Atoning Unifex

There are some good ideas in here, although I agree with Vexx32 that it could have been made a lot easier on the eyes with some decent formatting! I particularly like the point, local and visual concepts, and the idea for different tech tree setups allowing different playing 'modes'. Regarding lab analysis, I don't think that currently it makes sense to have a manned lab - barring the pointless transmission bonus that it produces. I think that there should be several classes of science experiment of increasing complexity. There could be probe devices and lander devices that require a certain type of command pod to be able to use, so the simple probe cores could only perform one or two basic readings, whereas the more advanced cores could perform the basic ones and intermediate ones (or maybe have it limited by number of experiments a core can perform in total?). Next there could be a class of devices that require manned capsules and, finally, a manned lab for the most complex ones (bringing meaning to the currently pointless lab). This would allow smaller craft to only perform targeted science. whereas a manned station could perform any analysis. Do away with the transmission losses, have all the data, as suggested, transmit at 100%, but also have some experiments produce some kind of physical resource (like the surface samples) that has to be returned to give the science points.

I guess so, which is why I'm not suggesting action groups should go, however I also think it would be cool to watch my payload detach from my launch vehicle and see the solar panels automatically open. It also seems a bit weird to purposely limit staging when I would assume that the mechanism behind staging and action groups is almost the same. Why not simply allow 'everything everywhere'. This gives players the greatest choice and flexibility and it doesn't feel like it would be that complicated to do.

So I was thinking about the difference between stages and action groups and I realised that, in fact, stages are basically action groups but with limited options, that can only be triggered once, sequentially. I could theoretically launch a vessel using only action groups, and be able to perform tasks not available to staging. Essentially this means that stages, the main method for sequencing the vehicle, is more limited than action groups, a secondary tool. This seems wrong, and imbalanced, to me. It would seem to make common sense to allow both methods to perform all actions, giving greater flexibility when on missions. Examples could be actions for extending solar panels when reaching orbit, lowering and raising landing gear, deactivating engines, lowering ladders, starting experiments, turning on and off lights etc.

I agree this would certainly be a nice to have. Rather than a launch pad shot, perhaps just one from the SPH/VAB to save having to render it on the launchpad. The shot could possibly be chosen by the game zoomed to get the whole craft in at a decent size. In addition it would be nice to see a sort of stat sheet for each saved craft, showing pertinent information like weight, part count, dV etc.

In regard to docking craft causing a merging of the stages, how about if staging is redesigned so that each craft retains a separate staging list, even when docked. It could be managed by having collapsible lists so that you only see the ones you want. There could then be an option to allow separate lists to be either merged (so stage 0 merges with stage 0) or stacked (so stage 0 gets added to the end of the other list and becomes stage x). This could be taken even further allowing existing lists to be split into two or more - allowing for the suggestion above of having different groupings for launch, mission and return. I rarely come across situations where I wouldn't want something in the staging list, but it wouldn't hurt to have the functionality to remove items. I also think action groups should be adjustable on the fly. In fact I would like to be able to add actions into staging so I can automatically raise landing gear or extend solar panels without having to use an action group, for example. Giving us more flexibility in how we configure our craft.

Yes, if possible this would be very useful and time saving. If I have a stack of parts in the VAB on top of my main command pod and want to swap that to under it I have to do each part at a time currently, which takes time and is needlessly fiddly. Actually, and slightly off topic, I think that sub-assemblies should allow saving of the primary command pod/probe core too. If I design a rover in SPH and then want to move it into VAB to stick on a rocket I have to currentlt either copy the file outide of the game or 'hang' the rover design off a command pod so I can save the rest in a subassembly... If that makes sense!?

I use KW rocketry and the 3.75m launch vehicles are my most efficient 'go to' vehicles. Using solely the 2.5m tanks would cause me to create some quite part intensive vehicles, plus launching my 2.5m landers and station modules would be tricky. I would certainly encourage these parts to be in game. 5m tanks I think I have rarely used because, currently, the 3.75m ones handle the largest of my payloads, but once aerodynamics have arrived they may well find a place.

Yes I agree! I have done this numerous times and it is very frustrating. Would be great to see a better save/load management system (maybe disableable for a hard-core player). In the meantime there is the multiple saves mod that may be of some use.

I think the OP suggestion isn't a bad one, however I also think that the basic aim of the suggestion is to aid new players. I believe that there are better ways of doing this than simply giving access to a few stock ships, via a more guided tutorial approach: 1) Build a specific tutorial mode, which is played (optionally) before the first 'real' game, giving a guided start, with instructions and simple goals (getting a craft off the ground, into space, into a stable orbit etc), and later on more advanced construction pointers. 2) Have a separate tutorial section (maybe in scenarios), with multiple entries, such as building your first craft, advanced staging concepts, orbital transfers etc. This would allow players more freedom over exactly what areas they feel they want to learn. Both these ideas could contain the suggested tutorial craft suggested in the OP, without having to have them encroach into career mode. My personal favourite is the second approach as it gives greater flexibility, and the individual scenarios might be fun!

I'd love to see much greater rover worthiness, however I think it would really need an overhaul of science to make it work properly. On the basis that we're talking about traversing terrain and collecting and analysing/returning multiple samples, the current science set up doesn't really work in our favour. The large biomes mean any samples collected in those biomes will be the same so you may as well collect several samples from the same spot - travel is unnecessary. Landing near biome boundaries isn't easy as they are not clearly marked and, again, samples from each biome render a large area used up. Also there is currently no sample analysis (or any scientific analysis), we go straight from looking at a thermometer or rock to a full analysis. Maybe what we need instead are a large number of micro-biomes on a planet so that when one is 'used up' there are plenty more and close by so we can easily travel to it from anywhere. There doesn't even need to be that many different types of biome, they could be clustered groups of similar types - I'm thinking like a kethane map here for those that know it! Once samples or other science data is collected then I think that there should be a next step performed to convert them into actual science. My thinking is that researching nodes in the tree could require x number of surface samples, y number of seismic readings and z temperature readings, for example to unlock. Or perhaps there could be goals to return these readings to commercial scientists that then 'reward' us with research points to use where we want.

