KrazyKrl

I think stack separators should also be fairing bases. The fairings themselves cost weight and funds to build anyhow. An engine should be able to remove its own autofairing interstage when building a fairing from an attached stack seperator. Also: Squad please make stock fairings act like a strut to whatever component you are closing an interstage fairing around. PLEASE!

I think the contract to return science should require some cost. "Transmit data back to Kerbin that contains science points." - OR - "Launch a new craft that collects any experiment from planetoid X" Also, the contract should reward a bonus on top of the science data sent back to Kerbin. (For zero science new crafts, it should reward half the bonus or less from the experiment itself.) Of course you cannot get these contracts if you have already recovered all the science from a planetoid. Just being able to have random probes around, and taking a 0 science reading; for 50k funds, seems wrong.

I usually just disable the probe battery on unmanned craft; the 10 or so electric charge is plenty to open a solar panel if needed. And fuel cells are the new RTGs. Fuel cells are "smart" too, they will only provide electric charge if there is no other source available, and you are using electric charge.

I think that the tourism endpoints for the contract should exclude suborbitals on bodies with no atmosphere (including the sun). And anything with a suborbital trajectory should have a "lowest approach" of something proportionally like a 10km flight on kerbin (i.e. 10km on kerbin is X% ASL pressure. Ykm on Duna would be X% duna ASL pressure.) Just having a suborbital trajectory can easily be achieved while still being safely in vacuum. Reworking them to be "periapsis below Ykm" "low altitude flyby of planetoid Z" would be nifty. As for the payouts for each; I believe that the contract should only pay for the end-point mission for each separate body. i.e. if you're going for a 9km low pass over the mun, don't include orbit of kerbin in the contract (if launching from kerbin.) Of course, the payouts for each end point in the contract will reflect the dV cost to get there (plus some "scenery fee" for "dramatic" planets aka a flyby of saturn would be neater than a flyby of venus.) One thing that would also be neat; is a "tourism / ferry" contract. Which says something like "Pick 3 kerbals up from Duna, land on eeloo and plant a flag; orbit dres, then drop the 3 kerbals off at a craft placed on moho."

Jeb smuggled himself onto one of my contract probes early in my career. I sure hope he likes deep space, because it'll probably be 50 years before I bother recovering him.

The only problem I've had with the mouse; is trying to get my mother to play KSP. And not being able to use the windows large cursor; she has a hard time seeing small cursors.

I would like some sort of "expanded" button to pop out; when you have issues. Functionally like the popout "abort" button at the top of the screen. This would show up to 3 "buttons" that would show the issues in the engineer report. Clicking any would expand the engineer report to a large enough size to see all issues. i.e. (informationicon) with "x3" (warningicon) "x1" (criticalicon) <hidden> (no critical issues found)

I think the problem you're having is the fins, is your rocket occludes some of your fins from the airstream, reducing their effectiveness. Keep your rocket pointed very close to prograde; or you'll start to stall like an airplane. As for the Fins-west, nofins-east issue, I believe that is something with phantom forces; and the eastward rotation of the planet. Try to offset your fins into your rocket a bit; to reduce their stability. Also, you are experiencing something that is used with real rockets. A true gravity turn. Real rockets would start their eastward orientation shortly after clearing the tower. Also, if you're using a gimbal-equipped core engine; try setting your control fins to "roll only". Too little stability = your rocket's body lift will cause stability issues Too much stability = no control Too little control = inability to change AoA much, but is not much of a problem; unless you get too far from prograde... then you can "stall" your rocket, just like an airplane. Too much control = Just be careful, or you'll rip your rocket apart.

Multi-resource stock piechart?

KSP is mostly bound to your CPU speed; as KSP isn't that graphically intensive. I believe that KSP will run with an SLI setup, but SLI will not increase your FPS. The biggest FPS gain in KSP would be a decent multi-core processor, with quick single cores (most of the FPS drop in KSP comes from the single-threaded physics calculations; and other game overhead that is difficult to multithread.) SLI/Crossfire is a method to pair two video cards to increase your FPS.

I don't think there is such a thing as "massless" parts anymore. Any part with PhysicsSignificance = 1 is not massless; the part adds the part's mass to the CoM of the part's parent. (i.e. parts inside a bay add to the mass of the bay, and share the bay's CoM, regardless of their actual positioning in the bay.)

I really don't think that KSP shuttle weighs as much as the space shuttle when landing.

That's not that bad though. The first time I loaded up 1.0; and did my first launch ever with the Flea and mk1 pod... I EVA'd val, she went kerthunk against the pod when getting out. I climbed down the pod (nothing on the bottom of the pod). On land, and she died; for no reason. Said she impacted kerbin. Good thing I didn't have reverts disabled; or the first EVA would have been her last. The kerthunk when EVAing is unnerving to say the least.

