Tw1

If you click on edit planet, select duna, then change the selection to kerbin, Duna's properties will be copied to Kerbin. This will let you test that you have enough parachuters, a strong enough set of landing legs, etc, without spoiling the experience of approaching the Dunan surface from the first time. Everything else can be tested around kerbin, and what's left can be worked out by using an online delta V map.

I also quite like fanwork fridays so I'm picking that so it's at least on the board.

Ooh, I like this idea. Don't know if I want to do such a thing in this save though, it's pretty full, but maybe once I've got some missions out of the way. I probably should update this some time. Been taking a break from KSP, but this base has seen a little more development since then. Plus, it seems to have mostly survived the upgrade process, unlike some of my stations and motherships. Stay tuned (But please be very patient, I'll probably work on the next Oceans of Eve next.)

I agree, kerbal customisation would be a great thing. These factors would be easier to make customisable if the data was stored in a separate file, or even in the save, even if it is not included in the 'first' release of the game, so please take note squad. And yeah, I hope there is room for at least one more kerbal in the admin building. In my Oceans of Eve, I made KSC's legal advisor female, (Though she's only a bit character). That could be a good admin role.

I disagree that they lack gender Identifying characteristics: Examine this base model kerbal: Kebals are based on humans. Not the features of this kerbal specimen: -Squarish jaw -Blockish face silhouette -Male type hairline, -Loosely male figure (wide at shoulders, no "curves".) Plenty of secondary characteristics suggesting male gender, despite a lack of primary characteristics. Yes, there have been so many good drawings and photoshops of how a female kerbal should look, which have been going around for some time. I will be disappointed if squad's model isn't up to scratch.

It managed to be sad, and scary, and awesome all at the same time. I was not prepared for the impact of the time dilation subplot. I liked it, and wandered the shops for an hour afterwards processing. IMHO, probably the best movie I saw last year. Yes, there is the whole thing of it being such an inefficient way of getting someone in and out of a black hole. But then, who'd willingly go near, let alone into one of those? Plus, we don't know what limitations the dimension manipulating future civilisation was working with. It was a bit of a bizarre situation when they left the second planet- how did they end up on such a course that would take them so quickly next to the black hole? Why was jettisoning the pod that Cooper was in the best choice? (Though I do think the thought of never seeing his kids again may have been wanting to just end it all) Wouldn't a planet as close to a black hole be destroyed by tidal forces? Some bits aren't so bad though, I assume they hibernated again when travelling between Gargantua's planets, but don't get why you wouldn't wake up to get a look at mars. I also question if the centrifuge part of the ship was wide enough. The higher dimensions thing I am happy to take as unknown future science and won't pick at. Where they got it right, it was so awesome. The real looking wormhole and blackhole, where sights to behold. Same with most of the other special effects. I liked the way they treated finding habitable planets, showing how unlikely it is to find something that perfectly matches Earth. I would have liked him to spend more time with Murph after he got back though. I liked the characters, I thought they were written and acted will. The robots where an interesting design, surprisingly versatile, and seem like the sort of AI people would realistically create to serve them. I loved it. It's not the sort of movie I'd watch soon though, maybe in a few years. I did enjoy, in a perverse kind of way, hearing the teenagers a few seats down say to each other "Did you follow any of that?" When I easily followed every last bit. It felt like +5 space geek cred.

I think a lot of the damage has been done, but agree. The current set up is too cumbersome and hard to customise. I have at least one Kerbal who I'd like to give a composite/custom class, but doing so under the current system would mess up the rest of the roster, and I'd probably have to change the kerbal's identity. I am no programmer, but the game does generate identical entries for Jeb, Bill, and Bob each time a new persistence file is made, so it should be possible to do the same, but with role and gender lines included. the current role deciding algorithms could be used during the save conversion process, I'm not 100% sure about this. In languages I'm familiar with, that tends to be to do with the end of the name, but there are also names that are ambiguous. Maybe the list could be sorted into male, female, and neutral suffixes. But as long as a Kerbal can be edited what ever their name is, I think it will be alright.

IDK, they haven't talked about it so far. A few tweeks will make little difference when the system itself is flawed. We've got good gameplay happening for the construction and flying parts of space travel, but very little that makes staying on the surface worth spending more than a few minutes. Any spot on another planet would be a treasure trove of valuable data with the right equipment. And orbiting and surface bases could be the sites of a lot of valuable research.

