Stargate525

It doesn't have to. Geologically-speaking, 'not long after' could still be 5000 years. Plenty of time for KSP. Just imagine how confused the ancient Egyptians would have been had they seen Venus and Mercury collide...

Why would fuel getting lighter* be an issue? In-game, I mean. If the thrust, ISP, and part weight stayed the same, but fuel was half as massive, wouldn't that increase dV? *I know in real lifethe thrust is made by shooting the stuff out the back, and mass is important in that, but I'm talking just in the game.

Which i paramount to, essentially, starting over. :/ But yes, there's a difference between procedural and random. I'd love to see the system kept mostly the same, but given a painting-over with procedural craters, features, etcetera.

That's funny, the smallest battery will keep a probe core alive for about an hour. Unless you're talking about the rare eclipse, there is no planet whose orbit will keep you on the dark side of the planet for longer than half an hour or so. Since everything but your biggest battery barely have enough discharge to even run a probe's onboard SAS, it's useful for... what, exactly? You need more darkside runtime? Add a second or third battery (especially since the smallest ones are MASSLESS). Need a failsafe in case of running out of juice? Add a single panel and wait. What does your proposal solve, again?

...Ow, my head. What about a planet that isn't spherical? a potato-shaped one that hasn't settled back into a sphere from a recent large collison?

This. ^ We are arguing both that your proposal fails to solve any existent problem, AND that it introduces additional ones. Those additional problems being, namely: -Added complexity of parts and logic. By your own admission, new stuff needs to be introduced, new programming logic needs to be made for the batteries and capacitors. You have ceded this ground and are arguing degree. That's bad debate. -Added confusion. Since you want examples, let's build a rover with your electrical system. Each of its six M1 wheels require 1/s charge. I slap a Z-9 on the thing and, when I test it, find that I'm only drawing .15/s instead of the six that I need. The resource panel doesn't tell me anything, as it's reading I've got 3600 charge. This then requires me to delve into the right-click menu in the SPH, break out the calculator, and determine that to actually run my rover, I need a capacitor bank and some batteries. Instead of the one or two batteries I would have put on, I need AT LEAST one capacitor, more if I want to drive it longer than ten minutes or can't get the Z-60, and at least one battery, which does nothing but lock up a massive amount of juice and force me to wait for it. That's more parts in almost every situation, which is another point for the added complexity, above. -Added complexity of difficulty curve. You are introducing a unique fuel type, the only one which has a maximum flow rate. This WILL increase the learning curve, and your only argument against this point is 'well, not THAT much.' You've ceded this point as well, and are arguing degree. -Feasibility. Keep in mind this is for a game whose devs don't trust the playerbase with frikkin dV calculations. In short, they think we're idiots. Even if there were no other disadvantages on this plan, do you think the devs will add this? That's four rather serious disadvantages weighed against your one, dubious, assertion that it solves the problem of having to burn ion drives on the dark side of planets. In your first post, you asked what we thought. Frankly, I think it's a ridiculous notion with no net positives, and see no reason to implement it.

the one large rover I landed on the Mun had the descent stage bolted to its butt. Landed, retracted two of the legs, and tipped it down onto its wheels. Decoupled, limped it out of the reinforcing harness I had it on, and then repaired the wheels. From there it was good to go. Edit: See photographic example below this post.

Why is the burden of proof not on the one SUGGESTING the new feature?! You go anywhere, say 'hey, this is a great idea, do this!' and it's your burden to convince THEM. You've got it precisely backwards. And all your example shows is that they still won't understand anything. How is 'The user is still confused by a lot of things but is capable of flying a rocket without really understanding how the majority of this stuff works or what it means.' better than the current system in any way whatsoever? You're proving our point. To the end user, he stuck a battery on, magic happened, and his transmission went through.

Welcome to the forums, where scientists and engineers form angry mobs regardless of the presence or absence of real-world units.

Well, no one said that the carrier had to be able to land OTHER planes, or the shuttle able to land anywhere ELSE, or be re-useable... Would it be possible to alter the carrier and/or the shuttle to allow a more intense impact? Replace the landing gear on the shuttle with skids bolted into the frame? Since we don't need to take off again, would replacing the flight deck with some sort of sand or other more giving material help slow and cushion it? This is coming from someone with 0 hours on any real simulator more complex than Warthunder's arcade mode, so this might be entirely unworkable.

