zarakon

Yeah, surveys vs satellites is a bit of a balance problem right now. Surveys CAN be done without airplanes, but it's not really practical, especially for beginners. Airplanes require a lot of tech (at least two 90-science nodes off the top of my head, for engines and landing gear). Satellites require less but the payouts are much higher.

Using DynamicWarp to get 12x or 16x physical warp is very useful for long-distance walking

Here's my controller layout with a Logitech F710. It physically resembles a Playstation controller, but the buttons are mapped like an XBox controller. Left Analog X: Roll Left Analog Y: Pitch Analog triggers: Yaw Right Analog: Camera Left stick click: Zoom out Right stick click: Zoom in A: Throttle down Y: Throttle up X: Cut throttle B: Brakes LB: Toggle SAS RB: Stage Start: Map Back/Select: ESC menu D-Pad Y: Throttle Up/down D-Pad X: Wheel steering

I find it rather annoying that most of the game's options are inaccessible unless you quit all the way out to the main menu. In particular, please allow changing at least the controls without quitting to the main menu

One big problem with using a stick/controller for rockets is that I would want different controls than with a plane. When flying, I want pitch and roll on one stick, and yaw on the triggers. I think with a rocket I would want pitch and yaw on the same stick, and roll elsewhere

For planes, I vastly prefer my controller with analog sticks. Being able to apply a constant moderate amount of force is so extremely helpful For anything else, I stick with the keyboard - - - Updated - - - Also, when flying planes, CHASE CAM VIEW!

I think you'd actually have the same problem. If you're going too fast, the satellite will fall lower behind you. That means the BACK of your plane will tilt downward, but the front will go up and you'll end up climbing and going faster.

I've seen a lot of problems when trying to place maneuver nodes or switch between craft while in the SOI of the sun or Jool. Probably some kind of floating point precision problem

I think you'd have trouble creating a stable system this way. The feedback response you'll get from going too slow or too fast is pretty much the opposite of what you'd want. If you're going a bit too slow, you'll end up aiming lower, which will reduce your altitude, which will further reduce your speed. If you're going too fast, you'll end up aiming higher, which will increase your altitude, which will further increase your speed (until you stall out and end up in the too-slow problem).

From the pictures it looks like it changes the angle of the flaps, not just the position, so I would expect it to work in stock too

Standard keyboard and mouse for rockets For airplanes I use a gamepad, the Logitech F710 (looks like a DualShock) Roll/Pitch: Left analog stick Yaw: Analog triggers Camera: Right analog stick Throttle up/down: Y and A (or triangle and X) Cut throttle: X (square) Brakes: B (circle) Stage: Right bumper SAS toggle: Left bumper Map: Start

Just like engines have an adjustable thrust limiter, it would be nice if reaction wheels would have an adjustable torque limiter. Small early-game probes/satellites using the stayputnik are extremely hard to control, not just because they lack SAS, but because suitably small reaction wheel for them. A small probe with the stayputnik, FL-T100 tank, 48-7S engine, and a small inline reaction wheel has about 3000 m/s delta-v, more than enough to put it anywhere in the Kerbin system, and enough to explore most other planets. But holy hell, that reaction wheel is just too strong. Even with fine controls activated, it's nearly impossible to keep it straight and avoid massive over-corrections. A torque limiter similar to the engine thrust limiter seems like a simple thing to add

I think the real problem is that the 48-7s is just way too good due to its extremely high TWR and low cost

We choose to go there because it is hard! I think I've tried Moho 3 times. One was a high speed impact and another was a flyby, both due to not having enough delta-v to slow down. I believe I landed a third attempt, but it was just a probe. I may have been to Dres once. I don't really remember since it's such a boring place anyway. I once sent a Kerbal to Eeloo, which turned out to be a one-way trip. I agree that it would be nice for these planets to have some more features to make them unique and interesting once you get there.

