Twreed87

It's still within the scope of things we can at least technically do. Look at the ambitions of Space X's ITS. Landing on other worlds, doing science, refueling from in situ resources, that's all within the realm of things people are talking about. Building giant glass domes and terraforming are way too far off. And again, I'm not sure it's really a very sensible plan. Would glass be a good idea? Would we really need giant domes?

This seems like an incredibly inefficient way to build a planetary base. I'm sure if anything similar were ever attempted the materials would come from the planet, not shipped from Earth. I'm all for increasing colonization, but I think this is a bit too far. KSP should stay within the realm of the "mostly currently technically possible" and this seems to be getting too futuristic.

I think keyed ports is the way to go. Use tweakables to set the angle snap, magnets rotate it to fit. So simple yet it'd open up so many possibilities.

I've been thinking a lot about the difficulty of connecting surface-landed craft. I think a few things could help: -EVA placement of struts, fuel lines after docking craft together -Land parts of a base near each other and fulfill base expansion contracts (all controllable parts landed within a range are part of the base) -Mechanical parts. Joints and extending girders. I want to build a crane. I can technically do it with the Klaw but it would be easier if it had a node instead of the claw.

I like career mode a lot, but it could use some work. I think it's showing the right kind of change though. Part upgrades is a really good idea. I also like that contracts build on each other, encouraging you to build bigger bases and stations. Perhaps that could be a bit more structured, guiding you to build logical bases with purposes. I also have an idea for an endgame. A single extra star system. Basically Proxima Centauri, with maybe 2 or 3 small planets. It would be at a fixed point relative to the Sun, and of a similar distance at Proxima Centauri, but Kerbal scale. Reaching this, in career mode, would either require tech located past the current limit, or just take a lot of timewarping. The advanced tech (EM drive maybe?) would be a hidden node only visible after reaching max reputation and require a ridiculous amount of science, and the part would be crazy expensive too. I think it'd be a cool reward for people who stick with a career for a long time.

I wish there was a separate flag for "Decommissioned" ships, so that it kept it's type and icon but can be hidden with debris.

This actually makes sense to me. This is likely the next big project, but it's nowhere near ready for all parts, or to be fully implemented. Instead of putting an incomplete feature in the main update, they allow those who are interested to seek it out and play with it early. I think it's a great idea and can't wait for 1.3 (presumably).

I thought docking ports merged both vessels into one completely. Wouldn't the Klaw do the same? Ships aren't completely rigid bodies, they bend and flex, and as someone said earlier there are plenty of moving parts already. I guess I'm just suggesting some more general-use construction parts.

I'm not sure if the devs have ever made any statements regarding their thoughts on having stock moving parts. I wouldn't want to see any overly complex robotics, but a few basic moving part options would be really great. I'm thinking basic things like joints for trusses and I-beams, as well as telescoping/extending versions of the same. Also, a part that works just like the Klaw, except with an attachment point at the end instead of a claw. I think this could open up a world of building possibilities without too much complexity. What do you think?

So, when i'm playing career and I'm sending up a bunch of satellites, my orbital view tends to get pretty cluttered with them. Eventually when a probe has no more life in it i'll just go to Rename Vessel and change it's type to Debris. That works well enough, but it makes it difficult if I ever want to find that probe again. My suggestion is to add a little checkbox labeled "Decommissioned" under the ship types. Doing this would treat it like debris, but it would retain it's original icon. So you could leave satellites displayed on the map, but only your active ones, and then you could toggle on the decommissioned ones if you want to see them, and it would help you differentiate it from the spent stages and whatnot. Also please note, I'm sure there's a mod for this somewhere, that's cool, but I'm suggesting this as something for stock. Just had to get that in there before the inevitable "There's a mod for that" first reply.

I don't think so, I've tried it a couple different ways. The first time was a bit complicated, I was trying to recreate a crane I saw online, dropped a fuel tank onto the claw. I could see that causing an issue. But then just to test it I made two very simple rovers, one with a claw. It attached fine, but stayed rigid.

So, pretty fresh install, 100% stock, Windows 10 laptop, running 64-bit. I haven't even gotten the AGU in the career game I'm playing, but I loaded up a Sandbox save to mess around, and found that Free Pivot doesn't work on the AGU. When I click "Free Pivot" the button changes to "Lock Pivot" but it still says "Status: Locked" and the pivot doesn't actually work. The joint is completely rigid. I've tried multiple different ways of testing this. Starting the claw armed or unarmed, switching which vehicle I'm in command of, etc. It just doesn't work. I also completely uninstalled the game (made a copy of my saves!) and installed it fresh, and have the same issue. So... any ideas? Any help is appreciated, I've got some really fun ideas I need that pivoting joint for!

There was talk in dev notes some weeks back that it may be pushed to the next update. Guess that's what happened.

Now that I know it requires a highly inclined orbit, i'm fairly okay with it. I mean what's the real practical difference between getting the info right away and time warping through a few orbits?

So everyone is talking about how many pieces the fairings split into, but what about the speed at which they fly off? I think the confetti style works with the speed at which they go flying away, but if they went with clamshell, I'd like them to float away quite a bit slower. Also I kinda wish they were fully persistent debris, but that's because I like building up lots of debris.