allmappedout

This is a fallacy. As previously pointed out, there is NO DRM attached to the steam version. As soon as you have downloaded it, it's identical to the store version. If steam did one day go under, I'm sure there would be contingency plans for future updates, but if steam stopped working, KSP would not. Also, the download speeds for the steam versions are phenomenal, so even if it's released later (I can't comment if it is or isn't), you'll still probably get it faster through steam as the KSP store does take a hit when new versions are released.

I heard originally that the VAB didn't have a roof, and it wasn't until they put one on that they even considered the external seat part being used. The kerbals were too scared of being pooed on!

I also use Steam for ease of use and update speed (plus I had one time when I deleted bits and bobs accidentally, and Steam did an integrity check and sorted it all out for me). Quite funny to see so many recommending steam after all the initial hate it got when it was first announced!

Jeez, guys, no need to be so hostile. Let him have his moment in the sun, he beat the odds, just let him revel in it.

Jeb would get in the old fashioned way if you don't let him in...sub-orbitally. And trust me, that won't end well for the receiving nation!!

Also, whilst your post is both combative and unhelpful, the End Flight wasn't removed because people accidentally clicked on it, it was because Squad wanted a more realistic approach to handling flights. Ships don't just disappear, and they wanted to build in a bit of consistency. As a result, you now have to think about saving your Kerbals and making things safer and more able to be deorbited.

Man, I was totally hoping that this was a suggestion for rover wheels made of liquid. Consider me disappointed.

I do agree that it's not exactly priority number 1, but I get where OP is coming from. I'd like to see this, just because it does seem to fit with the other common functions..

They don't deplay automatically - once they have been activated, that's when they're deployed. The difference is that there isn't sufficient air pressure to pull them from their 'fairing', so they don't pop out. Once the air pressure is enough, then they appear. The drag model on them is shockingly bad, but the idea is that the drag is meant to be a function of air pressure, but it's coded as a function of height instead (which for all intents and purposes is the same thing at sea level). I'm sure that chutes will get a reworking once the aero coding is done, but they have only one, singular purpose, which is to slow you down when you are falling. Landing gear are much more versatile - you could put one on one side to angle your craft at a specific angle, or, like others say, you may have multiple sets of landing legs, to cater for different heights when docking. My point is that the benefit of deploying them automatically doesn't add anything to the game. It's one button press, which you can do at any point. I don't want to have to config when my landing legs come down every single time, I'm happy just to press G and be done with it, but with the possibility to add more functionality through action groups - what about ladders, why wouldn't they automatically deploy at the same time? etc There's just no real benefit for adding this, in my opinion.

This is a great question, and one that should be asked of a lot more suggestions. "Does not having this actually make it harder, or am I just looking looking for a quick shortcut?"

Literally all over the shop. Mostly between 100-150km. That way it gives me leeway either side to slow down or speed up my orbit without de-orbiting

Larger ship? Place it further from CoM - the magic of levers in action!

Consider the situation when someone may not want all their gears to deploy? For example, landing a base piece which has wheels and gears to raise it up? The best suggestion RE: gears is to see them fully extended in the VAB/SPH, that would be more useful.

I think you're overcomplicating it here - yes you can vary the thrust profile of an SRB by changing the interior shaping, but the SRBs in KSP burn at a constant thrust, so sticking another one on top would simply double the time, at the same thrust rate. Certainly, that's how I would want it to work, and how a new person would expect it to work. I guess the only risk is the complication of explaining the newbies the difference between Solid fuel and liquid fuel nozzles and whether there was compatability between them (expecting there not to be).

Wind tunnel has been suggested before. Multiplayer is on the what-not-to-suggest list.

Ferram, of Ferram aerospace research fame, actually did a thought experiment (Gedankenexperiment) and created a mod to test this out. He tried it, and the long and the short of it was that it didn't work at all well at low speeds, and wasn't even that great at higher speeds, particularly at higher AoA's. It was also pretty laggy if I remember, so I don't think they will be approaching this methodology, based on what's already been tested.

