Wjolcz

Here's something the offset tool is good for: As you can see I've decided to put a few experiments on the bottom of the lander to save space and then attached the decoupler and used the offset tool + struts jut so it doesn't look like it's magically floating. It also reduces the risk of clipping and colliding with some of that stuff when separated. I also tend to do this with engines a lot I don't know why:

I'm not against paying respects to the brave men and women that went into space and came back, but do we really need a memorial/easter egg for each one of them? I know it's a game about space, but so is Orbiter, Elite: Dangerous, Star Citizen, Space Engine, Universe Sandbox, etc. My point is we get flooded every time a well-known astronaut dies. Can we stop this and actually think about them and what great things they achieved for a moment instead of going all "THAT MAN WENT TO SPACE MAKE HIM A VIRTUAL STATUE OR SOMETHING, KSP DEVS!!!".

Besides we have the kerbal creator now. You can create all of these yourself. No need to ask the devs for something as trivial as that.

I actually wouldn't mind if it died at this stage, so I could mod it and keep it that way for more than two months (or whenever a new version comes out). That would mean the career would be forever crap and have 0% chance of getting fixed (right now it's about ~5%), but I've found a way around that.

I'm afraid a bigger RAPIER would mean even easier SSTOs. I guess it could be balanced, but IMO it's not needed. It's already pretty easy to build them anyway.

We had this talk when Leonard Nimoy died. AFAIK it was decided it would be disrespectful to do that.

Juno is way OP. We don't need any more atmospheric engines except for maybe one: electric propeller.

Exactly. If we assume the rocket parts are expendeble and then found in a junkyard, then it makes no sense. An engine or a fuel tank that hit the ground at several hundred km/h is not going to fly again no matter what you do to refurbish and make it flyable again.

Eh. It's pretty easy to get anywhere in the solar system. 30% Isp boost isn't really going to do much difference me thinks. But then I haven't played with any part/fuel upgrades mods. Maybe fine-tuning the rockets with fuel types and upgrades would actually be fun, but I spend too much time in the VAB anyway.

Yeah, that would be nice. There was a mod that more or less did this. IVAs are kind of pointless. There are a few buttons you can click, but that's really it.

Do you have a few millions of dollars? Because that's what you're going to need.

The tracking station doesn't have a telescope. More sense would make the R&D upgrade having some effect.

Blurred planets and the lack of minor planets/moons in the beginning would be the ideal approach IMO. But I think the career and parts should be the priority.

I'm assuming you are sarcastic here. I don't know how many polygons these parts have (hopefully not enough to kill my laptop), but I would really like to see them being stockified. The major problem here is there are only a few of them. Thankfully PJ made a whole sheet for how other engines should look like if there's an attempt to continue the revamp. And I really hope it does continue.

The parts

I see. Maybe a good way of introducing it would be some sort of texture unlocking mechanic. You would for example start with bare, shiny metal looks, then the early V-2/Saturn V black and white schemes, and after that some sort of clean-looking white/gray/black texture and so on. The parts would stay the same, but their look would change and you could go back the previous skin if you wanted to. I'm obviously spitballing here, but I don't disagree with the parts' looks progression as long as it's not all trashy-looking with silly patches hastily applied to the side or an inner wall and things like that. Kerbals aren't dumb.

I disagree. There can be plane parts and rocket parts and both can look nice and consistent even when put together. I know that the black and white stripes and squares on the rockets (Saturn V) would be the preferable style for the rockets parts, but I remember one of the devs describing the game and its looks as "near future-ish". The stripes and squares pattern was used to measure the velocity and altitude of the vessel. Nowadays the rockets don't look like that anymore and since the "near future-ish" style of the game implies that it's "near future" then the rockets (and planes) can have any pattern on them. And that's my justification of why plane and rocket parts can and should look consistent.

We can argue over what made the game popular and all, but I will tell you one thing: the reason you provided is not the one I bought the game for. And this is where the real tragedy of this game lays. People think it's all about "MOAR BOOSTERS". That is why the career is so badly put together and why the parts still look like trash. @NovaSilisko, the creator of rocket parts, have said he hated them. It was his early years and his style was probably still evolving. I'm not saying he's an amateur (his artwork is really nice), but many people who have tried to continue developing their artistic talents will tell you that the style evolves. You learn new things, see more stuff, develop your taste and start thinking you would do the things of the past differently now.

I feel like the problem of part revamps is the fact that each revamp looks way better than the previous one. Maybe it's because the style of the artist evolves. Maybe it's because different people made different set of parts. Anyway, it's a problem because what happens when a new part revamp is done then some previously implemented parts don't look as good anymore. Or maybe it's just me who thinks that. Would be nice if SQUAD finally had one big update about the parts only. No new stuff, no new mechanics. Just the parts and their looks. Hire as many artists as possible, give them the time to unify the style and release everything at once +save some 3D assets for possible future use (greenhouses, things that are animated but need more coding and things like that). At least that's what I would do. I know it's probably not how game-making companies work, but IMO that would make the most sense.

Or maybe a good idea would be to finally introduce the procedural parts. It's simpler, easier to use and reduces RAM usage.

Why

The size of the solar system and the lack of LS make me not bother with any kind of Apollo style landings. I tried to do these types of missions in the past, but it was nothing but hassle. It's easier to manage a one pod+one tank+one engine lander (which also is a return vessel at the same time). At least that's what I do on my trips to the Mun. Eve? Never landed anything manned there. I don't think landing there, planting a flag and getting back just for the sake of it is really worth it.

The only thing that bugs me about planes in KSP is the lack of control stiffening and the lack of procedural wings. Apart from that I enjoy them very much and I don't get the whole "stop having fun with planes!" part of OP. I guess we get mad from time to time on the game (I do a lot when thinking about career mode), but why force others to play the game "the right way"?

Is this thread still going? Can I request somthing simplistic with spread wings like this: I'm planning on colonizing Laythe some day when I finally have more time to do it. Maybe large green dot in the middle with a row of dots in front of it representing the moons of Jool and Laythe being the one blue and in the middle?

If your vessels reach 1000 parts then they are massively overengineered. I can easily accomplish anything I want below 100 parts. Doesn't matter if they are huge or tiny size. Oh, and the typical "more stuff after the tech tree ends". Guess what my thoughts on that are. "More" or "Bigger" doesn't always equal "Better".