Atoning Unifex

I had actually addressed the resources in the previous aragraph to the one you quoted:

Skipping over the frustration in this thread and going back to the OP: I agree career mode should be more, however budget will be introduced, as will contracts and reputation. Resources was one thing I was disappointed that had been shelved but I can see how it could just become a grind rather than fun. If i have to spend hours of gameplay to mine resources & build parts, so I can then launch a rocket to where I really want to go, then it's going to be really dull after one or maybe two times. I have wondered whether a limited space centre initially would be feasible and I'm not really sure how it could be done. Parts are already unlocked via research and I have a feeling once money comes in you will also have to pay to create unlocked parts - you can see there is an apparent part cost in the research tree. So, in terms of having building upgrades, I can imagine maybe having to build aircraft first to get research to unlock VAB - I'm rubbish at flying in this game I think it's due an overhaul too - maybe also having a shorter VAB to restrict rocket size. Possibly. I'm not really sold on this though. Certainly more parts suitable for building a space station would be great. I've used mod packs to get what I think are a few cool stations out around the system, however there are core game parts that you can launch and dock together in space to create a habitable structure. Admittedly it doesn't provide any benefits but it's cool to achieve it. As for a steady stream of science. This has been discussed to death and boils down to the fact that, if you have continuous science over time then you just hit time warp, gather all the research to unlock everything and that's basically derailed the progression. There are ways around this, however perhaps you might wish to look in some of those lengthy discussions. I'd love to see science stations in orbit. I hope they find a good way of implementing them. I can understand getting bored of the game. I'm 700 hours in and, even though I love the game, I'm in need of a break. I've not really touched ARM and I'm waiting for the next update before I get into it again - maybe even longer. I dont mind that though, I've already got my money's worth, anything more is a bonus!

I like this idea! simple yet seems to satisfy the needs for multiple crew.

I think the basis of our ideas is similar, however I object to the idea of 'speed[ing] up the mission'. To do things quicker in KSP I just time warp. It's a common issue that has come up in many conversations about research over time etc. My thoughts were to require certain kerbal skills/jobs to increase output per mission. So having no science kerbal would provide a reduced amount of science for certain science tasks for that mission, meaning you would need to repeat it (similar to transmission loss but hopefully more understandable). That way you can't simply time warp your way out of it. Having along more & varied crew would provide a greater cost/benefit ratio (if/when those concepts really exist)

Yes this is a tricky one. I do like the idea that Kerbals have certain skills but obviously as you do everything then it sort of defeats the purpose. Perhaps you have to always have a pilot kerbal (otherwise you can't fly), but to get better science returns you need a scientist and for longer life support (when that arrives) you need a technician, so you can still do all missions with 1 kerbal but it's more efficient to use more? Or maybe something simpler, based on the idea that life support will make it in - small pods have limited life support, larger pods have more - but to use larger pods you need a larger crew.

I like the idea, although rather than rotating the planet around so you can see where you intercept, how about a simple x marks the spot on the surface where you are likely to land? Basically the same that mechjeb does.

Dare i say it but "there's a mod for that"! Check out ScanSat (no, really it's great for scanning) That said - it really do think that it should be a stock game feature to be able to scan for biomes and anomalies.

It seems there's (as always!) a wide variation in whether people want uber simple or more difficult setups. Maybe, however many different resources there are included, there should be gameplay options to adjust the amount of resource used per time interval, like 1 air unit used per kerbal per day, rather than per hour, for example. Maybe even an option to disable a resource altogether.

This isn't a bad idea, although it would have to be carefully done otherwise the process of gathering all science pots for all devices for each planet could turn into a boring grinding process rather than a fun thing to do. At this point I'm reserving any more science suggestions until we see how the currency/reputation system fits in beause this is likely to mix things up a bit.

I'd be happy with something simple, as suggested, but I like the idea of having more parts with special functions, particularly for constructing space stations that are more than just hitch-hiker modules - like a waste recycler and a hydroponics lab for example

None of the above! Well similar to C i guess. I don't see the point of having oxygen and CO2 because as one goes up the other goes down. It would just be showing the same thing in two different ways, which just seems needless. So I'd suggest just having CO2. I'd suggest 2 types of scrubber, a basic one that uses up some type of resource that needs resupplying, and an advanced regenerative one that requires no resupply. I think in terms of food and water, yes to both, plus waste (including both solid and liquid) and possibly 'fertilizer' (i'll explain in a sec). There could be two tiers of recycler, a basic one, which simply reclaims water from waste and dumps the rest, and an advanced one which is able to reclaim water and also turn the remaining solid waste into a fertilizer that can be used, along with water, in a special (large station component) hydroponics lab to produce food, allowing for a sustainable environment that needs little or no resupply. I think this gives a reasonable amount of life support without having to balance vast numbers of resources.

