Atoning Unifex

Here's a number of suggestions for improving staging and action groups. Some of them have been suggested before but here they are grouped into a, hopefully, more comprehensive, overall system. Not all have to be added together but they seem to work well together IMO. Harmonise action groups and staging Action groups and staging are very similar. I can actually perform a launch using just action groups, without hitting the space bar to stage once. In addition in action groups I can perform additional tasks, such as opening solar panels and locking gimbals etc, which I cannot do in staging. What I am suggesting is that the two are harmonised so that any action can be performed in either staging or action groups. This gives greater flexibility in staging, possibly reducing the need for some action groups, hence freeing them for other uses. I'd also hope that having them harmonised would be easier and more efficient coding wise (but I'm no dev!) Merge/Append staging modes When building craft currently the game decides where best to place new items in the staging list, not always in the most appropriate place. This is particularly apparent when adding a sub-assembly with several stages - these stages are merged in with existing ones possibly creating a mess that needs rearranging. My suggestion here is that there be two modes for staging: Merging, which performs as it does now, by merging like nodes together (or by adding new parts where it thinks best) Appending (or stacking), which adds each new part as a new stage at the bottom of the stack, and which stacks stages from sub-assemblies at the bottom of the current list. This could be simply controlled by shift clicking when adding a new part, for example. In addition this could be useful when docking two craft, instead of merging the staging lists (as is done currently) giving an option to stack them instead may produce a cleaner list. Craft specific stage, and action group, lists Ok so I guess this already exists really but I'm thinking of making it more controlled. Each craft can have a root icon from which that craft's staging list, and action groups, 'hangs' (and can be expanded or collapsed for tidiness). As just noted above, when docking craft, merged staging creates a mess. Using this method when two (or more) craft are docked there would then be a root icon for each craft, keeping each set of stages and action groups entirely segregated, so it is simple to see what is what. A specific craft can be 'active' meaning that staging list is the one that triggers on space bar. Undocking will produce no nasty surprises or rearranged lists. For permanently docked vessels (when building stations), there could be an option to merge (or stack) the two lists into a single node. There could possibly be additional options to split lists into two nodes for breaking up stations, or creating stage groups based on mission part (such as launch, transfer, landing etc). As each node also has its own set of action groups this could overcome the issues that others have that there are currently not enough. That's about it. There are many minor additions, such as editing and viewing action groups in flight, additional actions, etc but these have been suggested many times and I won't add to them! Let me know what you think.

Sounds like a pretty reasonable idea. That brown noise sounds like it would work pretty well in vaccuum, quiet enough to not be a pain but still audible to avoid having to listen to silence!

This game is very loud when compared to most others I play. I usually keep volume levels roughly the same for every other game but this one I have to always have it set to almost zero. There's something about the sound of the rockets that, whilst great for a little while, soon ends up sounding like low frequency static - especially on a long burn - which almost feels like it's giving me a headache.

On planets how about the ability to build like a 'snowman' out of the local materials, or draw a funny face in surface, or a little dance they can do, or something equally stupid, pointless and fun!

I'd certainly like to be able to have greater control over the various action, such as by adding them into staging etc. Timers, maybe. There's a mod that provides this functionality but I don't really find much of a use for it. Check it out: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/64227-0-23-22-Jan-Smart-Parts-V0-3-NEW-Fuel-Valve-and-Detail-Improvements

I know I've had this conversation with you before on another thread, but you seem to have forgotten. What you are suggesting is that squad implements everything so that people can play how they want. This means random solar systems, FLT, colonies, black holes, resources & mining, orbital construction, alien life... need I go on? The problem with doing this is that it all takes time and money. Do we want to wait another 3 years for the game to be completed because squad are trying to create a totally open ended game which caters for every possible player, running the risk of going broke in the process? I'd hope your answer is no! We have to accept that the final game will probably not meet all of our ideals and that we will have to rely on mods to fill in the gaps we see as being the most important.

