satcharna

But KSP is the kind of game that really needs more of a tutorial than just getting less parts early on. I wouldn't be surprised if half the new players who get it just burn straight up and wonder why their rockets just fall back down again. It would be better to make a logical tech tree, and make the early few probe missions an actual tutorial, complete with "start burning to the east now, it's called a gravity turn and helps put you in orbit", with the conclusion rewarding you with a manned pod, rewarding you with the fun of shooting up Jeb, only this time you actually know what you should be doing to put him in space, unlike the other scenario where you just burn randomly and likely end up killing him on your first few missions instead.

Except the best decision would have been to improve the tutorials, instead of turning the entire career mode into a mediocre tutorial.

I beg to differ. Perhaps realism shouldn't be the big focus, but they certainly could at least give us a little of it. Besides, sending up manned capsules before ever inventing a heatshield (as evidenced by how you can't decouple the pod) is plan daft, and something I hope Squad realizes. Everyone makes mistakes, Squad are not immune. I agree that for the most part, the game is great, but everyone needs criticism, especially constructive criticism, which is what this is. It improves the quality of everything. You want what is basically a bug caused by an imperfect physics engine to be considered a feature? Real rockets don't wobble. I'm not saying you should be able to build something stupidly long and slim, but surely something is wrong when rockets can actually turn over on themselves without snapping. What he meant was that starter engines should be inefficient, and that research would make them more efficient, both in specific impulse and in TWR. Indeed it is, and that's why I'm hoping they'll actually look at all the criticism they're getting and completely overhaul the tech tree. If not for .22, then at least for .23.

I agree completely with this list, and would like to voice my disappointment in Squad for their recent decisions regarding the game in general.

8/10 Wiggle wiggle, wobble wobble.

The creepiest body in the game is without any doubt Eeloo. So small, so cold, so desolate, so unconditionally evil.

Indeed not. I like Minecraft, and even though I gave up on it long ago, it had such potential until Notch changed his intent with it halfway through and the community got taken over by imbeciles. It's partly why I worry for KSP. The game is in many ways similar to Minecraft, and I'd really rather not the community get any worse than it already is. Even if KSP has a clear design goal unlike Minecraft, I'd rather the community stay mostly acceptable. Though I still enjoy playing Minecraft every now and then, I'm still sad about not having a good community to interact with, and I dread for the same thing to happen to KSP.

While I didn't severely dislike the film, it being based on "Hollywood Science" did bother me. The suit thrusterpack doesn't have enough delta-v for any of the maneuvers they do, and that's just the start of it.

Indeed, I'm certain that's a major part. But I also know that a lot of them still play the game, but have simply moved away from this community, and that was what I was referring to.

Might want to work on your own grammar a little bit, your post is extremely difficult to read. Because the first thing that comes to mind is to punch trees with your bare hands.

To be fair, those two crowds did play a large part in displacing the initial Orbiter players.

At the time, my Munlander was severely overengineered. So overengineered, in fact, that I quickly discovered that when it landed, one of the thrusters would clip into its tank and blow the whole thing up. My second attempt was nominal, however, and I safely landed the trio, goofed around with SAS a bit, and then sent them back up to their command module.

Getting lucky once doesn't mean you're going to get lucky twice. Sure, having one of the big YouTubers do a KSP show might not be as bad as feared, but it's far more likely to be worse than feared. There was a time that KSP was played mostly by old Orbiter players. If you look at the current userbase, most wouldn't even know what that is. Much as I dislike some aspects of the userbase, I'd rather not risk getting a replacement that's even worse, even if I doubt that the typical gamer would find KSP interesting for any extended period of time.

- 256, majority of which are spent stages and droptanks. - 10 - 150

The community would doubtlessly grow a few sizes right away, since his followers are the kind of people likely to go "oh wow pew played it it must be great!!". It would also be filled with even more young and immature players than it has right now, and the quality of content on these forums would decline rather steeply.

0/1 Never seen you before, I'm afraid.

Digestion. F.

Most mods would fit comfortably into the existing nodes, so I don't believe that would be a problem. Certainly not for things like KW Rocketry or AIES Aerospace, for some examples.

Indeed true. What I meant was that one mod may assign a wheel to the same node that another mod assigns a nuclear reactor to. Letting mods make their own nodes would solve that, while still allowing "mods for mods", as it were.

Would it not be more flexible to just write an API to allow modders to make their own nodes? Sounds like your current system means some hidden nodes may get called by several different mods.

How much optimisation can we expect from the development version of new KAS?

I'm not sure exactly how much time I had, but the craft was basically just doing an extremely close flyby. I had a few seconds to attach it with the kerbal, but it was somewhat stressful. The reason is that because of a messed up rendezvous procedure, I ran out of fuel before I could match velocities. If I were to do it again, I could probably do it safely.

I've done something similar. I used an EVA kerbal with a connector plug to hook two spacecraft together, with a relative velocity of roughly ten meters per second. I then went back and grabbed another plug, and attached it on the other side of the docking port, and retracted both at the same time. The overly strong and rapid winches made them crash into each other and a thruster broke off, but I'm sure with designs that take collisions into account it would be a very effective method of docking.

Most Soviet launchers were also sold to the politicians as ICBMs or other weapon systems, because it made them more likely to receive funding. For instance, the Vostok capsule was occasionally fitted with cameras to operate as an imaging satellite, the Salyut-series of space stations also produced several military Almaz stations, and the Buran was considered a "strategic weapons system" to the military, such as its capability to launch MIRVs (which any spacecraft can do, it was just used as rationale for the massive budget compared to other projects in the space programme). The Soviets never really spent a lot of money on their space programme, it was the competition between the design firms that made it so successful.

Exploding and "bouncing" ships after loading is a known and old KSP bug.