Stargate525

Funny, for me it's not that the suspension is a slinky, but that it seems to swap from 'axle bolted straight to the frame' to 'low-riding Cadillac' whenever the mood strikes it. That, and how they seem to have zero grip moving forward and backward, but stick like they've been welded down as soon as you get them sideways. Well, this patch did add scroll-wheel functionality. Don't know why, since it's worse than click-drag in every case I've tried using it, but it's a step.

Re-read the first post. It specifies a manual switch back to m/s, and specifies a solution to the Dukes of Hazzard Conundrum. I still fail to see how adding an additional mode onto the navball is as horror-inducing as you claim. This is your words. If it doesn't feel intuitive because of something, then IT DOESN'T FEEL INTUITIVE. Your hair splitting on this is as asinine as saying 'What he said wasn't offensive, you only felt offended because...' You are twisting the word to try and evade its own definition.

Yes, because an oil refinery is what's needed to fill some tanks up with LH2/LOX. I could do it in my basement with a source of current, a tap, and the right refrigeration equipment.

I was assuming by asparagus you were talking about more than one ring set. The wider your rocket, the more drag it experiences. That, and the fact that there is not and probably will never be a way to move the volumes of cryogenic oxygen needed to support side-stage feeding like we can get with those simple little yellow tubes. I'm sure Ferram could give you a nice long run-down on it, if you asked him. Back onto the topic at hand, I don't have a huge problem with the scratches; the half length 1.25m tank has them too. though personally I'd prefer paint chipping to the scratches; make it look well-worn, not damaged.

Nothing in the current drag model. In real life... Throw a lawn dart, then throw a dishpan. See which flies better.

Things are not universally intuitive. For the vast majority of people 'used to' is pretty much synonymous with intuitive in general parlance. Both systems are arbitrary, and both require training. And you can't honestly tell me that you're arguing against a feature implementation because some of the proponents misused a word, can you?

He does have a bit of a point, though. They are, at the end of the day, just 'things which make other things move.' I get the analogy of the batteries and the pods, but I do have a suspicion that you would, in fact, tweak down a hypothetical stock pod that came with 3000 charge. Different curves, yes. Different things, sure. But if those curves ever intersect, you do have a cross-balancing issue where a chemical/nuclear/ion does a better job at a task that one of the other two are designed for. A nuclear engine that makes a better second-stage lifter engine than the skipper, or a chemical rocket that's (somehow) better than the ion at long-haul dV. If nothing else, I'd be interested to see your idea of the curve for nukes and ions.

Yes, my post is predicated on the reality of the cultural slate. The argument is that the assumption is kph or mph. Your response is 'that's an illogical construct.' Fine. It is. But it still exists. Ignoring it won't make it go away, and not adopting to it in this instance will do nothing towards that end either.

but considering they come in at about 100m/s and BOUNCE... >.>

Yes, yes you can. And I'd like to see the same amount of asteroids, but spawned anywhere in the system. Some of those Joolian asteroids being flung in to explore, etc.

Yes please!

How about we implement a 'kerbal transfer = true' function into parts, and allow open docking ports to act as hatches?

One problem that occurs to me is that the densities of the different fuel types is radically different (700 xenon in a space that barely fits 10 LF/O), so you would have to convert all the tanks from a simple fuel amount to an arbitrary volume metric. There would presumably need to be additional architecture in the parts list and tweakables to allow that kind of change, which means it would almost certainly break saves. The burn ratio for LF and Ox is a pain in the rear to mentally calculate (9 parts fuel to eleven ox), so if this happens I'd like that to be either changed to something more easy on the brain (1 to 2 or 1 to 1, 3 to 4 perhaps?) or we're given a tool to do the math for us. On a more realistic note, the internal architecture would need to be significantly changed between xenon, liquid fuel, oxidizer, and monopropellant, even though the casing is the same. I don't know how you would represent the cost of that in the part, come the economics setup.

Why not change the texture of the orbit line from -------- to >>>>>>>>> ? Basically, give it little jagged edges that suggest a direction?

Agreed! ...Got it! We drill down as far as the power lasts, then use an onboard thermonuclear weapon to detonate a giant hole. Orbital satellite collects data when it passes over!

You're missing the point. We're saying that the Bugatti getting better gas mileage than said golf is OP.

Yes, but we're a) asking it to move basically under gravity, and through ice. I'm no rocket scientist, but I'd simply build a spherical probe whose surface heats to 100-200 degrees, and just let it drop. Nuclear would be preferable, but if we're tethering it to a surface station, there's no reason it couldn't also be solar (though the progress would be much slower).

No. The biggest offender unlocks on the same node as the engine it is better than in every regard.

I love how critique is complaining, suggestions are 'thinking you can do better,' and the go-to counter-argument for everything seems to be 'well don't use it, then.' It's not that they're more powerful, it's that they're more powerful, lighter, AND more efficient. They've turned everything else into Poodles.

And the VAB down in Florida. If the HVAC goes off there, they get a nice little cloud system. And Hitler's magnum opus that he had planned in Berlin would have been big enough inside to not only form clouds, but produce significant rain. It is. You'll get clouds for sure and, if not rain per se, foggy condensation and mist. If you allow enough evaporation so that the 'sky' is warm and muggy, it would be trivial to install condenser fins along the ceiling and force traditional rain, if you wanted. The bigger question, I feel, is how you're going to maintain structural integrity of a vacuum with water essentially free to roam around. Our stuff isn't terribly waterproof at the best of times, and I can't imagine how you would go about repairing corrosion caused by your groundwater soaking against your outer hull for a decade.

Except it's the only thing we have in the game which comes close to 'anchor a thing to whatever you want.' I KNOW it's not default functionality, thank you.

This would primarily allow us to build 100+ part science labs, refueling depots, or, yes, decoration (since there is very little gameplay in the game), without bringing our computer to a screeching halt as it runs movement calculations and interactions for a vessel that's not going to move.

No, I get that. It's essentially a docking port with gimbal that doesn't need a mate. I'm more asking if it would be possible to add that functionality to it.

I have no clue what the architecture is for the claw, but could it be possible to use it to 'dock' to planetary bodies? Open it up, smack it against kerbin (or Tylo or Duna or the Mun), and the vessel locks in as a permanent base? Removes part calculations, turns it into a single body and doesn't run physics on it?

I don't... think... so. the base is the number of units you use before adding a digit. You can't add a digit after using a portion of a base. If you did that, you would probably be counting integers of less than one. That would be weird.