GluttonyReaper

Yep, so many emotions that day. First, happiness. Then despair. So much despair. But then happiness again. So it all worked out.

Well, it wasn't like this a few hours ago. And "The Lounge" in Community has been changed to "General Discussion". Interesting.

Well, has anyone noticed something ... different about the main KSP forum page?

First interplanetary landing was on Eve back in 18.4. Simplest probe you could imagine, Mk16 parachute and OKTO, with a few static solar panels and light science instruments (no heatshields necessary back then). Took no less than 4 nuke engines and a poodle to get it there. As I later discovered, it was more than capable of landing on *any* atmospheric body in the solar system, including Jool, actually.

Yeah, I've noticed this too. Not quite sure what the limit is (four? five?) but having one too many does seem to log me out of another pretty much immediately.

Yeah, the main issue is that almost all parts in stock are effectively always useful, with each part filling a (sometimes small) niche. While I definitely see the argument for mods, it seems odd to develop this kind of filter for a stock game.

Oooooor it means we can launch even bigger ships to try and break that 20 minute mark!

Don't really know how I feel about this, especially for players like me who only have time to play once a month or so, it might not be great to have to plan everything out in advance in real life just to make sure you don't miss your ship's next SOI change. Of course, if it's a togglable option, that's not really an issue. Also, I think having 1:1 scaling is a little bit pointless. Missions within Kerbin's SOI do fit quite nicely (although I can see the 6-hour Mun transfer causing issues with sleep ), taking days rather than weeks. But beyond that, it seems like you would never really even notice it. Even an Eve transfer takes months to complete, which seems far beyond fun - I'm not sure I would even remember much about the mission after that long. It might be noticeable somewhere like Jool, where there's some relatively short transfer times, but otherwise I can't see it affecting much. Even if you do scale it up so that interplanetary transfers take days rather than months, that basically removes the ability to use this within SOIs, with a Mun transfer taking just minutes, which probably isn't the effect you were going for. Still, an interesting idea.

Axis-specific rotation would be really nice, especially for some of the more interesting designs, trailers and such. I personally would like to see a part that behaves like the klaw with free rotation, but attachable on both ends, so we could create some more predictable designs, without having to launch several craft and join them together in a way that's only roughly right. In terms of size, I'm not sure smaller would be that useful... although it's physically quite large, the klaw is actually quite low mass.

Haha, yeah, there's something I find really fun about coming back to a save after a nice, long break. Last time I did that in 0.90, I ended up mounting a rescue mission for a long-forgotten failed Jool-5 mission. Good times.

I'm sure something went under the bridge at some point...

I'm not sure ... unlike lights and stuff, they're kinda useless on their own. Having lights in the lights action group is fairly harmless, but having a solid rocket that's unlikely to be beneficial without additional input could be unnecessarily dangerous.

And people wonder why I prefer stairs.

For me, it totally depends on how good the procedural generation actually is. If they can finally "hide the grid", then I'm sold.

Yeah, because versions before 0.7.3 were never public, they might not even exist anymore. :/

"...yeah, there's no barge here."

Nice bit of music while we wait

Looks like we won't know for a little bit

SLS gets scrapped, all money goes to developing Untitled Space Craft.

My main gripe with this in general is that "existing" is something which is frustrating difficult to define. It's never been particularly clear whether this is just a human invention or an intrinsic property of ... things. Like, I feel it's not a stretch to say that even if everything and everyone is figment of a person's imagination, these things still "exist", in that the idea of them, at least, still exists enough for us to think about and visualize them. But then you could just as easily say that none of these things exist at all - the idea of something existing in our minds is vastly different from an object absolutely existing. I don't know, I guess my main issue is that I don't feel being aware of my own thoughts gives me any more reason to absolutely exist than anything else, seeing as things like consciousness are so difficult to pin down - trying to prove anything exists in more than a relative sense seems somewhat futile to me, and little more than a human way of processing things. I don't really know, I get very confused thinking about these things.

I wish. As humans, I personally think we naturally group things together - e.g. these planks of wood make a bookshelf, these cloth fibers make clothes, etc. Arguably, regarding anything as an individual entity is something of a failing in the way our brains work, in the sense that it might not really reflect reality. Why can't we be a collection of parts which just happen to work perfectly in sync almost all the time?

Parachutes, as has been mentioned, don't really allow for a precision landing. (That said, there was apparently a proposal for the Saturn V first stage to be parachuted down and grabbed out the air by a helicopter .... but that's another story.) I'm pretty sure I recall it being mentioned that, on a rocket this big, it's actually lighter to carry the extra fuel and guidance systems for a powered landing than slapping a bunch of parachutes on it.

I was initially concerned too ... until I tried doing the exact same thing on my PC. Turns out I get almost exactly the same performance. I'm still worried about the reception of the console audience, though, I might not mind half real-time speed on a 70 part ship at launch, but I suspect console gamers who are used to getting a consistent 25-30 fps at all costs might be less pleased.

I personally always felt the system was self-regulating. really - landing more than few times on the same body can be really tedious, so I assume people who get bored of that really quickly would just find another body to land on. The other option is making the science farming more interesting in itself - putting a refueling station in orbit and reusing the same lander is arguably more interesting than several missions direct from Kerbin. Either way, KSP has always been about making your own fun, rather than the game providing it for you. That said, I think it would be better to totally revamp the science system in general, rather than introducing more limitations on the current system - the way proposed in the OP, at least IMO, just makes one aspect of the game even less fun than it already is, to effectively make other aspects appear more fun, which I don't feel is something the game should rely on for encouraging progress.

Not sure why more people haven't seen this, this is a great idea.