PDCWolf

This is something that needs to be cleared up by the devs. Is it really our space program? are we really playing an endless family with infinite money or does the space program depend on politics and stuff like that? Because as it is now, we are just little green men on a weird continent with infinite money that decide how space exploration evolves and we don't have competition either so there's noone to beat. On the other hand, you could do missions and then (or at the same time) do whatever the hell you want with your spare budget. Guess we'll have to wait for politics/reputation and the rest of career mode to arrive.

IRL it's the wind that decides where you point your plane when taking off. If there's no wind, then there's the ATC guy telling you where to take-off from based on your flight plan. Since we don't have any of those things yet (I expect wind at least), then I'm all in for this.

You do not have to fully simulate everything, just make it a protovessel (uni-part) and add some simple calculations for how atmosphere drag will affect it, hell, they don't even have to be dynamic calculations that are remade every second or so, just input the velocity and angle at which the atmosphere is hit and add drag to it, once the path is calculated it falls to the ground. It has parachutes? safe. Doesn't have them? destroy. It isn't the most complex thing in the world but would solve a lot of problems. This would be a good way to eliminate the 2.5 km auto-delete limit when doing multiple stuff inside the atmosphere. We'd finally be able to make drop-probes and let them fall from great heights without having to worry for them being deleted if we go further than 2.5km.

Runway is already long enough, you can land giant things without missing it. As you can see, a huge 10 engine aircraft can stop on a really short space (That was keyboard and mouse and the landing was pretty hard). What really bugs me and I say this on every thread about the runway is the freaking elevation. It should be flat to the ground, not on an elevated surface. Look at lukla, gustaf III, courchevelle, etc. One of the exceptions being madeira because they didn't even had a surface to build their runway to begin with.

Automation. A career mode based solely on the tech tree linearity (I like to see the real career mode start after you complete the tech tree, with contracts and all that jazz) DLC Microtransactions "less often updates but with more content" because we all know how that's going to work.

If it's to avoid the game's own faults (like things that should attach but won't attach for a reason), or if it is for engine clusters I really don't mind. Now, seeing intakes clipped through wings or stacked into each other or intakes not going directly to an engine (as 5 intakes for a single engine with no air-path to be seen) makes me look the other way.

Jesus christ sit down and think for a moment. Do you know what a strut is? It is a wire that goes from point A to point B and is so tense that it makes the parts it hold structurally stable, that's why radio antennas don't fall, they are tethered to the ground. On rocketry, there's no hard wire. Fuel tanks are already structurally stable and made to hold a certain amount of weight. Every stage is manufactured to be able to carry the upper stage, the next stage and the payload while being pushed by an engine from behind. Our fuel tanks are -supposed- to be structurally stable since they are delivered already encased (and encased with metal if you look. You can see the freaking bolts on the texture). They are supposed to not wobble, they are supposed to be joint together in any shape we want. They obviously have a limit somewhere, but those limits are ridiculously small, making us put them between wires so that they don't collapse into each other. YEAH, YOU READ RIGHT, FREAKING METAL REQUIRES WIRES SO THAT IT DOESN'T COLLAPSE INTO ITSELF, does that look correct to you? I hope not.

Reinforcements run along the stages, that means they are internal and therefore they aren't wires running from a stage through the other and fixed by a series of girders. Fuel tanks should be structurally strong to support themselves and a certain ammount of cargo (which I don't exceed cause all my designs are based on a realistic 11% payload fraction. I don't even use asparagus). It doesn't happen to you because I build rockets to work and look as they should. I don't build asparagus pancakes or wide launchers. I build slim and beautiful pieces of engineering (that most of the time look like you know what because of that). My payloads are incredibly light for the rockets and they don't exceed the 11% payload fraction, meaning there's no over-stressing of parts. Even so, my "LongFart 1" (Obviously based on the longmarch rocket) would look like a banana -and destroy itself- without the internal struts going on between tanks. On top of all this, I never exceed a TWR of 1.55 on tall stages. On rockets like these, struts shouldn't be needed at all.

But system analysis is centered about programming and development. Physics? Yeah, I just know some basic formulas and from watching a huge ammount of launches I also know that THIS doesn't happen.

