SlinkyBlue

I identify with this. I have had very good luck using the small structural pylons (the tiny, thin scaffolding in the structure tab) as a way to extend RCS thrusters out farther from the ship. This is very effective. Give it a shot, OP. If you have 4 RCS thrusters, directly over the Center of Mass, extended out from the hull by a few meters with scaffolding, you gain a massive amount of maneuverability that tends to be very predictable and easy to control. I find doing anything different ends up confusing me quite a bit, resulting in wasted RCS and sometimes multiple attempts to dock.

Did you put a gtx980 in a 10 year old computer? I have gtx 550ti, Intel q9550 and 4 gb of ram. It's about 8 years old. Runs ksp well under most circumstances.

Here's hoping that you need satellite scanner systems to make low-resolution images of resource nodes, and then another high-resolution accurate sample from the soil.

I find the career mode to be entirely too focused around arbitrary numbers (funds, reputation, etc) that really impede my ability (or desire) to be creative. I love KSP. Or, specifically, loved it until it took this direction. The day that the devs announced they are no longer going to implement their Resource tree was the day I really lost interest. The real problem with career mode is it sort of guides people through it. After you've played Sandbox for years and then switched to career, it basically feels like "Why the hell should I care about these numbers." I find myself promptly quitting and playing something else.

Soon.<Font Size=1><Sup>TM</Sup></Font>

If I am not mistaken, that is referring to the previously SAS nose cone, now atmosphere science module, that was used for flight.

I literally just landed there for the first time. That thing is loads of fun. I need to get a rover there.

Pol is a bunch of fun. Jeb and Jool, with Laythe in the foreground. Gonna need to bring some more stuff out here.

They're very transparent. If they weren't transparent, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. They're just being transparent about not doing resources, which is making people angry.

I agree about Dres. The canyon on the planet is huge if you ever get to go there. It looks like this little shallow scratch on the surface when you observe from orbital view, but DAMN that thing is pretty sweet. ... also, super hard to get an intercept with ... and it's a little scary O.O

I think the poll speaks for itself. Get in here, Squad.

I think this is key. I like the science tree in the sense that I have to tailor my missions to a specific purpose, and that I actually have a reason to go to planets. But, then what? Resources fill that VERY IMPORTANT gap in gameplay.

I am under the impression that resources would need to offer significant advantages over parts that you can use without it. For instance, because the devs have been saying for awhile that they are going to implement a stellar body research/discovery feature, I actually had the impression in my mind that resources could have been used for an orbital telescope system or something..

All of a sudden Eve's oceans seem much less magestic.......

Sounds awesome to me! :( EDIT: Thank you for your reply, I appreciate it.

Interesting: May I ask, then, if planned resources was vastly different from what we've seen with Kethane, what really did your plan entail? How did it differ from Kethane? Maybe people would understand more if they comprehend what it was that you were planning. Not being facetious; I think most people think Kethane as a starter template when they think what resources should be like.

You'd think that Squad would have some sense of loyalty to the community that is responsible for creating an environment that propelled them into the spotlight.

I think the thing that Squad may have missed is that the people who want multiplayer likely want it in the final product *with* resources as well. I don't understand why this is a mutually exclusive thing all of a sudden. Resources and multiplayer should both be in the final product.

Yesterday, I flew a one-way ship carrying three colony pods to Duna. They landed, and I logged off after spending 30 seconds admiring the antennae's extending and retracting. I hope squad understands this. Sure, it's a hell of a lot of fun getting there. Once you're there, that's where the game kind of fizzles out. It doesn't matter if there's another person with me on the planet if all we can do is plant a flag and jump around. Likewise, NASA wouldn't bother with sending a rover to Mars just so it can make some sweet jumps. .... (i think)

I was curious if I really was in the minority, which is why I made this poll.

As I'm sure a good portion of us have heard, plans for stock resources in KSP have been shelved for the time being. As a KSP player who as always had the awesome potential of resource mining in the back of my head for the future of KSP, I'm severely disappointed. I play entirely stock, while I appreciate the modding community I generally have wanted to stay on top of what direction Squad is taking KSP. This is my opinion: One of the central factors (if not THE MOST central factor) that makes simulation and management games fun is increasingly complicated logistics. For example, as a new player, there's a special feeling that arises when you look at the potential theoretical logistics and strategy in a game, and see such complexity that you think to yourself "That's ridiculous!" I'm sure we've all been there before, only a few months later to completely understand the system and be juggling more than you thought you ever could. We all got that feeling when we opened up the orbital map and saw Jool and Eeloo for the first time. But, unfortunately, once you get there and do what you want, you're done. I don't do well at making my own content. This totally sounds corny, but it's true; when I was a little kid, like 8 or 9 years old playing Star Fox 64, I always thought to myself that one of the best games that could ever exist would be a game where you can build a spaceship and fly out to new planets and stars and colonize them. And look; I've got that game installed on my computer right here in 2013 with 210 hours logged on it. But alas, I've run out of things to do in it, and I know that the key to increasing that 210 hours to 1000 or more over several years would be... a resource system. So, of course, I'm a little disappointed. I'm sure KSP will be even more fun and I'm sure Squad will do great things with it. But, I don't see why anyone would put a cap on space. How important is a resource system to you?

You guys need to have more faith in the developers.

I'm sure veterans understand this, but when I figured this about about nodes and burn times, it really pretty much allowed me to get wherever I want, provided I built a good ship. Whenever you do a burn, to be completely accurate you have to make sure your burn takes place 1/2 the time before the node, and 1/2 the time after the node. If you have a 30 second burn, start your burn at T-15s. 1 min 12 second burn, start at T-36 seconds. For months I made the mistake of waiting until T-0 seconds to start my burn; I hope this helps someone.

My 33 kerbal kerbiosynchronous orbit station. We've been told they're doing science up there, but I'd prefer not to push the matter further.

I would imagine that the flexing from docking would cause a break in the connection between modules.. Then again my computer would have a heart attack before ever getting that far