Wjolcz

Are we talking about intake cones or these antennae things? Becose if the first one they are for slowing down the intake air and if the second one it's most likely for air speed measurements.

Why do you want to pay for a new game that is just KSP + more/better stuff? I really don't get that. You can mod the current game. The fact that they didn't do all this to the current game only makes me think they won't do it for a new game about the same space flight. I don't mean to attack you or anything, but how does paying for things that can be/are already available as mods makes the game better? I'd much rather see a new kerbal flight sim sequel instead of this "KSP remastered" version.

Been discussed many times in the past and since it looks like KSP is in its "full potential" AKA out of beta, out of alpha, there won't be many major things that happen to it. The other problem is that the tier 3 KSC was made by an artist that is no longer in the dev team. If now they decided to add more spaceports the result would be similar to what happened to the parts: the style would be all over the place. And I guess we could arguement it with other KSCs being built by other kerbal nations but the quality would probably not be the same.

Where do they deorbit the second stage? Is it always over Pacific?

Like "Felt dead inside and went to bed".

That's all fine and cool when we're talking about space tourism. But if we want to make sure the humankind survives no matter what happens to our home planet then Mars seems like the best option of these two.

Oh hey, it's the "finish the tree, finish the game" meme again. I love it. Career is a mess. Making the science points the only available thing to unlock the tree was a horrible decision. The career needs to be redone first. Only then I will be able to mentally accept any kind of story mode. But I'd rather see a story mode in a sequel game which would be based around airplanes.

Why waste time and resources on establishing outposts on a body that isn't and will never be habitable? The "small steps" argument doesn't apply here since a base/outpost on the Moon won't differ much from a base/outpost on Mars, so why not go directly to Mars instead? And "because it's closer" also doesn't apply. Not like you can just drive there and arrive 30 minutes after an accident had happened. In fact, I feel like a Moon outpost would actually be harder to maintain. There isn't much ice there compared to what Mars might have (AFAIK) so not only the crew number would be limited by the abundance of resources but also there's a chance it might need constant supplies from Earth, which increases the costs. Also the gravity is even lower there. Don't get me wrong. It would be amazing to look through the telescope and see some light up there. But I have a feeling a Moon outpost won't help much in a way of exploring Mars. And I guess we could talk about morality and how people modified dogs and plants and how some people are better at running and other earn golden medals in swimming and the way their genes and evolution shaped them is "natural". It could end up in an argument about religion though. And I'd rather see this thread going than not.

And the year has only begun.

Are they unanswered though? I feel like you've asnwered them yourself. Before the US territories became self-sustainable colonies there were no specialists to build long-range ships. This is a pretty similar case, me thinks. The materials are probably already there. All the place needs is someone who knows what to dig for and how to process it. The next step would be to 3D print all the needed stuff and ship the materials unavailable in-situ. About the gravity/skeleton issues: I'm pretty sure people born on Mars would stay on Mars. No point in having a colony if it's uninhabited. I'm pretty sure there are ways to improve the skeletal and muscular systems. If they aren't available yet, they will be. Genetical modification is not a bad thing as long as it serves a purpose, has benefits and doesn't cripple the organism IMO. It's kind of like asking yourself "Should I have this heart transplant surgery or not? 10,000 years ago they weren't available, so I guess it's the natural way to just accept the disease and die, no?" The world is changing. We either accept that or keep being "moral". When it comes to the radiation: underground bases. There are also lightweight materials that could protect humans from harsh conditions. They simply aren't available because of patents on them, or something like that. Ad astra per aspera. There's no easy way to reach the stars.

If it can easily be switched on then why not?