I'm suggesting Squad should use a line in the persistent file, or a separate CFG to set a kerbal's gender. This would give players who want to go that far a lot more control. Some players are have favourite Kerbals, others have stories or videos they're working on. It would be a bit of a bother if a Kerbal who they've long though of as girl or guy ends up with the incorrect model, with no simple way to change this.

Something like this, where each thing actually takes some involvement could radically overhaul the game, and improve it an awful lot. Especially if you get images of graphs and things as you go. But it would have to be easy to do multiple times, and be meaningful. Maybe mini games is not the best approach. I have long wanted to be able to pick up samples and watch the composition change, as I gradually rove over the surface of the Mun, or Duna. Science should need a base, or at least an elaborate rover for you to make the most of it. I still see two flaws- science becomes pointless once you've unlocked the tech tree, when a lot of the reason we go to space is to do science. There's also the finiteness of science, once all the biomes have been visited once, it's over. To improve on this game, I'd like to propose one key new gameplay element- 'research' which is a measure of on going level of science activity, and too smaller ones- long term experiment contracts, and building up detailed pictures of each planet's environment. More detail is in my blog, and also quoted below for convenience: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/entries/1767-Science-is-pretty-shallow-Could-it-be-shaken-up-a-bit#comments Doing science could be modified, made into three (or more like two) subsystems, to make this critical part of the space exploration experience a lot more engaging, and rewarding. Solar System Knowledge- Science where you collect Data to slowly build up an accurate picture of each planet, maps, atmosphere, mineralogy, etc, and the solar system, magnetic fields, radiation, solar wind, etc, which then could be accessed in the Editor to inform designs. Data is collected much like "Science" is now, through transmitting, and returning. It would be shown in the vessel recovery dialogue box in a similar way. Research Levels, where you deploy probes, stations, bases, etc, to do on going experiments. This would be a point scoring system, but rather than a tally, these would be levels which rise and fall. Getting, and then keeping Research Levels high would be a boost to Reputation, (and through that, a boost to your budget, and available contracts). These Levels would be dependant on how much your space program is currently contributing to science through on going experiments, on going monitoring (think solar wind measuring satellites, etc,), as well as the more instantaneous Data collection. Ongoing Experiments would be done in a science lab. These would not go forever- some would have limited lives, or need resupplying. Different ones would be available, and cost money to run. The cost would offset one advantage- the penalty for having multiple experiments in the one place would be less steep, letting you build big research complexes. It is possible having certain science parts on your ship would be required to do some experiments though. Monitoring equipment would be cameras, magnetometers, the thermometer, that sort of thing. These could break down, or need to be upgraded (technically, this would just be a replacement-upgrade would be the in-game reason for why the equipment is no longer contributing as much research) Having multiple monitoring systems on the same ship generally, would not be useful. To get more research happening, they should be in different biomes/orbits. Research will be higher when you first arrive at a new planet, and fall with time, but never become insignificant. Monitoring would happen in the background, all the player needs to is activate them, land them, or put them on the right trajectory, leave them. The parts used for the scientific Monitoring and Data collection would overlap where logical. Research Levels could be subdivided into different types- Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc, as well as the solar system Knowledge. However, unlike the others, the Knowledge one wouldn't rise and fall, only rise-providing a permanent boost. Getting these to their full levels should be hard. Admin building strategies could be used to boost them. Lastly- Experiment Contracts- Much the same as we have now, but also including contracts for experiments that aren't possible under the other systems. E.g- transmitting a radio signal while on the other side of the Sun to Kerbin to test Albert kermanstine's theory of relativity- Where appropriate, the results from these would contribute to Knowledge, and temporarily boost the appropriate Research Level. How would the tech tree fit into this? The current science point thing works fine for unlocking that tree. It could stay the same, but the points renamed "Tech Points" or something like that. They'd only be shown in relevant places. What about asteroids? Contribute to knowledge until you've found all types. Grabbing and capture could give boosts to Research Level. Something that might be useful for a contract. TL,DR version: I'd break science into three things, Knowledge- building up a picture of the solar system. Research- Ongoing testing and monitoring. Experiment contracts- for other, special experiments. Giving you something to complete, something to ongoingly work on, and tasks you can follow. That would offer a much greater experience than the current, superficial system. Tech points would be earnt as a separate thing, similar to Science points now. After all, a fun experience is all a computer game can offer. *It is true this is rectified to an extent by contracts, but they still don't offer much of a science experience, plus there's the odd discrepancy of being asked for data that is apparently not valuable...

