CaptRobau

Nertea would this overlay work for things other than resources. For example SCANsat like maps. Being able to have a Biome overlay, or a height map, etc. would be a great boon to visualize planet/moon data.

Female Kerbals are one of the most requested features for KSP.

There's only so much that can be done with the current set of planets/moons and the distances between them. Electrical management is no problem, since you don't need RTGs for power until you're far beyond Eeloo's current orbit. A super-hot planet with lava lakes would provide a nice challenge but can't be implemented without completely redoing one of the other planets. There's a lot of interesting things that new planets/moons could bring, so I wouldn't want ti completely off the table. I do agree that making the current celestial bodies more interesting is a higher priority though. But after that's been done, I'd like to see some new stuff too. EDIT: Sorry for the double post.

The KSP community is bigger than just the forums. Reddit however is a one of the biggest sites on the web and is frequented daily by a large amount of the people in this community. So this QA not only allowed fans to ask questions, it also exposed new people to KSP. SQUAD made an announcement for this on the forum, on their social media and many of the other KSP communities on the web, pointing them to the Reddit AMA.

I tried RCS-less docking a few times lately. Not a fan. I've gotten very proficient at translation and I never build so close to edge that a measly mono tank would make a difference. RCS is also great for minute attitude changes, for example during interplanetary transfers.

I thought it'd be nice to have an overview of the answers from the recent AMA. I left out answers that didn't deal directly with development or going ons at SQUAD. About a PAX Prime appearance: http://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/2byh5y/im_the_producer_of_kerbal_space_program_ama_about/cjad0ft On the subject of aerodynamics: SQUAD is doing well financially: http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2byga4/im_the_producer_of_kerbal_space_program_ama_about/cja66gp SQUAD hasn’t dropped any contemplated features because a mod already did it: http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2byga4/im_the_producer_of_kerbal_space_program_ama_about/cja6byf SQUAD is working on adding female Kerbals: About 0.25: http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2byga4/im_the_producer_of_kerbal_space_program_ama_about/cja5j7y About a spaceplane part overhaul: http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2byga4/im_the_producer_of_kerbal_space_program_ama_about/cja5kfm SQUAD isn’t done with the VAB/SPH parts interface yet: http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2byga4/im_the_producer_of_kerbal_space_program_ama_about/cja6lhm About the 0.64 version/hack: http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2byga4/im_the_producer_of_kerbal_space_program_ama_about/cja6g7v Community requested features that SQUAD is opposed to doing: http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2byga4/im_the_producer_of_kerbal_space_program_ama_about/cja6n3s About SQUAD’s future games: http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2byga4/im_the_producer_of_kerbal_space_program_ama_about/cja6xeq The vision for 1.0: About extra star systems: About multiplayer moddability/0.25: About 180 degree turns on scrapped ideas like multiplayer: http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2byga4/im_the_producer_of_kerbal_space_program_ama_about/cja633p About the inclusion of clouds, retextures for Kerbals, cities or other aesthetic updates for 0.25: http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2byga4/im_the_producer_of_kerbal_space_program_ama_about/cja6nvv About Kerbal Engineer: http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2byga4/im_the_producer_of_kerbal_space_program_ama_about/cja72er On the subject of extra planets: http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2byga4/im_the_producer_of_kerbal_space_program_ama_about/cja7sep How did they come up with the idea for Kerbals: http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2byga4/im_the_producer_of_kerbal_space_program_ama_about/cja8kgn About the contract system: http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2byga4/im_the_producer_of_kerbal_space_program_ama_about/cja7k3y On the subject of cockpit IVAs: About possible returning to resources: http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2byga4/im_the_producer_of_kerbal_space_program_ama_about/cja7615 About a potential kids/education version of the game: http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2byga4/im_the_producer_of_kerbal_space_program_ama_about/cja8pat