I love how you say that you don't want Sci-Fi, but you suggest an anti-matter drive? Whilst anti-matter has and can be created, it is currently unable to be stored, particularly for long periods, and much more specifically, for net energy gain - currently creating anti-matter involves converting energy to mass, so there is no point in creating it. The only even remotely feasible solution, is an orion drive, which will get you there in a reasonable timeframe without all life on Kerbin dying from boredom. Solar sails, ion engines, etc all rely on long time frames, and require active control for the deceleration burn as well as the acceleration period. It needs some science gizmo, unfortunately, to work and keep the game fun.

It really doesn't. Yes, you'll have your whiny children on Call of Duty, but by the same token, you will have whiny children on World of Warcraft. PC Gamers are more diverse, simply because there are more games out there, but (xcom being a prime example) you can have games that are identical on PC and console without any change in gameplay, except for control mappings. Even things like Assassin's Creed, or Skyrim are happy on both. Yes, one may look better as you get higher spec, but the game itself is the same. In the same way that my rubbish macbook pro plays KSP on low settings, there's no reason why the game can't scale dependent on system. Moreover, if the X1 does ever get it, it will be in several iterations (at or near 1.0), when optimisation and (potentially) a switch to a multi-threading Unity engine, etc.

Bravo chaps, just seen it! As I said, any assistance required, let me know, I'm more than happy to help!

Cheers chaos forge I am happy to give you a hand collating stuff; just drop me a PM with what you need from me and I'll get to work on it. I never have much else to do at work anyway

Having read the latest KSP weekly, it sounds like you may get at least part of your wish...

Not a bad idea. I guess this could be useful, but would detract from the methodology of how we (I?) would want to approach this, but I guess would be handy round the rest of the forum.. The problem with doing this is it doesn't reduce the amount of, for want of a better word, spam within the forums. There will still be as many posts, and who assigns the flag of new/dupe, dev interaction etc? The way that the forum currently works is that only the OP or mods can amend the original post, which is where the flag would be changed. This wouldn't work under a review system. I don't have a number, and I couldn't really hazard a guess; almost everything that is now IN the game has been suggested at some point. Whether or not it's in the game through the community's input or not is complete speculation, although I'd hope to think that it was in part due to input from us. On the other hand, if you look at how the feedback C7 received recently on the SAS through both the testing group and the community at large, you can certainly see that changes can and are made within the game (thinking about it, I remember the RCS CoM bug being fixed at the community's behest as well as a few other things...) EDIT: That was my Pi post...

This is why

Hah! Yeah, we'll sell this idea as the prevention of the uninhabitability of the forums! To be honest, I really don't mind about the specifics of how it's going to work, and certainly if we could have some sort of auto-merge, that'd be good, but I think that wouldn't stop reposts, but either way, I think it's something the forum really needs. If any mods have had a chance to read this, I'd really love to hear whether any of this was possible...?

Indeed. I remember seeing that barycentre post, and was really impressed by how much work and thought went into it (I got lost when you guys were doing the error mappings!), but yes, like you said, that has now disappeared into the ether. As I noted in the original post, it's not just a one-step process. Once an idea has been 'approved' as good enough to get promoted to the ideas forum, it gets debated as normal, and then gets included in a monthly communique post at a top level forum, so you would have "July ideas digest", which would contain a, say, 50 word outline of the idea, and the link to the post, for the top 10-15 ideas from that month. Once those ideas have been raised, they're effectively locked in and so the devs can approach them in their own time. Each month, any new ideas get added to a new post, and the cycle continues. It's a more direct and intensive process to suggestions, but since suggestions are the place for the community to feed back their thoughts, it deserves a bit of love. As the main ideas get debated, the hope is that we get a bit of dev two-way communication to say "oh! we hadn't thought of that, that's great!" or "Nah bro, ain't never gonna happen!". And that's fine; both responses may be expected, and like I said, we can't expect the devs to ever say yes to all the ideas we raise. There's limited resource, and scope, but certainly, by getting the community a little more focussed and organised on the submissions process (like a bug tracker), the devs can get a better handle on what the community is most keen on, and get a heat map of how we would like to see things progress.