Tw1

I agree. I'd like it to be a lot more of a space exploration experience. I've played orbiter, but that's just flight. KSP lets you get out of your ship and on EVA, and you can build rovers and stuff. But currently, the experience of actually exploring the planets is underdeveloped. The other thing I'd like from it is a simulated experience of running a space program. It's showing signs it might move away from this a bit, but now it's still mostly about you running missions for points. I'd like to see more reasons to set up and maintain bases and stations, like needing them as destinations for tourists, or to run run long term research contracts for money and science. This aversion to game mechanics that take time so far has hindered the game's ability to move into something like this. I would like to see procedurally generated points of interest, similar to what was suggested here,. This is true, it would not be for everyone. If you just want to fly and crash, stopping and measuring the atmosphere is going to be a chore. But for others, that's why they want to go to the planets in the first place, to explore and discover. The trick is to balance it so both ways of playing the game work. One thing to consider- a more flight focused player will probably be more likely to do more short missions in the same time an exploration focused player will do a few through ones, making it possible to earn the same amount of science in the same play time, by investing your effort differently. Another thought would be to make the science point gain quite low, and making it more about the fun of finding things than earning points. Not sure about needing to play around with buttons to get a result, could be fun, could get tedious if you need to do it often, and what you're doing doesn't seem meaningful. I agree with razark, it shouldn't be vastly different than what we can do already in the flight scene. At most, data should come up in pop-up windows, like scansat or graphotron does. This needs to expand upon what we can do while flying our ships, and driving our rovers. Idk, about needing that specific set of data, but it does make sense to study atmospheres to improve your space-grade wings. Perhaps the idea of splitting science into several fields could do something similar. I generally agree with almost all of these- though not sure another type of fuel is needed. I also aren't convinced scaling up the planets is necessary, either.

Not sure it's a good idea for these ones to be time sensitive. One of the good things about this idea is it brings back the player's ability to chose whatever they want to do first. Once you've got the funds, you could go straight to Dres, rather than Duna, etc. Adding a time expectation limits this. This does make sense. I do think there should be some money from them though, simply because these missions are costly, after all. Tabs? Drop down menu doesn't sound too bad. The different types of contract could be shown in more tabs below the "available, active, archive' buttons, but that would get cluttered. Plus, drop down menus can be expanded (and have things removed) without mucking up the whole thing. I think milestones ought to be in a separate mission control tab, like the tech tree and science archive are in R&D.

It does sound like a good idea to me too. It's a step towards more freedom in career mode. Squad, you guys need to come take a look at this. Would be milestones still have a monetary reward? It could be argued that the current system does show how space programs IRL can't just do whatever they like, but need to wait until there's interest, but that's no fun IRL either. An alternate idea to represent this with the system you propose would be to need you 'propose' (select) attempting one of the planetary milestones before you go, and the amount you're offered to do it with varies. Every milestone would still be available, until it has been ticked off. It's more authentic, it doesn't really make sense someone just giving you money after you've landed on something, but IDK, this could start getting limiting again. I do agree milestones and contracts ought to be separate. The contract selection system is much better for 'commercial' type activities, like launching satellites, tourism, requested tests/data, etc. Even the requests for base and station construction sort of make sense, despite getting in the way of you making your own plans. Same with rescue contracts, even if that kerbals already have a lot of established space programs, robbing you of that pioneering feel, IMHO. The ability to sort, and see the variety would be awesome. I still would like time based budget mode, and motivators to go to planets apart from 'because i was payed too' post milestone completion, and tech tree, but that's something for another thread.

And this is why I argue against having a set story in game. While I do agree with the characterisation in game, (Bob's frequent fear makes me think the only reason he'd want to risk rocket flight is because of a thirst for knowledge. Bill seems calmer, and has more idea what's going on. it makes it possible for an interpretation to come across as 'wrong' when presented to someone else. I do think the level of detail we've got now, with the defined roles is about right though. This also could be another argument in favour of roles using a separate variable in the persistent file. Now I'm imagining a Jeb who's an explosion loving mad scientist.... But, what I came here to say, was this is a very nice bit of writing. Welcome to the kerbal forums, bigcalm.