Hmm, What about a planet or large asteroid that is just PUMMELED? Makes the worst mun sections look flat? I think it does too, but I'm betting that Squad could figure* something out. As for the navball, the zero heading is aligned to geographical north. On a planet with an 80-something inclination, it would point over to the side. So, yea, prograde would still be the ninety. *And by figure I mean the same way they 'figured' multiplayer.

It's quite simple. Instead of one class of part that does electric storage, you now have two that operate under differing rules regarding discharge and capacity. Because you need to differentiate between these two sources, something has to be done to display how much is in each type on a given vessel. This makes the resources screen more complicated. The new system would behave uniquely to every other stock resource currently in the game. Whereas all other fuels drain as you need them, electricity would drain at differing rates from different units. That is a new system players have to learn.

A completely water-covered planet would be a neat challenge, though there's not a lot of real-estate left in the places that would be most plausible. A planet with a wonky axis, something like Uranus, but landable. Retrograde rotation planet. A planet that hasn't cooled down properly yet. Granted, they'll have to add geological features for this to matter, and Moho might become that, but I'd love to have to choose a landing spot that's flat, level, and not too close to the lava.

I run missions that work around the drawbacks of the parts given me. My specific reason is that I KNOW how much of a confusing mess electrical engineering can get, and I see no reason to introduce that headache into the stock game for negligible gameplay benefit. Have some more: -It's another class of parts that need to be designed, modeled, balanced, and explained. -It would introduce a brand new mechanic to all resources in game; that you have a maximum rate of expenditure and gain. -There aren't enough power-consuming items in the game to require such an overhaul of management. -I still don't see the gameplay benefit of adding this. Realism =/= gameplay, and I have yet to see a compelling argument as to how this will make the game more fun. And, respectfully, I'll post wherever I please.

Everything you've listed that isn't ground-based is a half hour, tops. If you don't have enough charge to last a probe core half an hour, what are you doing? As for needing to burn during the night, I just consider that a drawback of ion drive planning, not a flaw in the eletricity system. And sorry, but I have never had enough lights on my vessels to come close to draining their stores. If by 'lots of batteries' you mean three of the large radials, then sure. But I don't consider that 'lots of batteries.'

Again, for what purpose? In vanilla, the only purpose for electricity is SAS, probe bodies, rovers, and ion drives. The only thing that needs lots of power is the ion drive, and I'm having a hard time thinking of anywhere in the kerbol system that puts you both in dark long enough to burn through 1000 units of power AND precludes you from simply waiting until the sun rises. I'm trying to get your point, but it's looking like a solution in search of a problem.

Soo... What's the gameplay value of adding realistic electricity to stock KSP? I mean, we use it for SAS and ion drives. That's it. Do we really need that complexity?

The problem I have with it is that the darned thing is too gooey. That stupid dampening mode is useless. If I have the SAS on, I want it to hold the heading I'm on. At the moment, you have a slight error, move to fix it, and then suddenly the SAS is useless because it's stuck in dampening mode until you're done firing (at which point you no longer NEED it).

That's vanilla behavior. If you take a contract to test a part you don't have, it'll give you the part in the VAB.

Uhm. Quick question. Is there somewhere to see the orbital information on these deployed orbits for satellites?

This would be nice, and maybe after this we could get some focus on end-game content. If they've got the time and/or inclination, they might also consider doing a sort of encyclopedia, like what a lot of simulators and strategy games have. I like tutorials, but I also like just being able to hit escape, go to a nice, indexed set of articles, and find out what '320ASL' means. Or what a periapsis is. Or how to operate the claw. Heck, this would be an awesome place to stick lore about the different companies, bios on Bill, Bob, and Jeb... This could be farmed out to the community, and all they'd need is an editor.

[citation needed] It's also a bizarre rationalization. That works precisely once. After that, it's just a 'get this part earlier, for free' button.

Yes, because SQUAD has implemented all of its engines using precise, real-world numbers for its statistics... Seriously. Very heavy, very expensive, terrible thrust at low speeds and low atmospheres, and it's an engine for getting about on a planet quickly. Considering there's very little to gain by doing this, contracts/science/career-wise, why NOT let it happen?

Yes, but it's a ramjet. That means it can't accelerate you from zero, and its efficiency decreases with speed. It also calls for a nuclear reactor, which is very heavy. And since it is indeed a turbojet it doesn't produce massive amounts of thrust. So the pros: -near-infinite fuel in atmospheres cons: -weak thrust -very heavy -very expensive -useful only at speed

But I don't explicitly see what's wrong with having a jet plane with a payload capacity to take a part to the specified altitude and speed, test it, and return it. For the big parts, figuring out how to fly them is a challenge in itself.