Temeter

Will that even be an issue? You can live a while without eating, having oxygen is much more important. Or does TAC instantly kill kerbals when it's ressources go to zero?

Completely depends on difficulty. Afaik there is already a slider in 0.24 which allows you to customize rewards. You have to mind that planes, and even more SSTO-capable planes, come relatively late with the tech tree.

I'm actually planning to build a space plane designed to bring some clawable parachutes into space and then push the used ships into the lower atmosphere. I was just talking about debris. Precautionary putting parachutes on every ship could be the easiest way to deal with recovery.

That would be understandable, though. Otherwise you could just deorbit used spaceships, let them crash and recover their Debris for money. I don't think that's the point of recovery.^^'

They actually showed the fuel tanks. Spherical, ~60cm diameter and made of titanium. Afair under a pressure of 1000psi. You have to keep in mind that the capsule looks extremly light, though. Not even close to the extensive apparatures and interiors of older capsules. Also reminds me of star trek, which is a plus in my book. Still, a completely self powered landing is impressive.

I did my manned Moho-mission (Lander+Return) with 7 1.25m Tanks and Nukes and no fancy stuff like homann trajectories or any form of planning. No problem at all. Still, personally i'd like to see 5m parts, if just for insanities sake. There is no 'to big' in Kerbal Space Program.

Not sure about that. I build a purposefully unpractical rockets when testing FAR, and my terminal velocity on ground level was never lower than 600m/s. In contrary, the fast acceleration became somewhat of an issue.

You guys are so anxious. Just where do you get the idead that everyone interested in career mode is wanting to grind again and again through a techtree? Or that the techtree is the point of the game? Those ideas are completely absurd. And budgests won't only help, they are the main element of the career. That's where KSP get will get an additional level of complexity, and therefore more challenge. And here you are, complaining about balancing in a sandbox mode without any ristriction. @Fyre Flare: xD

Calling something overrated is calling opinions wrong^^ I ment that we basically don't have a career mode. We only have an early tech tree, so we're missing almost everything defining the career for long-time players.

So my interest in career mode is a false opinion? You're aware that the central part of career isn't even implemented, are you? Atm it's only teching, and thats especially designed as an entry-point for beginners. Stuff like contracts, limited budget and cost should be much more interesting to a hardcore player, since it adds more depth to construction and indirect even to missions itself, because you can't always take the easy way.

I think my biggest ship was around 1600 tons, using the 3.75m KWRocketry-stuff (afair no asparagus after first stage). Most of the time, there is just no reason to lift heavier weights. You might have a potential 2000ton ship, but bringing it into orbit with full tanks is just a hassle. Make it 1.2k and refuel it in orbit. Or just land it on the moon and mine kethane. And then it sits there because playing with 5fps isn't fun in the long run.

First moon mission. As many people i completely misjudged the time acceleration, shot over the target and went to sun SOI. No clue about maneuver nodes or actual interplanetary travel. A single Kerbal, orbiting 5 Years around the sun. But damn, really learned the value of nuclear engines. Countless burns, just trying to get somehow closer to kerbin in the next circulation. And at some point, the beautiful SOI-markings appeared around kerbin, and Jebediah finally got home.

I actually did the first duna and moho transfers by hand. Didnt even know how maneuver nodes or actual interplanetary transfers worked. Surprisingly enough, the moho-mission was one of the most flawless missions ive ever done. Absolutely everythig went fine, including return and landing on kerbin. After that, usually Olex.biz. If you learned how interplanetary transfers work and tried all options, there isnt a reason to make it unecessary complex imo. You will need additional tools anyway. Yeah, that had me confused quiet a bit. Even more, because in earlier versions you couldnt look up the date mid flight, and Mechjeb often confused a year, a day or both of it. Then Kerbal Days came, and the confusion just grew... Glad i solve that, though.

Thought the same and just checked. The LV909 doesn't have an alternator. It's really electricity. Vector thrust allows you to turn, but can't spin the ship. As soon as the reaction wheels stop working, the imbalance - especially because of the goo container - causes the ship to spin while accelerating. You need solar panels and batteries.

I want connected iva's and interior. Imagine a full iva-only mission including docking and switching ships :3

You could also use Mechjeb. There is an 'prevent jet flameout'-option, which automatically lowers thrust to avoid flameouts.