I do think procedurally generated items of interest would be awesome. But the OP makes a good point in the last thread- even at the anomalies, there isn't much to do- you're like a tourist with a camera. (Though, we can also jump around on them, and we don't have cameras. (IMHO, a camera which you could use while on a planet to document landforms, ground scatters, and other things of interest, a la Extrasolar would be awesome. Rather than just more static objects, to truly bring KSP's planets to life, we need some ground exploration game mechanics. The camera idea I wrote about above is one, what I posed here is another. Without it, the procedurally generated places will still mostly be eye candy. If done well, the ability to actually investigate the planets could be a reward in an of itself. You put all the effort into building, then flying, and then get to actually get to make some discoveries. We've already got rovers. It would be great to have more things to do with them.

That is what put me off going back to RSS. I like rovering, and exploring, but kept having trouble.

I stand corrected.

Saves may corrupt, they may get bogged up full of errors, but they can be a lot tougher than people think. Only if they need to change stuff in the format, do old saves become unusable. Plus, even when something does change, converters can be made. I still have an old save going. Sometimes things break, but so far it has been possible to make things work again.

I think you missed something. Look again at the stats you posted earlier: If you look at it this way, the LV-N is loosely a 1/10 NERVA by stats, apart from the thrust, and the sea level ISP. This ignores the square-cube law that would happen if you were to scale something down, really. But a lot of things in KSP are super dense...

I'm only seeing one actual stage though. It's more of a plane with an ejectable cockpit. Wouldn't a truely multistage plane have a few sets of wings, tanks and engines?

We did what we had to do. For sceince. Serious sceince. Experiments are not to taken lightly, Or there will be accidents. But in, the end, it will be worth it. Also, suscessful demonstration of helmet abort mode: I think this kerbal is worried about something. Perhaps he doesn't like the look of me.

Things to keep in mind making a lander: *Try to keep them sort of compact and roundish. The more spread out things on a spaceship are, the harder that spaceship is to turn.It's also good to make sure your lander has enough SAS and/or RCS able to rotate at a reasonable speed. That said, sometimes you'll need to prioritise this second point: -Give the lander a wide base, and a low centre of mass. This makes it harder for it to fall over upon landing. Consideration of how heavy each part is, how the fuel's going to drain, and where the legs are going to go can be important here. Use the COM indicator to make sure. -Double check your extended legs will stick out a fair but further than anything else. Avoid accidents. However, it is possible to land on parts other than landing legs, if you're careful. -Use lights. Very useful for dark landings, even in light ones, where you can get some idea of height from your shadow, it still can help. -Make sure your hatch is clear, you ladder reaches the ground, and you kerbal can successfully navigate the ladder. If you're using career or science mode, it can be useful to keep your experiments and instruments somewhere where a kerbal can reach them. -Cover all the basics. Make sure you've got enough fuel, thrust, power, etc. When it comes to landing, this video describes a good technique: Remember: Falling too fast: turn your vessel more vertical. Not slowing down enough: turn the vessel more horizontal.

Also, avoid moving it afterwards. In the persistant file, vessels record the save path for the flag they have, so if you move it somewhere, that vessel won't be able to find its flag. Though it is possible to file edit to change a vessel's (a part's really, flags are saved to individiual parts) flag.

I'm not surprised. A few lightly inwards facing separatrons can shread your core stage, if you use them to separate large boosters.

