good way would be for specific mission types to act as proof-of-concept milestones for other such contracts. You could decide to set each unlocked mission type to "automatic" and it would unlock that level of cost for later rockets, in the sense of: You were able to run a profitable mission with a rocket that cost [this much], so we will fund any future rockets of that cost, no question asked. The idea behind this is, that we are the designers of new vehicles and try the new stuff. Someone else is running similar missions with the craft we provided without us having to know, producing these vehicles for profit and we only have to fund further development. One could even opt for some monthly income to our budget, but that might collide with fast-forwarding. I would be fine for money/earnings to just expand our mission cost envelope. Every mission type could have escalation steps: (rescue from Kerbin orbit, Mun orbit, Minmus, Eve...) Another way to expand your budget could be to set a mission type, that you would be willing to do: Landing & return operation on Eve would give you a couple of generated missions: A rescue mission, a sample return mission etc., while orbital mapping operations on gas giants would give you exactly that. Maybe including some high-profit/high-risk mission like a low orbit mapping while within a planet's athmosphere or very low down, pushing you into dipping into a gas giant's athmosphere if just for a very short moment, etc. So, to make it short: You have a vehicle budget and you play missions to expand that budget. If your mission is successful, your approved budget is raised. If you mission is profitable, your budget is raised even more. From then on you may repeat that kind of mission to get more profitable in that mission profile/type. You can simply browse mission by type and set them to not bother you anymore. Why? It removes grinding, but still incentivizes you for profitable missions and cost saving. And it adds a new thing: Competing with yourself for more profitable mission setups. Why at all? Not having money/budget in a Space Program game simply does not make sense! Budget makes you go for efficiency, which can be a very driving factor behind designing good ships. Just slapping many tanks on and adding power is boring once you can build huge rockets. Science and budget are the way to go, but not in KSP1 style.

I like that.

It is the old problem of KSP 1 again. If SAS is on, input should add/subtract an offset to or from the PID's target or a rotational target speed, not 'switch off' SAS until input stops. Alternatively SAS could work by shifting trim instead of simulating steering input. While steering input is received, SAS should stop adjusting trim until input is released. Both solutions would give us smooth steering. This had been discussed so unbelievably often with KSP 1 and should be very obvious.