I disagree with your disagreement! When I first started playing I had no idea how to get into orbit, or basically even close, until I was introduced to Kerbal Engineer, and was able to see how various configurations changed dV. Suddenly I was able to see how simply adding more boosters didn't always help, and the great advantages of asparagus staging (I hate that term!). On the other hand though, if they don't want to add a dV calculator to the game then I'm happy to simply use a mod!

This. The game is Squad's. Whilst it's nice that they listen to us players it is essentially their game and they can make it how they want. If they had released as a finished game, rather than alpha, then none of this would even have come up.

So many times I've come across a situation where I want to change a single part, maybe an engine, or fuel tank, but it is buried so 'deep' in the staging or under radially mounted items that it's a real chore to dismantle and rebuild, just for that single piece. I think it would be great if there was some kind of replacement function so I could simply select the old and new parts and switch them without any hassle. Ideally I'd like to be able to switch any part with any other, however this might be tricky in terms of automatic placement so instead maybe limiting the replacement function so that you can only replace parts with like parts (engines for engines) or maybe by diameter. In the same vein maybe also having an insert or delete function allowing parts to be slot in or removed?

I certainly would love to try out different solar systems, however I'm not overly keen on FTL/Wormhole suggestions. How about having just a single accessible system for any one game but have multiple systems available for selection at game start? Starting with Kerbin you could 'unlock' the next system by a specific research node, or by launching a mission with specific criteria, and so on for subequent systems. There would not need to be any kind of long distance travel. The next system you would start as a new career mode, the specifics of which could be landing a colony ship, or simply having a base already built - I dunno. It's based upon the SABRE engine currently in development in the UK, read about it here

You misread what I said, I meant a docking node, the one that allows you to attach up to 6 docking ports to form the basis of a station. There's a 1.25m one in the stock game only. Here's a shot of my lathe station using the 2.5m one I created from rescaling the stock one. I much prefer this size as the science lab, hitchiker module, cupola, etc are all 2.5m and having to use 1.25m nodes just adds wobble

Yes these all seem like decent ideas to me, although I personally don't use much xenon! I'd also like to see a 2.5m verion of the docking node in the stock game. I've modded in one myself and I use it all the time. My stations are all 2.5m based now.

I've often felt like a bit of a cheat simply setting the debris slider to zero as I guess I should be responsible for my debris, I still do set it to 0 though! This mechanic might be something interesting to try out perhaps, especially if it removed the slider 'cheat', forcing me to deal with debris. On the other hand orbits will never decay, hence some parts will never re-enter the atmo. Parts that do enter the atmo will always impact, until heat effects are in play. What about debris scattered on other planets too? Also I wouldn't want to have to spend time 'fiddling about' trying to get rid of debris.

I've said before in other threads that there is a lot of similarity between staging and action groups - you can perform everything you can in staging from an action group, for example. Rather than treating them as two separate entities I think they should be looked at in a more unified way. For example, why not allow any action to be performed in staging, like extending/retracting panels, locking/unlocking gimbals, raising/lowering gear, lights, etc. You could effectively stage all the time sensitive actions you have with other staging, to free up action groups. Naturally action groups themselves should remain for other uses. katateochi's suggestion of multiple sets of action groups might be useful. I made another suggestion about breaking up staging lists into groups - to separate mission parts (launch, return etc), and also providing a mechanism for keeping staging of docked craft separate. These stage groups could each have their own action group set. The UI would need updating to easily display all this info though, maybe having icons that display the actions when moused over.

I must admit I've had problems with rovers too (on the mun - not bothered going to others with rovers). It appears that only with a very long base can you get real stability. I've also found that using the docking mode combined with SAS (you obviously need a reasonable torque on the vehicle) can keep the rover pretty stable but still turning and breaking can be tricky at speeds. I do agree that there does appear to be a distinct lack of any friction on the wheels, which causes the vehicle to race off on even gentle slopes. 'Proper' friction to me would cause a gradual deceleration.