Tis an excellent response good sir. Something I've noticed lately- people need to be careful, and think about what the other person really meant before posting. This is not so much about what's going on in this thread, just the forum in general. Indeed. We must never become this. Even though I very much disagree with some choices they have made, and will offer my critique, they're still making a very awesome game. Also, let's keep making great stuff in the fanworks section to offset the bad stuff. I remember it well. For me, that sort of petered out when the grindy-pointscorey nature of career mode became apparent.(I still don't really like that, and think it's a good scapegoat to blame the change in the forum character on.) (Still holding out for budget mode, and some proper surface exploration). Firing up a new version is always exciting, but the way releases are so super hyped now just sets things up for disappointment.

This isn't a bug.

Unfortunately, quickloading overwrites the latest autosave. Quicksave and autosave are different. Quickload takes you back to the last quicksave. Alt-F9 can load an autosave though.

It kinda is. That's kinda the thing that makes it stand out from so many other games about space travel. Not 100% realistic, but close enough that we get a feel for what real space travel is sort of like. It is a good thing the physicsless parts have mass now. Bit of a hindrance for glitch exploit vessels, but worth it.

Sounds alright, but a reset button might be nice, just incase you accidentally cleared something that might have been useful. Or an ignored catagory you can check. I'm impressed it picks up on things like that, haven't used any docking ports for a while. I suppose we might see the end of people putting their docking ports on backwards. I'm perfectly fine with it making suggestions, which I latter ignore. It doesn't know what I'm doing, but it's doing it's best to help.

Sounds to me, like Pol has just become the latest trend in your Kerbal society. Maybe an astronomer published an article about it in Kerbin science monthly. Maybe a wealthy, crafty kerbal has a lot of relatives they'd like to be rid of for a while, and put an ad about Pol in their favorite newspaper. If you've got the stuff, you could always just oblige them, you know, you don't have to visit the planets in any set order. But, it's your game. If you've got plans, and don't want to go to Pol, you don't have to.

I generally use variations of Tw1, Changing capitalisation, adding more '1's, etc, in places of the internet I'm not accessing using my Facebook or Google acound. Probably the places I go most would be DeviantArt, Imgur, YouTube, and various webcomic coment sections. I also visit news sites (many of them satirical), science news sites, and occasionally various popular and not so popular blogs.

Alternately, they could put a symbol on the back of the helmet. Rather than doing it as part of the texture, it could be a separate decal, similar to how flags are added to ship parts and the EVA jetpack. Plus, this would be better for those who are colour blind. We do see a number of forumers report having trouble whenever a feature uses a colour change to mark something important.

I like it, it's a useful reminder to empty unused reasorces, and the blocked hatch warning saves a lot of testing.

Here in Australia, we don't have 'prom', but something sort similar would be school formals. These vary from school to school. I don't really know how a prom functions but this was how it worked for me. At my highschool, there were three separate formals: One at the end of year 10, and two in year 12. The year 10 one marked the completion of the school certificate, a test which has since been abolished. Basically, the school hired out a local country club for the evening, and everyone in the year group (and some teachers) dressed up formally, had some fancy food, and did some dancing. The dancing was very informal. It was quite a good night. Highlight was probably few students arrived in a helicopter. Of the year 12 formals, first was the valedictory dinner it was at the very fancy Rosehill Racecourse. Teachers, students and parents attended, there were speeches and stories about that cohort's time at the school, and some dancing. I attended the afterparty at a student's house after, where we had a bonfire, alcohol, a rave-style dance party in the basement. The second one was entirely organised by the students. It was a tradition, but officially, the school has nothing to do with it. This one was quite different- people brought dates from outside the school, there was alcohol, etc. We rented out the Star Room above the Darling Harbour Imax. Also, me and a friend definitely hired the TARDIS to arrive in. I have photo evidence to prove it. This definitelly wasn't photoshop, and I definitely didn't just take the train in, even though if you think about it, a train is longer than the longest limo, and therefore also cool. Any 'need' to have a date wasn't really a factor. I went on my own each time, so did many of my friends. There was a tiny amount of pressure to dress up well, and you'd have a moment of coolness if you were organised enough to hire a limo, but pressure to have a date wasn't a thing.