The LANTERN is looking great. Too bad stock KSP doesn't do NTRs with just LiquidFuel propulsion through some tweakable because then the difference could be modelled much better. Also I noticed your inflatable parts all still had: stagingIcon = COMMAND_POD enabled. That adds nothing but a useless staging icon to the list. If your looking for suggestions what to do with your Habitat pack, I say just leave the current parts the way they are. They look and work fine. I'd rather see some extra much-needed hab parts. A 2.5m inflatable centrifuge would go well with a lot of interplanetary designs and help design things that look like this. A 2.5 inflatable hab, modelled after the Bigelow BA-2100, would also be very useful. Maybe make it a lab to differentiate it from the other two inflatos. If your tired of inflatable things a wet workshop might be more your speed. NovaSilisko made one some time ago, but its dead and hopefully outdated by now. Basically its fuel tank that can be converted into living space. Skylab was going to be like this, before it was turned into a more conventional 'dry' workshop. It would be useful for establishing stations around far away bodies, since your habitat is also your fuel tank. Less mass to haul around. Since you already have the plugin that changes an uninhabitable part into an habitable part with IVA, a wet workshop would be a good fit for your mod.

Where can I find the new compile?

You can't use KOSMOS parts as the license of that mod doesn't allow it. The modder has also been gone for ages.

I could get behind diminishing returns on science, but I think the main problem really is that there are so many experiments you can do at the same time and many of them are biome-specific. If you give people such a wide range of experiments to do, they'll probably do them all because they'll feel like they're wasting a trip if they don't get the maximum benefit out of it. The game should be as free of cringe-inducing situations such as this as possible: 'get a different EVA report when on a ladder then when you are on the surface 1 meter below'. By limiting the situations in which experiments can perform science, you'll make people less prone to subconsciously want to grind. It would also help in making each experiment feel more unique. Ideally each experiment would only be possible in one of the three main situations (Surface, Flying, Space) and biome-specific in only one of the subsituations (NearSpace, HighSpace, etc.) to maximize uniqueness and reduce grindiness of science. Some examples: -Mystery Goo only on the surface of atmospheric planets -Science Jr. only in space -Atmospheric Science only when flying (over atmospheric planets naturally) and only biome-specific when flying low

That would be a very bad design decision. It would make station construction very awkward, as it would make propulsion placement very unintuitive (radial with a lot of fuel-lines). Real-life stations have had transfer tubes through fuel tanks, from Skylab to Mir. Squad could make a bunch of transferable fuel tanks and adapter, but that would just increase part bloat and would add nothing but extra work for something which could be dealt with through a bit of hand-waving.

I grouped them because that would make it more intuitive, as tasks can be made optional. For example the Explore the Mun contract in stock has 4 goals (orbit, land, etc.), which can be gotten in any order and are optional in respect to one another. I grouped the flyby/orbiter to make it so that when one tries an orbiter and fails, the flyby will still be available to get without the player having to get a new contract or something. In general the various steps could probably grouped into several bigger steps to achieve the 'jump straight to the end'. 1. Preparatory missions One-star difficulty. Flyby, orbiter and lander probes. 2. Side missions Two-star difficulty. In the case of Duna, this is visiting an asteroid or Ike as a test of manned deep space travel. If you don't accept this before finishing the main mission, then after this contract automatically disappears it won't reappear again as it is no longer a valid part of your preparation. Instead it will respawn as a separate contract worth less (visiting Deimos after you landed on Mars is less impressive or scientifically interesting than if you do it before). 3. Main Mission Three-star difficulty. Manned science gathering in Duna SoI, orbiting and landing. 4. Advanced Mission Three-star difficulty: All the follow-up missions. Activates after main missions are completed.

I like the idea. KSP needs to be accessible to new players, but at the same time it needs to stay fun and challenging for veteran players (which is far more a problem with long-development Early Access games than traditional games). Difficulty sliders are probably the best way to do that for a sandbox game like KSP. Mods can do it, but stock would be so much better.

