Artophwar

Money is already irrelevant from my game testing. Hopefully in 24.1 or whatever the next update is they will makes the parts in R&D cost money to unlock, make Kerbals have a salary that is used up daily, and hopefully in the future add difficulty settings that make things more expensive. The game is way to easy right now without even having to try to keep a budget. I have never even bothered looking at what my craft cost. You dont need mods to break the economy .24, it is already broken to start with.

Agree. Currently it is a little cumbersome to go through the contracts. I would love to be able to order the contracts myself so I can put the ones that I want to do first at the top.

It is true we can choose not to revert or save/load but there is something about knowing that it is impossible for you to recover and all your actions are permanent that gives a different feeling then just choosing not to revert or save. Playing Ironman XCOM or Hardcore Diablo 3 is a lot more exciting for me personally than playing the same games on Softcore or with saves. Just knowing that there is absolutely no risk doesn't give me the same adrenaline rush even if I never load a save.

I too hope the missions get pushed back a bit more in the spawn process. They come a little too early IMO. Also as has been mentioned the deadline needs to be reduced considerably. Mine have all had 5 years till I could go and pick them up. Can Kerbals go into hibernation in their spacesuits??

SO the only way to go bankrupt is to it on purpose. I have more money then I can ever use already and I even had a bunch of mistakes. I really think they need to adjust the values for a lot of the missions and/or add much harder difficulty settings. I was hoping for there to be consequences and have to worry about a budget so far there is no way I can see anyone going bankrupt unless they force it like the OP or they really suck.

I still think there needs to better UI customization and scaling options. The problem with the current slider is that it just makes everything bigger. I like a larger navball but I dont want everything else to get bigger. It would be nice to individually adjust the UI components to your desired size and position on the screen.

To me KSP is a single player game. I really dont see the appeal of multiplayer in this type of game. There may be those who do want multiplayer and I am fine with that but I think resources would be a benefit to everyone, even multiplayer people. No reason we cant have both but resources should be the priority, then multiplayer second.

I have seen quotes like this in pretty much every career mode suggestion thread and it is starting to grind my gears. People keep talking as if these features are added to CAREER mode to make the game more structured all of sudden they wont have the freedom to explore and build what they want. Except there is a separate mode just for that called sandbox. Career mode should absolutely break away from it. Otherwise why even bother having separate game modes? I hope SQUAD takes this suggestion and runs with it. Right now it is rough around the edges but it is my opinion that instant build times dont belong in Career mode. There are a lot of other games out there that have build times and they have them for an in game purpose, not just to be annoying. There have been a lot of games with light-hearted tones that have a fairly structured campaign mode and open ended play.. A lot of the old Bullfrog games for example. I am not saying that KSP needs to be ultra realistic accounting simulation. Build times and other realism suggestions like life support are not mutually exclusive from light-hearted fun. As you say it is a balancing act.

Where did you hear that?? The beauty of steam is you can play your games anywhere, on ANY machine, you just have to log into your account. The hardware survey is just a voluntary option and it only knows your specs when you do it. Your hardware could change any time after that and they wouldnt know. I have multiple computers and my laptop is really old but I still can play lot of games that it doesnt meet the specs for.

There could be other things to do in between construction. I will use XCOM again as an example. You basically hit the scan button till the next event happens. Why couldnt KSP be similar? You hit a button and the game time counts away at the KSC at a warp level of your choosing or you can just hit "Next Event". In that time it may come up with another mission for you to plan, or one of your kerbals could finish some training, or a previous mission is entering a new SOI, or that rocket you built is ready for launch. The whole point of career mode is to run a space agency which will be like managing a business. If people just want to fly rockets they can do that in sandbox mode.

That is fine for sandbox mode. All your achievements are their own rewards. In career mode time management should be included. Getting that satellite network up in 90 days could give you bonus money from the government or something. The same with getting a Mun or interplanetary missions done in a certain time frame. I am thinking of XCOM as an example of a time strategy layer. You have to excavate places in your base in advance, and plan your power stations, workshops, satellites, ect. They all have time requirements and messing up your time planning can cost you the game. I would like career mode to be a more structured game mode. It should be a bit more on the Space Agency Simulation side and Sandbox mode is where you can go to just play around with no restrictions. I think the mod is a great proof of concept and I hope that by 1.0 something similar will be included by default in career mode.

I use LV-1 on all my small probes because of the weight savings. I know we dont have a proper career mode but playing the Mission controller mod I use these things all the time because the payload is lighter, the launcher is smaller, and therefore the whole mission is cheaper. I can also get 300-400 more dV on my probes with an LV-1 versus a 48-7s because of the weight difference. I am not saying they are perfect but they are far from useless.