I've created a windows batch file that does this. Code is below. Just paste it into a batch file, edit the SOURCE and DEST variables, and run it! Note that I have linked ALL folders except GameData and saves. If you don't want certain folders linked (as suggested by Eric S) either remove the line, or simply delete the link after it's been created. If you want to link the Saves then simply add that line in (I'm sure you can figure it out!) Also I'm not entirely sure whether the Extras folder exists in the stock game or if it was added by a mod I installed! Just remove the line if it's not stock! Hope that helps SET SOURCE=C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program SET DEST=C:\Games\KSP Modded MKLINK /D "%DEST%\sounds" "%SOURCE%\sounds" MKLINK /D "%DEST%\Ships" "%SOURCE%\Ships" MKLINK /D "%DEST%\Extras" "%SOURCE%\Extras" MKLINK /D "%DEST%\Screenshots" "%SOURCE%\Screenshots" MKLINK /D "%DEST%\Internals" "%SOURCE%\Internals" MKLINK /D "%DEST%\Resources" "%SOURCE%\Resources" MKLINK /D "%DEST%\Plugins" "%SOURCE%\Plugins" MKLINK /D "%DEST%\KSP_Data" "%SOURCE%\KSP_Data" MKLINK /D "%DEST%\PluginData" "%SOURCE%\PluginData" MKLINK /D "%DEST%\Launcher_Data" "%SOURCE%\Launcher_Data" MKLINK /D "%DEST%\Parts" "%SOURCE%\Parts" MKLINK /D "%DEST%\Subassemblies" "%SOURCE%\Subassemblies" MKLINK /H "%DEST%\settings.cfg" "%SOURCE%\settings.cfg" MKLINK /H "%DEST%\MuMechLib.dll" "%SOURCE%\MuMechLib.dll" MKLINK /H "%DEST%\Launcher.exe" "%SOURCE%\Launcher.exe" MKLINK /H "%DEST%\KSP.exe" "%SOURCE%\KSP.exe" MKLINK /H "%DEST%\KSP.log" "%SOURCE%\KSP.log" MKDIR "%DEST%\GameData\" MKLINK /D "%DEST%\GameData\Squad" "%SOURCE%\GameData\Squad" MKDIR "%DEST%\saves" MKLINK /D "%DEST%\saves\training" "%SOURCE%\saves\training" MKLINK /D "%DEST%\saves\scenarios" "%SOURCE%\saves\scenarios" Pause

I actually like the idea of multiple different trees (or perhaps linear paths) for the various component types so that you have a clearer tech progression.

I think I understand what you mean, and it sounds potentially useful, but an example diagram or picture would be handy to visualise it properly...

Well I think that the devs are probably expending a lot of time on the NASA Asteroid and KSP Edu components, understandably, as I expect this will increase their income making it easier to add in even more stock features. That's what I'm hoping anyway. I will happily 'put up' with the longer loading times and memory problems (when heavily modded) in the interim in the hope that these additional ventures will lead to an overall better final product.

Well I do and don't agree with this. I played without mechjeb for ages before discovering it and so I did get used to doing things without help, but mechjeb actually helped me learn better ways to do things. Also even after playing for ages (probably not 100 mun landings but more than 20) I still found it tricky and frankly annoying the amount of times I would still crash on landings, have to reload, repeat, reload, repeat (snores). The latest releases of mechjeb limit access to modules depending on techs researched and I think it works pretty well. Anyway I think there's (at least) two fundamental groups of players of this game. The 'purists' who feel that flight should consist of flying by eye and desparate button mashing during landings, and the 'realists' who prefer to simply see their craft fly and land efficiently without having to fight with controls. (yes guess, which i am!) I don't think there's any way to please both. I'd love to see a properly developed autopilot but I'm happy to stick with mechjeb if it's all there is.

How about re-doing the entire list of all items into a more organized system to make parst easier to find? The first thing that comes to mind is a system using some sort of tags. Parts would have tags based on things like type, size, fuel etc and then you would simply select one or more tags to filter your list by, hence being able to easily find a monoprop 2.5m tank, or a radial science part etc. Not sure how much work it would be game wise to implement but it could give us greater control over finding parts.