+1, and further adding a 'control from here' tweakable to allow choosing the primary pod on a multiple pod vessel.

I totally agree that thrusters on pods is a good idea. I'm always trying to find good spots for them after all the other stuff I've tacked onto my ship! If people don't want the pod thrusters, then they can simply disable them!

These are all good ideas that I hope make it into the core game. In the meantime there is (as always) a mod to help in the meantime: Tac Fuel Balancer does most of the things suggested and, although I'm not keen on the interface, it serves a purpose.

^^ This! It would take a little work to get around the too much/too little fuel for what you are requesting - you may end up with unbalanced tanks otherwise. Maybe selecting mutiple tanks and then dragging the level on one could set it on all selected ones?

Allowing research to be so simply collected over time really removes any need for research to be in the game at all. If I can launch a simple station and then gather enough research to complete the tech tree, by simply skipping time whilst having a cup of tea, then what is the point of research? There is no challenge in gathering it. May as well simply make every part available at the beginning. On the other hand it will depend on how reputation & currency work in line with this continual generation. Maybe the cost of running such a research station will require flights to be undertaken regularly to pay for the upkeep. Maybe reputation will encourage more research generation from the station (More countries/companies wanting to do research through you) and without missions to keep reputation up the research produced will be minimal. This might be quite a nice balancing act if done correctly. On the other hand I still like the simplicity of having research supplies that are used up and need providing regularly.

Yes, the fuel management system needs looking at to enable balancing and so on. In the meantime (and I hate to do this with the We know mode exist discussion going on) there is a mod for that! The TAC Fuel Balancer allows pretty good control over all the tanks on your craft. Not perfect but serves the purpose!

This is a pretty good idea, although rather than huge chunky letters I'd probably go for coloured axes, and then have those axes transposed also onto the nav ball. This should help you learn what direction relates to what in 3d, and on the nav ball, and IMO it's easy to remember which keys to press when referring to the nav ball. The IJKL might be handy, although I only use them when docking. Maybe a similar display using coloured axes? H & N also still get me confused too! I think it gets tricky when you are docking backwards and have to try and figure out which is the right direction!

But that IS science over time!? I see the distinction though, and I do prefer this approach rather than a continual trickle for ever. It requires restocking and returning and generally makes the process more interactive.

I tend to use a numbering system with my rockets, with the numbers indicating major version changes and decimal places indicating minor changes, basically like games do. I also get a long list as I don't like to overwrite previous versions. The numbering helps easily identify craft but I would certainly love a better way of managing designs. I have two thoughts on this. First I'd like to have a way of defining a craft type (Station, lander etc) during design, instead of after launch (I've never found a way to do this anyway). This could be coupled with the saving & loading screen so you can filter by specific craft types reducing list sizes. In addition I'd like to be able to manage stock ships better, with a way to 'promote' a game specific design to stock, or to delete stock ships (with suitable warning), instead of having to copy files around.

I like this idea! It would not only prevent spamming but add an extra requirement for resupplying, making it more realistic.

I've been contemplating this suggestion for quite a few months because in all honesty I can't decide whether it's that useful or not! Basically I think that for each stage created there should be an action group associated with it, which is triggered automatically when the stage is triggered. I'm not referring to the 'stage' action group that triggers for every stage, but a numbered one that triggers when that numbered stage is. Uses for this would be things like, automatically deploying solar panels after fairings have been discarded, or after release from the launch vehicle. Activating/deactivating reaction wheels at various stages of launch. Pretty much anything that can be done using current action groups now. I think overall this would give us loads more flexibility for vehicles without having to remember specific action groups to trigger, and freeing up action groups for other uses. Anyone else think this would be handy?

Well this could easily be adapted for research as well as currency & reputation, but i see our point. Whatever the case i think stations should do something! I also considered that a certain size vessel should be classed as a station but not really sure I like that limitation. My current station has only 6 gigantor panels but lots of smaller ones, so I'd feel a bit put out if i missed out puerly because of 2 solar panels. Maybe station specific parts like docking hubs (say 1 or two only) or a specific station core part created for the task.

I've recently taken some time to build some cool space station modules, but now that they are in space they are kind of pointless, apart from looking nice. A simple suggestion to make them more useful would be to generate research points. It occurs to me that there are always ongoing experiments on the ISS so why not model our own stations on this and have a small ongoing research reward from them, maybe 1 point per kerbal per day, or something similar. A station would have to have specific parts on it to make it act as a station, maybe a lab module, or a new station specific part. This could also be extended to include money when implemented. The only issues I could see with this are that it could be used to spam research and currency if someone leaves it running at full speed for a day (this could be countered by a limit per station or per planet orbited), another issue could be that the parts needed are obtained too late in the game to make stations worthwhile.

They may have been overlooked, tweakables are brand new after all! I personally never have any of the torque/launch issues you mention but the idea is a sound one.

Sounds like a simple, useful addition. I also had a thought about resurrecting ships with missing parts. I wondered whether it would be possible to add in a dummy/generic part that the game could then simply use to replace any missing ship parts with - allowing you to then rebuild your craft withut having to start from scratch. I suspect this idea would be trickier to implement than it sounds, but it would be nice to have.