razark

I was referring more to the fact that way too many parts descriptions talk about being found in junkyards and on the side of the road, and the extent to which some players seem to think this is a "good idea". Failure is what it is, and it will happen. Building rockets out of trash is just plain stupid. Perhaps that's not what the OP got from the video, but it's pretty much what I saw.

How about pilots reduce the mass of the craft, instead of affecting engine performance? Or give the craft larger fuel tanks? It gives them a boost, and it's not based on physics, right? Makes perfect sense! The problem is that the game is based on a (largely) accurate model of orbital mechanics and rocket physics. Ignoring that is ignoring what the game is supposed to be about. Ahem. Well, I didn't realize I was dealing with an actual heretical blasphemer. Obviously, every single one of your opinions is as completely useless as your opinion of what is actually edible when placed atop pizza.

Oh, yay. Because the "craptastic aesthetic" is something that needs more encouragement...

I'm almost ready to concede that point. However, if the Mainsail's ISP is 310 in Sandbox mode, the maximum you should ever see in Career mode in 310.* If the maximum in Career with a 5-star pilot is 350, you should see it listed as 350 in the parts list and that is how it should act in Sandbox. In other words, the maximum level is arbitrary and subject to balancing, but the maximum level should be the maximum level it can operate at, not less. *This is, of course, disregarding the possibility of part upgrades. (Which are tech-level dependent, not character-level dependent. After all, the SSME was capable of running at 109% thrust, independent of who was flying the mission.)

Again, if you give a penalty to lower levels, it's within the laws of physics, but a bonus to high levels is violating it. In an RPG, or FPS, or any other genre, I'd say it's ok to give it a pass. But when your entire game is based on actual realistic physics, you just don't get that leeway. G'night. Sadly, I think this is one of those points where we've got two camps that are never going to see eye-to-eye on the issue. If it was added to the game, I wouldn't complain as long as it was able to be turned off.

If they're driving in the exact same way, yes. I get what you're saying. But the engine will still run by the same physics, no matter which ass occupies the driver's seat. Rocket engines do, too. As I said earlier, if you want pilot skill to affect performance, lower skill should provide a penalty. The best pilot in the world cannot get better performance than physics says he can. As Scotty said (and opposed to what he did), Ye cannae change the laws o' physics! (Besides, Scotty was an Engineer, anyway.)

Honestly, I've never understood why people think airliners are interesting in any way. I've always found them to be rather boring. Yes, there is the very occasional one that breaks new ground, but aside from the first massively produced one, or the first jet airliner, I just don't get it. Can someone explain it?

KSP is dead, without a doubt. Dead as Francisco Franco is so recently reported to be. Hell, Squad just posted an update about the contents of the upcoming release. What better sign of a dying product can you think of?

https://www.amazon.com/Million-Random-Digits-Normal-Deviates/dp/0833030477

The engineer can fix or even make improvements to the mechanical device, plus in the abstraction would be trained in proper operation and able to adjust to previously unknown conditions discovered during operation. Likewise, the scientist knows what results they are looking for and can modify the procedure/experiment or equipment to chase after observed results or to examine anomalies that an untrained Kerbal wouldn't notice. Otherwise, why change the crew assignments to send a geologist on Apollo 17 if any arbitrary astronaut could have done the same job? Engine performance is simply not something a pilot can modify or effect. Better piloting can make better use of available delta-v, but cannot actually increase it, while bad piloting can waste available resources. Better pilots can fly a craft without needing management watching over their shoulder and telling them which buttons to press.

You mean "krewed"?

Yeah, I had it. Still do, on DOSBox.

None. They're nearly six years out of date.

This, I support.

Perhaps if it had been pitched that way, it wouldn't have met with as much opposition. The way it was stated, a high-level pilot provided a "bonus" to ISP, giving it more delta-v than it should have. To simulate the effect of a higher pilot being able to steer better, it should have been a penalty to ISP for lower-level pilots.

Typo?

Pink Floyd, or whatever the mp3 player skips to at the moment.

What?!? You mean pilots actually pilot?!? That's just crazy talk! Seriously, though, I sort of support this. I think ALL pilots should be capable of executing a maneuver node. The higher the level of pilot, the more precisely they will execute it. Level 5 being able to dock, or maybe carry out a mission profile you've already flown (or the Kerbal has already flown) would be cool, though. (and for all the Kerbal Space Pogrom players, just think how funny it would be to watch one try to land a ship that's not designed for it... lots of boomtastic hilarity.)

It allows me to do/experience things I can't in my real life. It also lets me create my own stories. Movies, theater, literature, and TV are telling me someone else's story. Both in the sense that the story is told by someone else, and about someone else. Being the main character of a game evokes a different response, since the events are happening to/because of me and my actions. Even if the movies/books/etc evoke an emotional response, it's not going to be the same, since I have no part in causing it, and no real stake in what happens. I also tend to play a lot more simulators than I do other types of games. I don't find much of a draw to storyline based games, as it's again locking me into someone else's story when I would prefer to make my own in the world they provide. The same story repeated makes for a lack of replayability for me. I'd say the time period and location have to have some sort of a draw, otherwise I wouldn't be interested in the game. Most of all, however, they need to make some kind of sense. Driving a tank makes sense in a modern game, but driving an M-1 down Senlac into Duke William's Norman cavalry doesn't, no matter how much I might find the Anglo-Saxon period fascinating. The art also needs to make sense. In something like a game about quirky little beings building rockets, artwork leaning to the cartoonish fits, but it would be out of place in a simulator striving for a high degree of realism.

Also curious about this. I'm hoping that it will be language specific downloads, so we're not having to download a bunch of stuff we don't need.

I just found out about it, and I like the idea. Setting a high ratio of game time to real time could be a nice way to encourage reuse of existing designs. I'd like to throw support behind KAC support and a "Pause" button to stop the passage of time, if you get around to it.

What, no C-47?

Mentioned here:

That's the one I'm voting for.

Rocket engines probably take a bit of effort, but I wouldn't expect Squad to hype up the fact that they will be in the next KSP release.