Wjolcz

It doesn't have to be a "land there, do that to complete the game" scenario. The objective could be actual management of a space program, which this game is clearly lacking. It's not "Kerbal Space Program" but instead just "Kerbal Space". And career makes it "Kerbal Unlock-That-Tree" (<- still no "program" in there). There's just grind to get what you need to fulfill the self-set goals (if the contracts haven't killed your motivation yet). How many times have I seen a thread called "I completed the game by fulfilling the tree! Weehee!"? Too many. There's absolutely no management to this game. The devs should seriously consider changing the name just so the "Program" in the title doesn't mislead potential buyers.

Career mode is just sandbox with unnecessary and annoying obstacles like the tech tree. I've written essays upon essays about this and even composed a modlist that meant to deal with the issue.

I've seen the thread. Would give rep but I'm out right now. Will definitely try the mod.

I was thinking about this and thought that maybe the IVA seat/space should be adjustable with editor gizmos independently from the canopy. But that would probably pose all sorts of other problems.

The idea is having cockpits not as inline parent parts but instead surface attachable/radial. So, let's say you are building a plane (say it's a flying wing) and instead of having the cockpit in the middle you decide to have it offset. You take the glass droplet out and place it on the left wing with a box under it representing the IVA space. If the box is red it means it will poke out/there's not enough space for it. If it's green you are allowed to place it. How viable would that be? Or maybe better as a mod, if possible? EDIT: Now, I'm not sure if "radial" is the correct word here so if anyone knows what I mean and knows a better word for it then feel free to correct me.

I once plotted a course to encounter Jool with a Tylo slingshot. The best thing about this is that, what I like to call "reverse slingshot" was prograde and would've put me in orbit (around Jool) without any additional manouvering. I think I have a screenshot on my laptop somewhere. EDIT: Oh, nvm. Apparently everyone else does it

Exactly this is something I don't think many people requesting MP realise. A realistic(ish) space game will leave you wanting if all you care about is interaction between you and others. Unless there are FTL/jump gates, a clearly set goal like "let's build Copernicus and fly it somewhere!" or purely atmospheric flight and dogfights, there will be just points in map view changing their trajectories from time to time.

Well, I feel like having too much fuel during/after full stage recovery makes much more sense than throwing away the same, except a bit shorter rocket. Even if you build a few-million dollar boat to land the rocket on, it's got to save monies in the long run. Not like it explodes or sinks after each recovery, or something. Because that's what's being discussed here right now, isn't it? Having infrastructure and cutting costs later on vs not having infrastructure and cutting costs on expendable rockets?

The idea: 10/10 The looks: 5/10 (blame inconsistent KSC tiers and rocket parts) The gameplay: 4/10 (would be higher but career mode and lack of basic info happened) I shouldn't rate the way the game's development is handled, because I have never developed a game, but I will just say I wish they did some other things instead of doing what they are doing. Overall: great concept but still isn't finished even though it has the "1.0" tag.

This would be the best solution, I think. There's one timeline and everyone warps when everyone agrees to do so.

Multiple launch sites and airstrips: yes. Cities that have no purpose other than looking nice: what for? Unless it's @bac9 AKA master of good looks and efficient modelling there's no point in including any cities imo.

Current mission control is all wrong. IMO a more fitting place for contracts and missions would be the Administration Building. The Mission Control should actually be useful instead of being just a part of the scenery. This will never happen but I think the MC could find its place in multiplayer. People would enter it and invite others to play the game together. Basically a better version of the Telemachus mod. One person is flying in IVA and other/s (sitting in Mission Control) control the initial ascent profile, set up course correction in map view and things like that. A very "nerdy" way to enjoy this "nerdy" game (I really dislike this word but I lack a better one right now). Other than that I struggle to find any useful application for the Mission Control building in singleplayer apart from looking nice (doesn't apply to anything but tier 3 KSC though). Something that you use for looking at a screen with a map and an orbit path is a waste of dev time and serves no purpose imho.

I'd like to see something similar to the strongbacks Soyuz and SpaceX Falcon use. The current clamps are okay-ish but tend to get in the way. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=38802.0;attach=1078992;image Not sure why the second picture doesn't show.

Am I the only one who would want to see this mod be alive again?

@Ultimate Steve makes sense to me. Besides, these guys came up with an idea of a 40-metre rocket going into space and back on its own. I will just assume they know what they are doing and what they want to achieve. I feel like even if they don't succeed there are other space companies trying to do the same or better. Whatever happens it's a win-win scenario for the future of spaceflight.

I thought I heard feet?

If I heard correctly they aren't because the payload is classified.

Best one yet.

@Pthigrivi how is inconsistency fun? How do you even connect these two things? I really like how people just go fanboy mode and call everything that looks inconsistent and has nothing to do with gameplay "fun". As if, when every past argument for was shot down, this was the last remaining argument to keep this game's look crappy and "kerbal". And I guess we could just say people shouldn't care about the looks since they build rockets and go into space. I guess SQUAD could just make KSC out Minecraft blocks and simply import the models and textures. That would be fun, right?

Not against the concept. Just bothered by the quality. Compared to what @bac9 had planned (the link should be in my description) for tier 1 and tier 2 buildings it's still pretty poorly modelled elements of the KSC. Some of the models aren't even from tier 2, like the T2 tracking station which is nothing but T3 tracking station with scaffolding as if the person responsible for it went either "I don't have time for this" or "this looks good enough and saves me some time". And don't even tell me you believe the barn looked bad because it was WIP. How should we treat the current T1 and T2 KSC then? Also WIP? Because compared to T3 it looks very much unfinished and WIP.

Procedural parts with texture switch that adds a heat shield on one side would be pretty neat and the best way to do it IMO.

OH NOOO! I did it again! I seriously should stop posting in this thread after 10 pm. 15 tons for a fully reusable rocket is still pretty good though, isn't it?

How much a fully reusable F9 (first and second stage) could put into LEO? About 20 metric tonnes? Extra question: Could a F9 or FH launch from Boca Chica and land at Florida? I'd imagine this would be the case with FH because I really can't imagine how the middle core could go back to the launch site like in their FH video.

If I understand this correctly: you approach a station. The station is controlled by another player. You are 1 meter from the docking port. The player controlling the station warps. The station flies away trolololo

This is still way too overcomplicated, me thinks. I feel like having some sort of Star Gates or Mass Relays, or even Monoliths scattered around the system would be a better idea. At least Einstein Rosen bridges are theoretically possible unlike this FTL-but-not-FTL warp thing.