I was thinking the same thing. That time is another cost to the part along with credits. Once you hit launch all the part's "time cost" is added together and instantly added to your in game clock. There would be no timewarping past the construction. You would just appear on the launch pad how every many days/months it took to build the rocket. This would add a lot of strategy to the management side of career mode.

I use the Ant all the time precisely because it weighs less than the 48-7s and that can save significant dV on small craft.

I am pretty certain that parts are already not rendered when inside a fairing using UNITY's built in Occlusion Culling as they are blocked from the camera by the fairing it self. So if you use fairings you already have reduced the amount objects rendered to only each side of the fairing, which is usually only two parts. It is the physics that cause the lag, and it is the physics that make the other part of the idea just not feasible. As many others have pointed out, you cant just suddenly activate the physics on all these objects as crazy glitches will happen.

Thats pretty much how it works in real life anyway. Disposable rockets are cheap and its the reason they are used the most. Only five spaceplanes have succesfully flown to date and they are really more like rocket gliders(Space shuttle).

I think some people are just offended with calling the features you requested 'Basic'. I think the only one that comes close to basic would be saving of flight data for later viewing but even then I dont think too many but the hardcore would care about that. You may consider replays important but I think this is the first time anyone has even mentioned them so they obviously are not that important to most people. Even in racing games and sports games where replays are the most common, not all of them have them, and some only have like a 30 sec rewind that you cant even save. I wouldnt mind seeing them at some point myself, but they are fluff features and not required for this type of game.

You can already do 4x physics warp by pressing ALT and the warp key. I can tell you from experience that at 4x physics warp it can get a bit laggy and big things tend to break apart.

I was wondering if its possible to have the MC windows keep their position between game loads. I always have to move the windows back to where i like them. It is not the end of the world or anything but it would be nice not to have to do that everytime.

I used to vastly over engineer too. It seems like the way to go at first. Just add more fuel and engines. Took a while to figure out less is more. I just made one for Sputnik II and it cost 7k and I actually had a circular orbit of just over 120k so I could time warp the 4hours at 100x. This was with a single RT-10 solid rocket booster first stage, then a fl-200 with a rockomax 48-7s orbital stage then the probe on top. I deorbited and landed with orbital stage attached. My workhorse rocket that I use for the comsat missions is only 10k with payload and 5600dV Vac It has a RT-10 solid rocket booster first stage with 3 delta deluxe winglets, fl-400 with a Lv-909 second stage, with the sat having an oscar-b and lv-1 for orbital adjustments. I cover it with a procedual fairing so it looks really nice too. I dont use FAR so that actually hurts its performance a bit but I like the look.

I run 1080p as well and the tab is almost near the top of the screen. I am surprised we have gone through a few updates and this issue still hasnt been fixed.

As I said the fuel costs seem fine. I just remember that the engine costs were much higher in a previous version and it made more sense to me. This is just my opinion though and would like to hear what others think. Actually is there an easy way to edit this stuff with like a cfg file??

I dont mean Solid fuel isnt cheaper. It is cheaper but the price gap between using a solid rocket that you have no control over thrust or thrust vectoring and using a liquid engine with full thrust and thrust vectoring is too small. You can also transfer fuel with a liquid engine booster that you cant with solid. I think the main problem I see is the liquid engines are too cheap. It really doesnt take into account all the benefits it has over solid rockets into its cost. The fuel costs seem fine but I would like to see an increase in engine costs. EDIT: I did add all 3 costs. 1400 each is a bit expensive again considering the price of the engines. That is more than an LV-909 Engine. Plus you usually use at least two stabilizers if not more.

With my testing so far there are a few pricing things I think need adjusting. The current Liquid Rocket engines are too cheap and it makes solid fuel rockets pointless again. In a previous version there was a much larger gap between solid fuel rockets and liquid fuel rockets and it made sense to me. Also I have noticed the Launch stability Enhancers are more expensive in this version and on my current small rocket account for 25% of its cost where as before it was minimal. According to the price list they cost more than my science parts and engine combined. That doesnt make sense to me. On the mechjeb pricing I think a 25k-50k price would be fine. I dont use the autopilot because it has messed up from time to time but I love the customizable readouts, smart A.S.S, and the maneuver planner. I can easliy just do those things manually on cheaper simpler missions, but the more complex ones I like the have those as the in game maneuver node system in a pain. I dont mind paying for that on the more complex missions. Also can the windows save their position between game loads. It is a slight annoyance to have to move them every time I play.

Keep up the good work guys. Career Mode is still a long way off so its nice having this mods continued development.