Yes. I too have been thinking along these lines, and would like this an awful lot.

Yeah, I've never really liked those. Haven't playe minecraft, so don't really know that one's end, but other games with free play after story, like zelda, leave you with a bit of a "know what" feeling. I think there can be more value for money in open ended games, where you can always come back. Something to mark the end of the 'unlocking stuff' part of career could be cool, as long as there's enough continuous gameplay stuff that it doesn't really feel like the end. Like how mariokart gives you credits and a song after you've played through everything.

I hope not. Space exploration should have no end.

Meh, it's something they're doing to generate more hype.

I would like such a thing. It's the player's responsibility to make sure they're not going to go of a cliff or something.

There should be no ending. Career mode would be better if there were more "sustain it" type gameplay, rather than mostly "unlock it" type.

Craft files have been having no trouble, so that's plan B, if it can't be fixed.

That's alright, hope you're feeling better. I seem to have ironed out most of the crashes, leaving only problems that seem unrelated to the fuel line fix, mostly craft with structural panels going missing/exploding, and sometimes not being able to move the camera or enter buildings when the save loads. I may have to just cut my losses, and replace/rebuild vessels with problems where I can. Here is the 0.25 version: https://www.dropbox.com/s/f2bksidh63jblfa/persistent%20-%20Copy%20%2825%29.sfs?dl=0 Here is that after being opened in 0.90: https://www.dropbox.com/s/4eh9yhk79aquy0q/persistent%20-%20Copy%2890%29.sfs?dl=0 Also, here is an output log where I visited several ships and stations to get data on the main problem of ships exploding, which seems to happen whether or not I run the conversion. https://www.dropbox.com/s/fvvxnfzo20feqqj/output_log%287%29.txt?dl=0

I also test with hyperedit, but only to check how something will handle gravity and/or air density. I use kerbal engineer stats for everything else. I use the planet editor to change kerbin, rather than teleporting to the other planets,

Some have experimented with long structures, but find they tend to blow up a bit when reloaded. Long ago when experimented with a railways mod, I used kerbtown static objects for tracks. There were problems with imprecision in lining parts up, and collision detection wasn't always good enough to prevent the train passing through the track when I ran it at high speed.

Testing out Evepod MK3, as the second one was claimed by a strange glitch which makes structural pieces in craft from pre-0.90 saves explode. If someone has any idea why some craft are falling apart, my output logs are here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/xw8i7tfcdhiqgxq/output_log%20-%20Copy%20%286%29.txt?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/30bicokqjyqak6g/output_log%20-%20Copy%20%285%29.txt?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/oxvcg5k4qmzrp7d/output_log%20-%20Copy%20%284%29.txt?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/fvvxnfzo20feqqj/output_log%287%29.txt?dl=0 While testing, I made a daring close pass to this ground crew truck, leaping over the road ahead of it.

Clearly fiction, only for the unrealistic sizes of everything. But that's ok in my book, I like to rove.

Better to say that's another step, and another leap... etc.

Humans? I'm sorry, we're all out, will kerbal do? ----------- I would like the calamari, without sauce.

As long as they: 1 change things in a way that makes sense -eg, a more durable pod cost more, and is heavier, etc 2 Don't rebalance things with the tech tree as the main focus- all parts should have a niche, and there's also sanbox, 3 Don't change things so radically that they no longer seem like the part they were, (A little less thrust here or there, etc, shouldn't be a problem if you've got safely margins, but radically changing the nature of a part will be kind of irksome for people doing long term stuff.) I should be happy. Some parts could do with having what makes them different from everything else emphasised, others could do with a bit of a nerf, so they aren't the obvious choice for everything. And now aerodynamics is a thing, that's a factor to take into account too. It seems odd to me that the new MK3 cockpit is lighter than the Mk1-2. RTGs might be worth another look, though the cost and extra mass does make solar panels a nicer looking option. Also, no SAS, but a tiny bit of torque in the stayputnik, and other light probe cores would be nice. And the 2.5 meter nose cone always seemed a little too heavy for what it's supposed to do.