Mr. Scruffy

Hmmm. Playing hard, too (iirc), and my issue seems to be neither cash nor science, but reputation. Having finsihed the records upto 2.5km/s, having orbited kerbin, i do not find anything mun-related in the contract menu (and i assume that´s because of lack of REP). I simply dont feel like doing any of those offered, which either give miniscule amounts of anything, or are not really suitable to my situation (VIPs and surveys). Should i go anyways?

FYI: What you put in the thread title, would normally belong in spoiler tags. Edit: The game tells you? If so, i apologize.

good news for the steamers i guess. the site is till down though

Yeah, i am getting impatient, now, too. Esp. cause i am watching a documentary about the U2 and SR71 right now... itchitchitchitchitch

I think, if possible, the OPs idea should probably not work for every instrument. The thermometer is an obvious candidate for where it should work, but all the others are upto debate. I am not an environmental scientist, so i cant tell, for example, if there are siginificant pressure differences to be expected from any body´s day side to the some body´s night side, for example (atmophere provided, of course). The goo container and the materials bay are special candidates concerning this, and maybe their SCI-output should not depend on ´biome´ (please Squad, again, check your terminology) at all, but rather on parameters like temperature and pressure (and g-force). This means, that they would have to be ´behind´ the thermo-/baro-/accelerometer in the tech tree, cause their application would depend on prior readings of said parameters. If you already have a goo-reading at temp/pres/accel x, y and z, there is nothing new to be learned from doing it again under the same conditions, no matter where you take the data. Knowing said parameters first, would then be a requirement to actually use the goo-container (to full effect, at least). OTOH, you´d be able to change these parameters (yielding new science from the goo, once you have measured said parameters under the situation) in novel ways: To change g, simply do a burn. To change T, intentionally overheat the container a bit...

Hmmm, KSK, i tend to agree. But then again, there is hardly anything to be said against a better indication of orbital directions, right? Little arrows on the orbit for bodies/crafts when you mouse over them and for those intended satelite orbits when hover over any over the parameter-nodes, for example. That wont hurt anyone. A warning message, though? No, thanks. It´s complicated to implement and really bit too much ´taking by the hand´, in my book, as well.

Uh, what an odd discision, in my book. Cause if there is one thing for me, ruining any feeling of accomplishment, it is realizing the fact, that probably 1000s of people of done this (whatever ´this´ is) before (fortunately my brain shuts the thought out, most of the time). Still, the two possibilities are not exclusive. You could have the default system, that we all know, and at career mode start sliders allowing you to set a range of divergence from this default system. I cannot tell the technical difficulties that might be involved in implementing this, though. They might be prohibitive. BTW, there is not ´a´ thread suggesting this already, there must be dozens by now. I remember i openend one, pretty much like this, years ago. It was one of my first thoughts playing KSP.

Tater, seems like we got our ´missions´. No need to sign contracts for altitude records for example in 1.0 - they are active by default and dont seem to count against the mission limit (if there still is one). Source: KSPTV stream.

Well, straight line tethers is fine. We can just assume an automatic hinge (wringe? uh you know what i mean right?) keeps the tether´s length the same as the distance the kerbal has to the ship and prevents getting tangled up. I know, that is not 100% realistic, but better than nothing, in my book, still.

Uh - and here i was thinking the devs had said (like years ago) it was impossible to do.... maybe i remember wrong though...

Welcome to the party. Oh, and thanks for the poll.

No, Fel, i do care - it´s more like John FX said: Why keep shouting in the storm?

It´s for watching the champion´s league on TV. Kidding.

Wow - i didnt know KSP was THAT popular in the netherlands... What´s next? Renaming the Ijesselmeer to booster bay?

Well, there is a of course some truth in it. And i find it mainly in the ´tools´ that have been mentioned. I WOULD need more of these. I just take it as a given, that when something like meaningful time is to be implemented, it would come with things like a calendar with events-to-come-soon would auto-inserted and entries can be made by the player to plan stuff. Or (actually: and) an auto-pause function that would warp you to the next event at highest possible (even beyond cuttent max speed - as fast as your machine can handle it) warp, if you want it to. Possibly individual schedules for each flight. As a convention, anything that has a date or time on it, should be added to the flight schedule (if flight related)/calendar (if program related) by simply clicking on said date/time. And they should be removable from these lists as easily. That we have to eyeball transfer windows had no bearing on the relevance of time, but has its cause by the game simply not providing us with the exact data. There should be ways to acquire it, like an observatory building or something. Flight tests can be done in sandbox mode, or by simply reverting, if that option is left on. Occasional failures should not result in instant game overs - there could be the option to acquire loans for example (which only makes sense with meaningful time). Limited periodic government payments, too, maybe - so that you can save & warp your way out. Which brings me to: There needs to be a some sort of timelimit or timescore to the game. Like in XX years from game start some catastrophe will have to be averted (meteor strike to be repelled / sun going nova and being able to leave the system with a colony ship...), after which your score is tallied. Or you get score for the SCI you collect based on how soon you collect it. So, save up&warp will let you keep playing, but your score will suffer.

Also: I´d like to have a button to toggle unresearched parts (those you have the nodes for, but have not bought the individual part yet) in and out of the list in the VAB/SPH.