This has actually been suggested before, but not seen it mentioned recently. I personally like the idea of discovering details about the planets this way, although I recall that there were quite a lot of people really anti this idea. I'm not quite sure why though. Anyway, i'd like to see it!

I disagree. The WNTS list, and the already suggested list, is there to encourage new (and old) forum members to review what has already been said so as not to repeat/rehash things that have already beed discussed many times before. I admit it is difficult. When I have a 'brilliant' idea I must suggest only to find it in one of the mentioned lists, it is disappointing. However when I read the suggestions that have come before and i see that it is basically my idea I see that repeating it wouldn't really help. Perhaps every suggestion should be a poll allowing readers to vote with a standard set of choices (yes, no, in part, don't care) to the ideas without having to actually comment, if they don't want to. I've skipped past many suggestions purely because I couldn't be bothered to write a response - not that they weren't good suggestions, just I wasn't motivated enough to comment. If I had to simply click a choice I'd be more inclined to do so.

This would look great I think!

Ok this is true, however I personally think (perhaps somewhat obviously) that my idea of maintaining entirely separate lists for each ship addresses these issues in a simpler way. There is no unwanted merging but allows an optional merging/stacking if desired, and without the need to manually move individual stages into inactive status. Only one list is active at any time, changeable as needed. And allowing for more than one staging list per vehicle means it would be possible to create entirely separate lists, during build, for craft that will undock during the mission. I guess the two ideas are actually very similar. What Tw1 is suggesting is two different lists, what I am suggesting is many different lists. It seems to me limiting people to just two lists is, well, limiting, whereas having multiple lists allows a wider range of possibilities. Natuarlly I'm biased though!

Well I'm no expert on how the game code works so it's only an opinion, however it seems to me that we're just talking about managing fairly simple lists, I can't really see it having much of an impact on saves or lag. If you think about it the game already has to store the staging list so it's just reorganising how it does this. Yes it could create some complex staging and collections of action groups. i guess it depends on play style. You would theoretically have the option of staging an entire landing sequence, including lowering gear, extending ladders, shutting down engines, even performing experiments I guess. Some people may prefer to keep some parts manual, or within an action group rather than a stage. My idea is really just to give a wide range of options to allow players to try out different approaches. Euw, that sounds like a bit of a messy way to do things. A simple, clear list would have been my first choice, but hey what do I know! Yes hitting the exit button is a right pain! Having the staging list properly managed in the UI so no overlapping of other areas occurs is a must. A separate tab could be handy. I do like the ease of being able to adjust the staging as I go, however a separate tab could allow you to click on specific craft parts to highlight them rather than having to figure out which icon is which part. So the 'inactive' column sounds like a 'pending'. Stages have been added but are yet to be placed into their final location? Could be a tidier way of handing the addition of new parts and sub-assemblies I'm not really sure I see this as being especially useful. Why would I have add a stage but keep it inactive? If i wanted to trigger something at a point out of staging order then I'd either do it via right click, or via an action group. It also seems to me that, even if you set all the stages to inactive during docking (which sounds like a lot of clicking), they would still become merged as before - just that one set is inactive. It would prevent stages from the other ship triggering but I feel that simply keeping two separate lists would be clearer, easier to manage and without a lot of clicking during docking. I'm not really sure what you mean regarding probes I'm afraid.

No way will you see these anomalies from that far up. I doubt they're rendered at that distance, but even if they were they'd be far too small to spot. As suggested earlier try out SCANsat, here. It provides a number of terrain scanning tools that have different resolutions and pick up different things like biome maps and anomalies. There is even a specific scanner for identifying the name of the anomaly from the game data (if you get close enough). It's a WIP but has given me no issues. Having them provide bonus science is problematic though. Once you know where they are it becomes easy to get these bouses each game, which unbalances the game economy, or (if their discovery is required) then it makes it difficult for new players to find these miniscule structures. If something such as the scanner became stock this might get around one issue, and perhaps random anomaly placement could get around the other.

Thanks. I've been pondering it for a while, and I love writing so it was hardly a chore! I guess I can't expect to please everyone (I was hoping to tho ;D). I suppose there could be differences retained between staging and action groups. From a purely logical point of view it seems to me simpler and more streamlined to give both types access to the same options but, sure, I doubt all those options are really needed in both.

This is an interesting take on fuel management. Most suggestions revolve around menus to control balancing but this adds in a dimension where you have to engineer your craft correctly. A note on the push-pipes, isn't this exactly how the pipes already work? Fuel flows from the source into the target. How about a tweakable pipe, that can also be changed using actions, one that can be set to "stop", "push", "pull", or "balance", allowing greater control during flight?