He needs food and a house, so yeah. He just now started to ask for donations, after creating a mostly complete space tour game. This is something that the entire suggestions section knows. Suggesting mods is not a solution, is like patching a water loss with chewed gum. If people are intelligent enough they'll ignore my passionate self and think about what I said. If it's helpful or not depends on who reads it, if you turn your head away on the first time I use strong language, then that's your problem. Yeah, pogo oscilation and slosh dynamics make engines slide below the fueltanks and the rocket collide with itself because something came loose, or even better, they make the rocket turn into a banana. If we were talking about a different type of phenomena they would be valid, but we aren't. we are talking about rockets behaving like spaghetti for no reason and requiring extra parts between joints. I don't care about having to extra strut a SRB, but I do care about making my payload and my freaking fuel tanks safe with hard wire when that's not the case. Wobble would be acceptable if for fuel tanks we got the bare metal and pipes and we had to decide the structural linkage instead of a fully built fuel tank that is supposed to be a lego piece. Don't believe it if you don't want to. Hell, that's why I make videos and tutorials and why I have been playing this game since 0.13, because I hate it and I want it to be destroyed. I'm going to get it that's for sure (And I'm not complaining), and this thread is going to get closed and ignored too. That's the way things work around here. I study system analysis and I'm a graphic designer. It was already pointed out. You believe an atmosphere made of bricks is simplified for gameplay and not broken even when it was stated by the devs that the atmosphere was never though to be for planes AND that it is an incomplete feature AND that it is going to be fixed -someday-. You will ignore the wobble argument hiding behind the LELSOKERBALXD mentality, even when things being that way was never the original idea. You will ignore my arguments saying your rockets are best designed, even when you haven't seen a single rocket of mine. It's useless to argue with you, you are as blind as a wall.

What about space engine then, being made by a single guy? What about space engine then, being made by a single guy? the "This isn't a gaming company" argument is as stupid as it gets. Modders can turn the game upside down and create (and update) a part pack in a whim and squad battles to include 5 kspx parts per update? And I'm using parts as example, you can basically just use every feature in the game to talk about this level of incompetence. "If you can't do better then don't criticize" is, again, an invalid argument when there are clearly visible examples that something can be better. Jesus, this part was just too much, not even bothering. Show me a rocket that wobbles in real life. Yeah, lets complement a stupid argument with sarcasm, that'll sure show him. You are wrong, this game is more for me than anyone else because I want it to be the best. I get my balls together and criticize everything because I want it to be the best it can possibly be. I know they are doing stuff wrong and I'm not the only one that can see that. I don't see myself blinded by brand or game fanatism, and that's why I have the balls to criticize as so do a lot of members (that for some reason are on the "DON'T LISTEN TO" list). Once again the people here show their retardation when they can't take an idea behind an insult. Not everything is a hugbox. Go out and live freaking life, nobody is going to compliment you for your work except for fans, and guess what, fans are the last people you want to listen to because they are going to approve everything you do, even if it's wrong. Why do you think artists listen to critiques that pretty much destroy their work? because they want to be better. To reinforce my argument, everybody knows what everybody thinks about the ones that shall not be named, yet somehow max manages to get ideas, he manages to get good criticism and hell, even majiir, ted, artyom and nexis post there.

Well, starforge is constantly adding and removing features, starbound just entered the beta phase and they are still adding content like crazy. Do not move the goalpost. One thing is waiting 3 months for a recategorization and 5 new parts, another very different is waiting 3 months for an update worthy of said time. What the hell happened to "often but lighter updates"? We just got the lighter part. They didn't balance anything, that's why there was a day 1 techtree mod, they just threw the already existing parts into tiers and made 4 new to add some progression. Coding UI elements is easy as hell, unless you are coding your game in some senseless way. Unbreakable != Rigid. Rockets are not spaghetti. Read what I wrote again. Mere lies. Rocket wobble like crazy and work like spaghetti unless you strut them. SAS has nothing to do with wobble. Oh jesus, WHY did I have to read this part last. Now I discovered who am I responding to. Wish I wouldn't have wasted my time like this. I'll just click submit and be done with you. "You can't complain about crashes when you are using a 32bit OS for a 32bit app. Use a 64bit OS that doesn't care about an incompatible 32bit app instead!!!!!" We need some hardcore redpilling around here.