If there is no other way, the massless parts should add their mass somewhere, maybe the COM, maybe to the part theyre connected to. I would agree up to this point. But how is the possibility of using an exploit to create strange and utterly useless ships supposed to break balance or destroy fun? Those Landers are hilarious! Also, put a bit more trust in SQUAD. The last update introduced major changes to the physics and created unexpected problems leading to its delay. It shouldnt be surprising if they made these parts massless as a workaround. Just have some patience and wait for the next patch or news.

EDIT: Nevermind, i'm dumb. The thing came with a mod, probably the recent raster-prop-monitor update. And i found another long awaited feature! The 'control from here'-function isn't reset by switching to other crew modules. Meaning you can now control ships from a centered-module while sitting high above the ship in a control tower. Its only reset when switching from docking modules to iva. On a smaller note, its now easier to go into crew modules from eva. btw: Maybe OP could edit the first post to add quotes with all the new stuff people posted here? This thread is full of hidden features.

I think thats an interesting point. Many complaints about arm are in fact not constructive suggestions, but, well, complaints and criticism. We have a metric ton of posts here telling everyone just how wrong the arm-balance is. That its a mistake and damages the game as a whole. Calling it broken, allowing things which - out of some reason - arent supposed to be possible. Basically telling SQUAD they have no clue what theyre doing. I think thats more than a bit unfair considering they are the ones who made ksp. And in the meantime we got a poll on our hands with ~75% of the votes being okay with ARM or hoping for a career-based balancing...

And i was constantly thinking about how to use my precious quicksave-slot when towing around e-class asteroids xD Ty for posting, that one will be incredible helpful.

You have a point, but there is more to the new parts. They are still big 3.75m-parts and the heaviest engines in the game, even the lf-booster-engine weights 6 tons - aside from being impractical. So there is a point where they stop being useful, its just harder to see. Even more, the big engines aren't actually very powerfull considering being early-stage-rockets, bringing even more limitations. While they are more efficient and save weight, you dont actually have that much less parts than when using KW's Griffon or Titan. The Engines aren't gamebraking, so much be should safe to say. Additionally, and here i disagree to you, they also aren't magic bullets solving every problem, but have limits. So their main impact might be on challenges, but you might just put in a rule not to use them. Thats how people deal with asparagus staging, which is actually much closer to a magic bullets, because it makes almost everything more efficient.

Maybe i'm misunderstanding you (sorry if its the case), but isn't connecting imbalance and less fun fitting this interpretation? Because it's also ignoring the possibilities of being more balanced in career. Imo balancing in a sandbox is generally not completely possible and therefore not as meaningful as balancing in career. Even more so in KSP, which is physics-based and doesnt stop you from doing the most absurd constructions in sandbox, not to mention methods like asparagus staging. The real limit are physics and hardware. Therefore i wouldnt have a fitting answer in your poll.

I once launched 2k+ tons (~800 parts) into space with linear balanced kw-rocketry engines. Including worse performance, less stable physics and even weaker hardware than the stuff i'm using now. Using a rather simple rocket design (these are the most efficient). With no asparagus design aside from smaller 2.5-booster style rockets (not arm, was around ~0.21). Its one of the reasons this whole sandbox-balance-thingy seems a bit illusive to me.

Now this is actually biased. Because it is lacking the differentiation between sandbox and career. The latter might have additional balancing mechanisms. Atm its not that hard to argue, that they are kinda imbalanced in sandbox, so your poll leaves only the option of having less fun. Its more important how you feel about them also being in sandbox mode, so feelings and objective standpoint can be different at the same time. I think the poll is ok. Although 'No, or very little, change' and 'Balance for career' might be the same. Most of the criticism comes from being more powerful than stock stuff being less efficient in sandbox, doesnt it?

Thats a bit more complex, though. Engines in KSP are unrealistic because e.g. thrust is always the same. Engine- and muzzle-configuration is far more dependant on height in reality, which means wen need more specialised early and late stages. And SSTOs still need a comparatively big rocket to get something into space, while you could start something much lighter and cheaper when using 2 stages. Budget concerns are a prime factor for real space agencies. Not to mention physical and material-limits.