As i said on other occassions - i am fine if all these things cant be done by 1.0 and everything 1.x will be optimization/big fixing, and everything else will need extra funding to go for KSP2. But i really wish it would happen someday. There is a certain vision that many share, at least partially, and i have no doubt it´s in the devs hearts too somewhere. If it takes commitment on our side, to back again, i´d in for it even with the current 1.0 plan, which is, frankly, a bit dissappointing from a hopes-POV, but indubitely fair from a price/value POV. EDIT: If they dont share that vision (or are simply a bit fed up with the project after all these years), i´d humbly ask them to NOT sell the franchise, but pass it on, to some indie-devs, like they once were, to carry on with it, the way they started it. Maybe rent it out, so once they see what fresh minds do to it, they can take it back for 3, or something (renting franchises is totally underrated, imho - we´d have a true somethingsomething X, by now, for sure, if that had been done more).

I think it would be nice, if the game kept track of how many times you have used any part and offered an according sorting method for each category in the VAB/SPH (next to ´name´, ´mass´, ´cost´ & ´size´). This would have the following pros: - Let´s you find your most popular parts faster, during construction - Gives modders an entry point to do something like discounts on often used parts, or somesuch* - Gives the devs (for those users who send info) an extra-idea of what parts might need a buff/nerf/move in the sci-tree (e.g.: why is nobody using engine X?!). *E.g. (pseudo-code): If part_used <= 50, part_price = part_price - part_used%, else part_price=part_price - 50. To give a 1% discount on the part for each time the part had been used before, upto a cap of 50%.

Ironically, if the topic is interpretated strictly, XCom is a bad example, cause IIRC, your soldiers get hired with a one-down payment (of a whooping 10$ or so). But if the topic is interpretated more openly, then yes, it´s a good one. The main reason i posted that pic, is the ´upcoming events´ list, it displays, which should have its counterpart in KSP - both games are pretty similar in structure, at least concerning the campaign. The pic itself, with that green man standing at the bottom, actually reminds me of the VAB.

Time could also enable reaslistic loans - get 100k now, pay off 10k every earthly (just an example - the game should use kerbal measures) month for an earthly year. This could elevate the ´timewarp-trap´ to some extent - sort of a lifeline (or 3). Also: Kebaled space stations - you´d send them up, and keep them there, as your scientists would only do 0.1 SCI per person per day out of a 20-50 total avaiable - for one experiment (+skill modifiers). --- The way tater puts it, time (as spoken of, here) clearly trumps REP as a potential game component. I am not even sure, if REP shouldnt go out, if time only made it in. As your missions´ payments expire, you are being pushed on - or forced to grind on those contracts (some more - depending on chosen difficulty and overall effeciency).

To me, the proposed model of increased cost for hiring kerbals, instead of having a periodic payment for them, is just another misguided attempt to avoid a feature that is simply required to make the campaign game work properly: time. It´s like they are trying to build a rocket without decouplers or stack seperators: Yeah, it might work in the end, somehow, but.... I really wish, they´d finally come around to this, before they sink more time and energy into accomodating a model that distorts ´reality´ (to the extent the term may apply here) and immersion so heavily, that it will never yield a proper result, imho. I wonder if anyone here has ever played a so-called ´grand strategy game´ - games by paradox interactive (Europa Universalis, Hearts of Iron, Crusader Kings...) in particular. You are more or less constantly time-warping in those games - and it´s not a problem in the slightest. We are time-warping right now in KSP, too, all the time. What´s the fraking problem? It´s like the devs have some sort of phobia versus something that is quite common in (pseudo-) continous simulations. Really, any game, that runs outside turns, uses this, from ´The Sims´ to ´Sim Earth´. You might actually say, that ´time-warp´ is THE enabler of this whole class (above genre, in my taxometry) of games. In other words: The fact that we can warp time is the reason why we can have time as a meaningful resource, without problems. And since it´s a conditio sine qua none in a space-faring real-time game, anyways... i am getting more and more puzzled with the devs decisions concerning this. I think they are making a big mistake, which they should rectify asap. All these abstractions (and the associated creativity) are unneccessary (and wasted) if they´d just finally decided to do it the proper way. They are causing more problems for themselves then they are solving by refusing to do so. Just my opinion. No offence meant. Just trying to help. Thx.

Actually, i integrated the term ´ker(-)ballistic´ into my vocabulary. It describes crazy actions, usually with a lot of kinetic energy involved. Bungie-jumping, for example, is ´kerbalistic´ to me.

Yeah, let´s unfold that dimension! Right now it´s all curled up between orbital periods and launch windows. So among the stars we shall forever sit triumphant over death and chance - and thee, oh Time!

Thanks for the thread merge - i hadnt noticed the other... so: The more i think about it, the more i am convinced, that there simply is no way around introducing a proper time component to make the career mode really interesting. A space station makes sense, if each scientist there generates some science per period of time (say per day) - likely against his monthly payment in funds and capped in duration by lifesupport and how much science there is to get based on location and instruments... Without time, i simply cannot come up with a (good - by standards of plausibility and gameplay) reason to have space stations. Not everything needs to be modeled realistically around time - rocket construction times for example should be carefully considered how long they should be if there should be any at all based on gameplay primarily - but way more things should come (and go) over time than currently is the case, imho. EDIT: The subtitle for 1.0 (or 0.9x) should be : ´It´s about time!´