Agree, their dev cycle is totally wrong for an alpha game. Look at starforge, starbound, and even space engineers. Hell, just look at freaking spaceengine, he's a single guy and updates take him the same time as squad, and he puts loads and loads of content. Vacations are ok? yes. Vacations are well deserved because of the work? Not really. This is mostly true. All updates up until now have been pretty much all hype and no content. The problem is the part count, and it's a derivated problem. It comes from the fact that you need struts for everything because squad can't freaking make the joints stronger (A modder could, hey!). Modders are basically saving the game. That's why I halted my progress with my part packs and stuff, I don't want to help a company that doesn't deliver stay afloat, even if it's just by halting the development of my non-crucial, small and badly done parts. I know of some -big- modders that think the same way, too bad they love the game and their work so much.

May I suggest changing the icon? As of now it looks like a sheriff star. Maybe a "normal" kind of star?

What you, op, say is something I like from this game. Not only do you need to be interested in the game, which is good, but you also need to be interested in space or how it works. You can be the average player that sees something hard and says "lol 2hard" and goes away, or you can put a bit of effort and learn incredible stuff. Or you can download mechjeb for sure.

Let's take the RS-68 for example. Which we could call our mainsail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-68 ISP of 410s. Ariane 5's Vulcain engine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcain ISP of 431s Then we obviously have old rocket engines that have been in service since forever like the soyuz engines or the saturn engines that go around the 300 mark. The shuttle engines (1981) go up to 452s in vacuum and 363s on sea level. This will get cleared up when we finally get different fuels and we can know for sure if we are talking about RP1 or liquid hydrogen. Now, if you want to make assumptions. RP-1 / LOX burns in a red flame. Our flames are blue. But hey, we are just making assumptions here. I assume the bit about taking turbojets for ramjets is not directed to me -even though you only quoted me- because I never took turbojets for ramjets.

It already made some mistakes. I'll hope they get fixed on today's daily. It's like a mini weekly and weeklies were already small enough.

I'll call the very well known technique used around here. ITS AN ALPHAAAAA whilst dancing flailing my arms and making retarded noises.

Cheaty because they are considered OP. They are even better than real life counterparts. I bet the guy was talking about general consensus or even his own opinion. Wether you care or not if other people call you a cheater is your own thing. There are facts that you can't deny. On a downscaled world (where all other parts have been also downscaled from real-life values) the turbojets perform way better than their real-life counterparts. That is a fact. As a side remark, you can also spam intakes to make them work at stupid altitudes, which won't happen in real life. They are OP, and people call them cheaty because of that. Whether you care about it or not is your own concern.

It makes sense. Rocket engines were scaled to fit the atmospheric model and have low ISPs because of that, to be balanced with the game. They are underpowered in terms of real life. Turbojets and the normal jet engine were not scaled and are incredibly overpowered, even for their real life counterparts. Also, I made a mistake. TurboJets' TWR is about 12, which is still a freaking lot. On top of that you can just airhog them to make them work pretty high up, which is a bit of a shady technique if you ask me.

Yeah, the P&W J58 outputs 110kN when dry. Weights 3.7 tonnes and has a TWR of 6. KSP's TurboJet Engine outputs 150kN without afterburner, weights 1.2 tonnes and has a TWR of 30.

Yeah, but KSP's turbojets are incredibly op and don't work like real life counterparts at all.

Mostly depends on what you call "better". Think about it this way: •Is your system cheap? •Are you using durable techniques? (As in something that may be still useful after an aerodynamics update for example) •Are the parts you are using considered OP? (NERVAs, Turbojets) •Are the parts you are using going to remain the same during updates? •Are you using techniques considered cheaty? (Air-hogging, intake stacking) •Does your lifter look good? •What's the maximum payload to LKO? •Can you make a cheaper system with the same payload capacity? •Can you make a system with the same capacity but with less parts? Edit: I forgot some important ones. •Are you using mods? •Are you using mods that are considered "OP" or "unrealistic" or "unbalanced" ? That's what defines a good lifter for me.

There's another option missing: "3 months for 3 parts and a half-done re-categorization for a supposed tutorial mode that doesn't really explain anything" Other than that, I voted for too easy. And I'm definitely not liking the already suggested ways to make it more difficult.

It's not the solution or a way to discredit the suggestion. What I meant is that you already have part of what you are asking for in the base game. Maybe it's not useful for you, but there may be someone out there that sees this and didn't know about that.