Wjolcz

I've noticed there's a seed thing in the Mission Builder. Will I be able to share my mission by copying and sending someone the seed number? Has anyone tried?

This is a very very good DLC. Already made my first mission! It's crap but who cares!

DLC came so did I! Some more just to keep this on topic. Edit: No idea why these look so bad. DeviantArt app must be compressing them or something.

Early Earth from today.

Can you change mine to Wjolcz?

I kind of agree. I like how you always try to hit the middle ground between the current system and a drastic change. However, this "likelihood" would not be enough IMO. And the investment part shouldn't be there in the first place. Yes, the strategies SHOULD influence the types of missions you get to do. I'd call them programs though. The problem is in order to change the strategies to something sensible and enjoyable the whole career mode would have to change. But if I was to design it the more conservative way I'd imagine it to be more or less like this (only a few examples): National Programs: Aircraft Research Program - Research and build planes until you get all the atmospheric parts. SSTO Program - Research and build SSTOs, get missions to test components, fly them, etc. and still progress. Local Exploration Program - Research vacuum engines and test them in LKO/Mun/Minmus, etc. Deep Space Exploration - Research deep space habs, probe bodies and atomic/ion engines. Commercial Programs: Deep Space Resources - Prospect and exploit potential resources in space and either use them in-situ or bring them back to your home planet for good money. Tourism - Anything that is connected with tourism (orbital hops, vomit comets, space hotels and stuffz). Scientific Programs: Interanetary Science Program - Send probes everywhere. Local Science Program - Make a space station and research stuff there (test parts, grow food, make nanotubes, whatever) The Sentinel Program - Make telescopes, look for asteroids, grab asteroids, things like that. This is just few examples. But in order to make them work things would still need to change: the way the tree is unlocked, the way science works, the way funds are granted, the way reputation works. All in all, I don't disagree with the change. I just think it should be more dramatic.

I agree. I made a thread about this once but it sank unnoticed. Current exhaust particles are horrible. Why not make it the way it was in IL-2? I mean these "stall lines" on the tips of the wings except for engine exhaust. And black, of course.

Sooo... No landing next time?

Yeah, sorry about that. It was the first thing I thought of when making the thread. I've learnt some new things today. Thanks a bunch, guys.

Let's not make this political. The background: Me and my family had an argument about whether height is determined by growth hormones in food or by the availability of food in the envirnoment. They think it's the hormones and their argument was that the youth "back in their days" (<- about 30 years ago) wasn't as tall as it is now. Now, because I live in Poland (which is a post-communist country) I made a connection with North Korea, where people live in much harder conditions and don't eat as much as they should, therefore, their average height has decreased (by about 8cm according to BBC website) since the peninsula got split by the DMZ. Also this. Adding growth hormones to all sorts of foods makes sense when it comes to its production. The world population is growing and if food grows faster then it can be harvested sooner and sold, then be grown again in the same green house. However, what I know is that species of animals grow bigger or shrink over longer periods of time (a few generations) depending on how much food is available in the environment. Since humans are also a kind of an animal, they adapt (and AFAIK we are one of the fastest adapting animal species on this planet) It makes sense that the average height would increase when there are more vitamins and proteins available and decrease when food is scarce. So how much is it due to the lifestyle and how much due to these dreadful hormones? Or maybe both? Was a research made?

@LittleGMR TV probably means more launch sites.

Since a career overhaul is nowhere to be seen and there are no plans to add any useful mission planning tools to the stock game I just revisit KSP from time to time to experiment a bit with planes and design a cool-looking probe but not much else. I don't even fly rockets anymore. I really would want to go back to this game and enjoy it but there's nothing that keeps me motivated to keep playing.

Shame a Moon free return has to be authorised. Would be pretty awesome if they did that. On the other hand, they probably would want to return all the cores back to Earth which would be tricky if they went for the slingshot? So maybe a silly payload + second stage return demo?

Let's define a newbie and a seasoned player then. What can a seasoned one do that a newbie can't?