Sandbox? I'll put together a rescue mission if it seems like a fun challenge, but otherwise it doesn't bother me if they're stuck on some godforsaken moon for eternity. In Career mode I take a lot more precautions and don't ever send them to certain doom. I have some that are on stations or bases with no immediate way to get home, but they aren't on anything near-impossible like the surface of Eve or Tylo. In my mostly-complete 0.90 career, only one Kerbal has died. Unfortunately it was Jeb, due to a dumb staging order mistake.

I intended it to be more of a discussion about how players can use the existing custom sliders to create a better "Hard mode", rather than suggesting how the game itself should be changed, but I suppose it's hard to have the former without at least implying the latter

The problem with Hard mode is that once you survive the beginning, it becomes more like Grind mode. My two biggest problems with the default Hard difficulty options: 1. Building upgrades cost too much. 2. Rockets don't cost enough. The root of the problem is that the "Funds Penalties" applies to the cost of building upgrades, but not the costs involved in running missions (part costs and part unlock costs). Compared to normal mode, buildings essentially cost about 4x the normal cost, while rockets cost just less than 2x. My ideal career mode would have rocket costs high while leaving building upgrades normal. I want to emphasize building cost-effective rockets rather than running a hundred contracts. So I'm going to try something like this instead: -- Funds Rewards 30% -- Funds Penalties 30% You may think, "Funds Penalties 30%?! But that's less than Easy mode!" Well, that's not really true. What's really important is the ratio between rewards (all of your income) and the costs. By setting both to 30%, they keep the same scale as if they were both 100%, like adjusting for inflation. BUT that's not really true either. Since rocket costs do not change with any of the sliders, getting just 30% rewards will drastically cut down the profit margins for each contract, making it harder to build up cash, thereby increasing the effect of any penalties. Settings like this should make reusable ships much more important. I'm not sure yet how Strategies are affected by the sliders, but if they aren't affected at all, this should make the funds-for-science and science-for-funds strategies a bit more reasonable. Thoughts?

capslock for fine controls is the easiest option

That would be cool. Select any number of parts, then get several options like Align Top, Align Bottom, Align Center

Found a bug 1. Vertical or horizontal snap a part 2. Select that part with the offset gizmo 3. Press space, which would normally revert all changes made by the gizmo 4. The part will jump to some location, possibly far away from your craft. Initially I thought it was being deleted Also, the Undo function doesn't seem to recognize vertical snap as a change. It reverts to before the action before the snap

The basic reaction wheel is a probe-size part now, and is only 0.05 mass. Just throw one of those on there. OKTO2 plus a wheel still weighs slightly less than an OKTO or HECS, with a lot more torque and more SAS options. The two parts together are also still smaller than the other probe cores

I agree about the outsourced R&D problem, but I don't understand why people are saying contracts give too much science. For me, the only ones that give very much are the ones that are making me collect science anyway, like getting a bunch of seismic readings from other planets/moons. Repeating experiments in multiple biomes is still the easiest and second-most-broken feeling (after outsourced R&D) way of collecting tons of science.

Would it be possible to put in a small change to the offset gizmo's snap behavior? http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/104196-Offset-Gizmo-snaps-in-directions-other-than-desired-movement Currently when you try to move a part in one direction with snap enabled, it will also snap to all 3 dimensions of the 3d grid. I think it would be better if it only snapped along the current vector of movement, and it seems like it might be an easy change to make

KSP beta 0.90 Trying to use the offset gizmo on a cargo bay docking port produces some rather strange undesired behavior. As soon as I try to move the docking port in one direction, its position jumps significantly, even with snap turned off. The boundaries for where it can be offset to are also very strange. video: The video shows this with the normal docking port in the Mk2 cargo bay. I get the same problem with a docking port jr. The same thing happens in the Mk3 cargo bay, but even worse. Closing the bay doors makes the behavior less bad in the Mk2 bay, but it's still wrong, and still really bad in the closed Mk3