I like the idea of programs. Would add a nice goal for players, both new and old and has an inherent skill progression. Real space programs often also use very steps to reach their goal. Something like a manned landing on Duna could progress like this: 1. Duna probe (bonus points if orbiter instead of flyby) Teaches players how to intercept Duna and how maneuvers around the planet work. 2. Duna unmanned lander Teaches players how to cope with Duna's thin atmosphere when landing. 3. Duna/Ike manned flyby (bonus points if orbiter instead of flyby) Applies the lessons of 1 to the heavier manned craft and gives players a design for later missions. 4. Ike manned landing A practice run for a later Duna landing. It gives player an idea of how landing a manned lander far away from Kerbin will feel, while not being as hard as Duna. 5. Duna manned landing The culmination of all that you've learned. Follow up missions For people who want to return to Duna, missions such as land on one of the poles or cover 10km with a rover or something. This basic setup works for almost every celestial body, but can be differentiated for each planet. For Moho there would be no preliminary landings on its moons (as it has none), Laythe or Eve would have a follow mission that has you flying a plane in its atmosphere, etc.

RoboRay is obviously not saying that. The point is I think that pods/cockpits shape should be designed with IVA viewability in mind, just like real pods/cockpits would. Then the detaield IVA can always be added in a later state, while the exterior model is done first.

I think it's important that the Humming Metropolis (HM) works on multiple levels. The difference between traditional sandbox games and KSP is response time/interconnectivity. In SimCity you can solve energy problems by adding another powerplant and all your homes and businesses will be lit up again. Energy problems will also influences other utilities like water. With KSP the distances involved from Kerbin don't always allow a fix and there shouldn't be too much interconnectivity. Losing one thing shouldn't mean that the entire ecosystem is at risk of total destruction. That's why the big HM needs to be made out of smaller HMs. On a mission, the communication for transmission/contracts needs to be separate from other systems. It should be a network of its own. On the communications front, one mod already has you covered: AntennaRange/

The mods. A lot of the big mods (thanks to some cooperation from Squad no doubt) were able to update to 0.24 within a day or so. Some amazing new stuff as well. Each update the modding community just does better and better.

I think you're spot on with your 'humming metropolis' goal for sandbox games like SimCity and indeed KSP. It needs a well-running ecosystem. I don't think that immediately requires extensive bases or anything like that, but at least some interconnectivity on a smaller scale would already help. Unless you roleplay, stock missions are always standalone missions. This reflects real-life quite poorly. The lunar landings first had a series of mapping orbiter probes and then a few lander probes to test everything. Missions to Mars are also always envisioned to be multi-tiered, with robotic landers, orbiters and what not. A few mods show the way. While RemoteTech is a bit too complicated for stock, but it does do setting up a communications network well. If we needed some sort of link to Kerbin through a orbiter/lander network for science transmission then that would add some extra planning to unmanned missions (they'd need a buff though, because otherwise no-one would ever go near them with all their current shortcomings vis-a-vis manned missions). Instellar has a great tech progression and has a few interconnected parts. Animatter engines are very useful, but require you to setup antimatter collectors in orbit. Same goes with beamed power and other super propulsion methods.

Really cool!

A rudimentary form of wind on atmospheric planets would be an interesting feature. It could be used to allow balloon probes to float around the thick atmosphere of Eve, have pods on parachutes drift off slightly on the wind while descending and move floating probes on Laythe (when in the ocean, movement would probably be influenced more by current than by wind but since I imagine the same system could do both wind and current). How difficult would that be to implement? It wouldn't need to be that complex as far I can tell. Objects where the horizontal speed is less than the vertical speed would be susceptible to some sort of phantom force that would push it around in a random direction. Then after a while the direction would change (within certain limits). Different altitudes for planets would result in different forces.

When I attach the elevons they don't mirror. If the left is oriented to the left, the right one is oriented in the same way.

It could be rescaled to act as an escape system for small pods that taper to 0.625m (Mk1 pod for example)

Is this that mod that was shown off on Reddit a while ago? With the red and the blue stars?

In case you need inspiration for a 0.24 update: O-10 Monoprop Engine is a bit big (and thus ugly) for a 20 thrust engine. A rescalefactor of 0.5 works great; I tried it. It also has no DrawGauge = True. For a throttable engine that's just essential.

It was my goto second stage engine. I never use 3.75m engines outside of the atmosphere.