You can eyeball the Mun if you know how. It's actually surprisingly easy. I am really annoyed by the fact that we compare "seasoned" players with "newbies" as if it was a thing. In fact there's no difference. It's all about the information available. You can use it and succeed or you can not use it and hope you've taken enough fuel. Give a newbie a dV calculator and a mission planner and he will become a seasoned player in minutes. Since KSP doesn't have that everyone who doesn't use KER/MechJeb and KAC seems to be perceiving themselves as newbies. And that's just wrong.

What I think @ZooNamedGames is getting at here is the fact that KSP (despite the 1.0 tag) is still not finished and starting a new project right now would be pointless. Especially if the new game's theme would be the same (spaceflight). And I 100% agree with that. Now, the distinction between a sandbox game and the state of the game is blurred in the case of KSP. And it feels intentional tbh. It's not cool to have no roadmap and/or have plans to implement something and drop the feature later on and then just go "this game is a sandbox and was meant to be modded from the beginning so I have no idea what are you all so angry about". Then call the thing 1.0 and proceed to making a DLC. To be clear, I'm not against good DLCs. I'm against milking. I'd rather see SQUAD finishing KSP by adding what's actually needed (dV, mission planner, overhauled parts and career mode) and then either release a DLC or a new game, or both. Now, I think there are only two ways the potential new game with kerbals could go and it's either a prequel about aviation (build, fly, shoot others in MP + a proper story) or a sequel about far future/sci-fi with interstellar drives a'la Elite: Dangerous except maybe a bit more humuorous. Let's go a bit deeper on this though. IMHO the best of these two would be an aviation prequel. Why? Well, simply by looking at the aforementioned two genres we could count the games in each of them. The space sci-fi jar is pretty full so a success for a kerbal game in this setting would be pretty hard to achieve as the competition is plentiful (Starmade, E:D, EVE: Online and some others, I don't remrmber the names of, that Scott Manley has played on his channel). On the other hand, an aviation pioneers genre is almost nonexistent. I've seen a few good WW1 and WW2 combat games but a sandbox one in which you build and fly your own aircraft with others? None. There's SimplePlanes that still has MP in development, but other than that? (Btw If anyone could point out another title in which you pilot a self-built plane I would happily click the rep button and proceed to buying that game). And that is pretty much why I think they should step into these still new waters of build-and-fly-sandbox flightsims as there isn't much competition right now and their chances of succeeding are very high. Especially if they learn from the mistakes made during the development of KSP. I don't hate KSP. it's just not finished.

I would. If it was about planes only. And not bad. And finished.

I feel like most of the problems with assymetrical aircraft in KSP is the fact that we have only pusher jet engines that tend to work more like a stick pushing your craft from behind. Making assymetrical aircraft with a forward propeller would probably much easier, since it works more like a rope attached to the front. But then I might be wrong. I don't know much about aerodynamics.

A MAKS-like shuttle would be cool.

An electric propeller/ducted fan.

This is very close to how my modded career worked. It also had daily funding and waiting for money to accumulate added the passing time element. Wasn't very well balanced because I never had time to do it but most of the elements were there and worked fairly well. No, no, no. A scripted story would be one of the worst things that could happen to this game. Maybe for a sequel, in which you have one kerbal pilot/astronaut and you play as him only. Maybe that could work well. It did in IL-2: 1946.

I actually had such a long break from stock career I forgot about that.

Tycoon game type of management. What you say you've done as part of the "management" can be done in sandbox just as well. In career you still have to fulfill the tree to some degree (as much as you need or want) to progress. You have to do the contracts to get money. It doesn't matter much which kerbal you pick and what experiments you perform and where as all of them have only one type of reward that can be used to unlock the tree and nothing else. And the strategies? Let's be honest, they are useless. Actual management would give you a way to earn money some other way, like actual budget based on how well you're doing a'la national space agency. You would have to juggle the finances and decide where and when to spend them.