I used to always have lots of problems with wobbly stations, until the 2.5m Clamp-o-tron Sr came along. I immediately created a 2.5m version of the docking node (simply by adding a rescale factor of 2) and now use this and the clamp-o-tron sr as the basis for all my station parts. The whole structure is much sturdier than it's 1.25m counterparts. I'd recommend the inclusion of a 2.5m docking node as stock.

How about Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager? I've literally just found it myself. It's a true management style game with none of the actual flying involved in KSP. It's still early access but the let's play I just watched seems pretty good. I might consider it myself

I think what you need to remember is that KSP is primarily a space rocket simulation, not a resource basted strategy, hence the direction the devs are going in is in line with keeping the simulation side as the main focus. What you are talking about is moving KSP into a more strategy focus, almost like a 4x game but without any enemies. Whilst I think that having resource mining for cash might be fun, I really think that the devs should focus on the expansion of the simulation and leave the addition of resources (at the levels you are talking about) to modders so people can grab it if they want. I think the contracts missions to certain locations could fill the resource gap quite well. It could be described as a prospecting mission. You build a scanning probe to locate a rough landing area from orbit then land in that area with a core sampling tool to confirm resource presence, return of the core may or may not be needed. The successful completion of the mission provides you with cash. As resources are generally underground you don't even need any surface graphics to show it. As for orbital construction, that I'm not really keen on for the same reason that was given previousy - it would make getting around the planets very easy and the gameplay would become very boring very quickly. I do certainly think that we should be able to use local materials to create simple habitats on planet surfaces though, for me that would be fun to try out. And as for your continual argument that players don't have to do things if they don't want to. That may be entirely true, however the devs still need to add it in the first place, which takes time and money, and ultimately means that other things might not make it into the game. I would much prefer them to spend their time doing things in line with the pure simulation rather than going off on too many tangents

An inventory does make some sense. If we assume that recovery of a craft returns, say, 80% or less of the original cost (because they are used) then it would make sense to keep those parts and use them again, to save money. On the other hand re-using items would then necessitate the introduction of some kind of wear and tear, otherwise parts could be used indefinitely. There also remains the issues noted above relating to recovery of boosters. The simplest solution might be as Capt Snuggler says, to predict safe touch down, another solution could be dedicated 'recovery' parts that are basically chutes but guarantee the recovery of parts when they leave physics range, without the need for predicting a touchdown.

Hmm staggering parachutes can be done by just having groups of chutes in different stages and also using tweakables to determine when they deploy fully. You can also perform coasting by leaving the decoupler in a stage on it's own - it won't activate any engines so you will coast until your activate the following stage. The other suggestions seem reasonable, although personally I'd probably only go for the brake key (well maybe aesthetics too ;D) Ok, well if there are other uses for delays in action groups then I'm all for adding functionality. In fact I'd love to see actions added into stages too!

Well it's not a bad idea but it's for a very specific purpose. Other than parachutes are there any reasons you could see for having a delayed action? I'm not sure I can. Perhaps instead it would be better to add the delay into parachutes specifically, and have a tweakable that allows changing the deployment delay. This way the changes should hopefully be simpler but still provide the same benefit.

Maybe they should add 'Changes to What not to suggest' to the What not to suggest list...

And another unconstructive comment from jewnting. Personally it seems like a reasonable idea. I think, however, we're all going to have to simply wait and see what actually happens with currency. I expect that the devs already have a pretty good idea of what they are going to do with it and suggestions now are simply too late to make a difference (not that it's not good to talk about though!)

My solution to this is to simply have a large battery capacity so that it's possible to drive for a decent amount of time before needing to recharge. At this point just stop and open the panels.

I almost did the same to be honest, however once past the first paragraph the ranting stopped and ideas sterted flowing, even if in a somewhat haphazard way! I would also disagree that this boils down to your 'making things harder' statement. It's just suggestions to improve the science system, which a lot of people agree needs improving. Some of the ideas may make it harder for new players, but others could make it easier. I'd suggest that before you dismiss someone's suggestions so bluntly it would be common courtesy to actually read them first.