Solusphere

Fair enough. My mistake. I wasn't referring to my stance on the part tests. By gamers like me, I was referring to people who similarly find it difficult to play games in a perceived non-optimal fashion, often known as powergamers, though that has it's own connotations. It's a personality trait, and it's fairly common. I can find plenty of examples if you need them.

Seriously, guys. The correct response to negative feedback is not to argue how i'm wrong and actually I *DO* enjoy this element of the game because look how realistic it is, or tell me that if I don't like it I should just not use it. That's unhelpful to all concerned. The correct response is to take note, move on and hopefully make use of the information in your decision making processes going forward. Negative feedback does not equal a complaint or demand. Please stop treating it like one.

There's really no need to be patronizing. Just so we're clear, I DO like the contract system overall, and i'm really looking forward to seeing what interesting missions Squad can come up with. I already love the "rescue the kerbal in orbit!" missions, and other similar ones that present a unique challenge. My main gripe with the part testing missions is that I feel that they act more like hoops to jump through than goalposts. With the rescue missions, or when redirecting an asteroid, or travelling to Jool and back, there are a ton of ways for you to achieve that objective, and it's up to you to do it in your own unique style. I feel like that freedom is greatly lessened with the part testing missions, as their criteria are extremely specific to the point where you are forced to conform the mission around them, rather than being able to just test organically through standard use in the field, which I feel would be better. I may well be in the minority with that view. Everyone else might think they're the best thing ever. That's fine, but not saying anything helps noone.

So, i've finally had the opportunity to play 0.24, and while my experience with the new additions has mostly been very positive, i'm really, really not a fan of the part testing contracts. I feel like they've really been detracting from my game, because I spend far more time building random, awkwardly staged and impractical vessels to jump through as many arbitrary hoops as possible than doing the kind of thing I enjoy doing ingame. I *could* just not take them, but they represent a substantial portion of your available resources, so it feels like i'm hobbling myself by doing that. I'm the kind of player who obsessively strives towards maximum efficiency, and not doing so is difficult. Which means, oh, you had these two near-identical probe engines you were supposed to test, but one had to be done with the run test command while the other had to be staged just so at just this point in time, and you got them mixed up? Better restart this half-hour long mission that was otherwise going really well! I know it's largely my own personality at fault here, but I know there are a ton of gamers like me, and I really don't see what they add to the game. It's something you have to grind through to get to the parts of the game that actually feel fulfilling and enjoyable. I personally would be very happy if the part test contracts were removed entirely. And yes, I know the system is very early and far from complete, i'm just giving my impression of the system as it currently stands.

Thanks for the replies! With a bit of fiddling I managed to sort the issue out, and while there are probably a couple minor inefficiencies with my fuel line layout, I successfully completed my first SSTO flight! Woohoo! Successful design:

I'm currently attempting to make an SSTO spaceplane using only stock parts, and i've run into a slight issue with fuel management. Namely, I want to make my plane's four jet engines all draw fuel from the single jet fuel tank behind the cockpit, but it's impossible for me to run fuel lines directly to the tank, as they don't have LOS to each other. Here's a pic, to explain what I mean: Currently, the jet engines draw fuel directly from the attached rocket fuel tanks, which is a waste of oxidizer. I'm sure there are modded parts I could use, or I could just modify the part configs to add a second fuel type just for the jet engines, but I was wondering if there was any way to avoid this using only a base, unmodified game. Thanks in advance! Edit: I just realized that the issue isn't as bad as I thought, as I can simply transfer the LiquidFuel from the jet tank to the rocket tanks that have been drained once I reach a stable orbit, but the question still stands, as i'd rather avoid having to do this if possible.

Oh, really? I assumed they were ramjet-style jet engines. My bad. Well, that explains how they're able to work in space. And yeah, they have fantastically good efficiency when used in large rockets. With a trio of aerospikes under a couple of large 3m tanks and three large 1m tanks, I was able to nearly escape Kerbin orbit. Seem's i've just been using them for the wrong kind of vehicle

So, in the current version, the Aerospike engine is no longer the king of all atmospheric engines it once was, due to the fixed throttle bug i'm assuming. Problem is, it's fuel consumption is so fantastically high, i'm having trouble finding a use for it. A single Aerospike engine can drain a tank of jet fuel in approximately EIGHT SECONDS. I'm guessing you shouldn't normally be firing them on full capacity, but still, it seems like the other jet engines are both far, far more fuel efficient. Am I using it wrong? Is there a set altitude in which it has much greater efficiency? The tooltips are inconsistent between the atmospheric engines, so i'm not sure how they compare, and the wiki article appears to be out of date. Let me know what uses you guys have come up with them! Myself, i'm experimenting with using them as SRB replacements. Results pending.

I\'ve run into a problem with the rotatron system. I designed a buggy with an aimable claw turret system, landed it on the moon, and was driving around and grabbing stuff no problem. Then I went to the space center, controlled another craft for a while, and came back to the buggy. One of the claw rotatrons had completely inverted it\'s position, shown here: http://i.imgur.com/M9DbA.jpg Since both rotatrons were bound to the same group, I wasnt able to get them back together again, meaning the whole assembly was now useless. I don\'t know if this is something you\'re able to fix, or a more fundamental problem with the engine. Either way, in future, i\'ll be sure to bind the rotatrons to seperate groups.

Personally, I think making the area outside of the main system explorable would actually detract from the game. Currently, the game is set in a near-modern-technology level, with a mostly realistic model of propulsion. To explore external solar systems in a timeframe the average player would be willing to sit through, you would either need to implement sci-fi FTL systems, or have an absolutely enormous time accelleration setting, both of which kind of feel like cheating. The game is called Kerbal Space Program, not Galactic Kerbal Empire. At most, I think there should only be one external solar system in range, kind of the equivalent of our Alpha Centauri, but closer. It could be the ultimate challenge goal for those who are willing to spend many hours of max-accellerated flight with an ion engine to get there.