Can I dream a little more? I know it's more of a "wish list" type of post. Anyway, If I see a kerbal flight sim game this is how I'd imagine it: Vessel Builder/Editor: -Procedural piston engines: you pick the type of engine (inline/V/boxer/radial/Wankel/turbojet/turbofan/ramjet/small rocket engine) and "stretch" it. Stretching the engines adds pistons and length (thus power) but also weight and fuel demands. -Additional engine modules: radiator, supercharger, booster injection (WEP for piston engines and Wet Mode for jets). -Procedural wings, procedural tanks World elements: -Full-scale planet (preferably Earth-sized Kerbin) -Multiple starting points (aircraft carriers, military bases, civilian airports, and maybe even private airports for high rank players?) -Interesting geological features (deep canyons, high mountains, natural bridges, rivers, lakes) Gameplay features: -Multiplayer with optional PvP mode. That way people who would want to fly airliners would be indestructible and people who would want to dogfight would be able to do so on the same server (much like the GTA V passive mode works). -Missions: these should be sorted by themes (record breaking, military missions, recon missions, scientific missions, civilian transport missions, cargo missions, refuelling missions). The record breaking should probably be global, which means if someone breaks the Mach 1 record then someone else has to break Mach 1.5 (or sth like that) and so on. These would probably have to reset from time to time to give others a chance to earn reputation points/XP/whatever it would be called. EDIT: Maybe there could be some sort of domination challanges? People would go over a region, loitter for some time and then that region would change it's colour to the player's team colour? That could be pretty fun and always a reason to come back to play the game again. -Money: used to build/modify aircraft and buy private airports/carriers. -Event creator: Races! is a great example of such feature. Especially combined with the VesselMover. -Kerbal outfit customization. -Ranks/Titles: based on the player's achievements he/she earns titles. If the player is more of a military person then he's more likely to earn "Military Pilot" title. If the player prefers racing events/missions then he's more likely to earn "Racer" title. Maybe the outfits could be earned this way. Think about how GTA V incorporates multiplayer challenges, events and missions except in a more appropriate and peaceful world of kerbals.

New RCS and Vernor effects, the right-click Ap/Pe indicators (previously left-click, which would lead me to my bioling point many times in the past.), the ability to switch orbit drawing mode and the amount of conic patches in-game. And let's not forget about the scaleable UI and the ability to move the navball.

That's true. Launching rockets is ridiculously cheap. Daily/weekly/monthly budgets would be much better. Also the tree should be researched with money. I have it working like that in my modded game and it all balances itself perfectly. When I warp the money accumulates (until it hits its maximum) and the time passes which means I don't unlock the tree before the first transfer window. In fact, I'm in the middle of it and I've just sent my third interplanetary vessel. Anyway, the career is pretty bad. Rebalancing or adding new things won't fix it. Its concept and design was broken since the begining and it needs to be redone, not tweaked.

What time is the launch?

I know a lot of people are against automation but when I come to think of it, it could be pretty useful. There's this guy who suggests the flight manager mod as a stock feature: Now I think this would be useful for Falcon 9-like recoveries only. I think the manouver burns should simply become automated as long as there's connection with the probe/a pilot is on-board. So there are two scenarios I see this being useful in: 1. This one is mentioned before: Falcon 9 recoveries. You let the 2nd stage fly up and perform the circularization burn and land the 1st stage booster yourself in the atmosphere. 2. Interplanetary probes with mid-course correction burns: You set up a manouver and as long as the vessel has commnet connection/pilot on-board it does the manouver itself in the background (taking the fuel loss into account, of course). These are the two cases I would see this being useful in. Maybe the probes shouldn't be allowed to perform the manouvers below some altitude to prevent landing/mountain encounter mishaps.

I agree. It would be nice to have it. Or at least never unload + some sort of autonomous system so for example someone wants to do the F9-like recovery they place a probe core on the 2nd stage and it flies up to the node and performs the burn while the player lands the 1st stage. Now I come to think of it such feature would great for interplanetary probes mid-course correction burns. Just set up a bunch of nodes and warp uuntil it reaches the planet changing it's flight path slightly at each node. I think that's what CommNet should allow for actually and I'm making a thread about it.

Maybe the core will have enough fuel to slow itself down suficiently before reentry?

A budget? Achieve something? Is this a suggestion of how it should look like or the descrption of the current one? Because I haven't noticed any budget nor gameplay focused on achieving meaningful goals in the current career. Must be a suggestion then...

@blackheart612 have you considered adding a WEP/emergency power (which would result in overheat) to some of the engines or is their maximum speed based on air resistance?

Because there was meant to be one like that since forever anyway. It shouldnt generate science points though. It would be better for actual celestial body and interstellar observation.

Direct exoplanet imaging would be amazing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but JWST could be the first ever thing able to determine if there's life on a planet or not.

I really struggle to understand where's the fun part. I tried to play the DMP a few times with my friend and the only difference was that we would chat in-game about what we were doing. We performed a rendezvous once (with a lot of syncing and leaving and rejoining the game) and it pretty much concluded our adventure with multiplayer. I'm not against fun. I just don't see any multiplayer fun to do in a space sim like KSP. To me KSP was always about self set goals and achievements and the ability to "go there and beyond". Development of MP would be a waste of time. On the other hand, a new flight sim kerbal game with MP would be an instant hit.

Nothing a single person can't do.

MP for a space sim is not worth it imo. The management part of the game should be prioritzed, not a feature that leaves the feeling of "together alone". I'd much rather see a kerbal flight sim with a proper storyline and multiplayer. Racing and shooting each other seems like much more fun than sporadic rendezvous and docking.