One big thing people are forgetting; asteroids. I'd imagine finding a nice medium sized asteroid; and moving it into a decent orbit would be amazing for mining. Sure, it'll cost fuel getting it parked in orbit; but it might be very lucrative as a fuel station.

It would force us to create a space homer, unified space chip eater though. But the amount of debris is just too excessive, standard fairings are a requirement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnPGDWD_oLE

I have some input about how i feel fuel tanks should work... --- - Any tank can hold ANY combination of fuel, but any additional type of fuel added to the tank would increase the cost of the dry mass of the tank by more than several smaller "single fuel" fuel tanks on their own. (A new system of procedural multi-texturing of fuel tanks would be needed. As the tanks would need to outwardly reflect their contents as a whole.) - Cannot refit fuel tanks in-flight. (Specialty tools and equipment required.) - Both Rigid, and "Foil" tanks available for any size. (Foil tanks shouldn't be surface attachable, unless you use radial attachment points(Struts included). Foil tanks should be cheaper and lighter, but have excessive drag and low impact resistances.) --- For the VAB/SPH; the resource panel would need to be accessible. Possibly as another tab next to "Parts, Resources, Crew, Action Groups". This panel should give you a "staging panel" readout of any fuel/fueltanks in that stage. Overall ship fuels, along with a quick LF:O ratio display would be needed above the staging fuel view. Maybe something like "$F Fuel in $T Tanks in $S Stages" Overall ship fuel weights should be displayed. "$FullMass Fuel Filled, $CurrentMass Fuel Loaded, $DryMass Fuel Empty" Selected ship fuels, along with selected fuel ratios, should be displayed. Selected ship fuel weights should be displayed. "$FullMass Fuel Full, $CurrentMass Fuel Loaded, $DryMass Fuel Empty" Selecting a stage would highlight all tanks associated with that stage in the VAB. Selecting a fuel tank or fuel type would let you display both the ratio of the two fuels to each other, but also their location in the VAB. You should be allowed to select multiples of stages, and fuel tanks; in any order.

As long as jeb doesn't actually hit anyone, i'm fine with it. Kerbals are non-violent characters; seeing jeb throw a punch at another person wouldn't feel kerbal. Now, if Jeb was some type of "rocket-summoner" i'd be fine with it. Non-violent kerbals please.

For this feature to really work; the only thing able to be put in there should be RC (Release Candidate) builds. Experimental alpha/beta builds have no reason to be publicly available; if there is a dedicated QA team for early builds already.

I think the discussion on time mechanics is out-of-scope for this thread. As for the kerbal hiring costs... The logistics of handling 5 astronauts is much easier than handling hundreds. It's not just the cost, it's the infrastructure that must be increased (and maintained); to support them. Simply rectified by something very simple: $Y "recruitment/infrastructure upgrades" cost(scaling), $Z investment in standard salary(static). Total hiring cost $Y + $Z.

I'd say something with more functionality. Possibly via tweakables that raise the probe core's mass. It would help keep part counts down on very small craft; as long as the item adds more mass than the standalones, and the components are at least 30% more costly. - Antennas - Experiments (Goo Container + Data collection(thermometer, barometer, gravity detector, etc...)) - Resource scanner - Batteries - Small RTGs The model for the probe core could change also, to outwardly display the change.

Possibly a "Torus of influence" for the asteroid belt, in which KSP states something like "rocks be here, maybe." Requiring an actual scan of that specific area, and time, of the asteroid belt; would be a good time to actually generate the orbital parameters of the asteroids (and to cull any intersecting asteroid orbits from the others). Now, computationally storing the asteroids becomes the difficult part.

Wait, fulfilling contracts to unlock more tweakables for your parts? I would love something like this. i.e. Test prototype LV-T30 (With LV-T45 properties, but no gimbal) in sub-orbital flight on kerbin. Unlocks the LV-T45 after the contract is completed. Tech-tree prerequisites for parts that require contracts to permanently unlock them, would be amazing. And adds more progression to the game. It removes some grind out also, since it's something meaningful you're testing to unlock.

A part welder building? It could work. - Select a parent part - Only parts, say, up to 25% the volume or mass of the parent are able to be attached to the parent - Saved as a subassembly (or "Prefab" welded part) - The more of them you use, the cheaper they get up to a point; up to 25% discount?

LV-T50 engine maybe? Cost: 1,250 Techlevel: Advanced Rocketry Mass: 2.0 t Max Thrust: 200 kN ISP: 320(ASL)/370(vac) Vectored thrust limit: 20 Degrees Essentially a 30% heavier LV-T45 with a higher techlevel and credit cost. 500kg additional weight needed for control mechanisms, and reinforcement, sounds like a reasonable trade. The heavier crafts don't really need lots of thrust vectoring; RCS/control surfaces/magic wheels, would probably be a better option.

I would love to see the thrust limiter be scaled via KN thrust. And for the OP, I believe he means an "ignore main throttle" boolean for the engines also. i.e. you have turboVTOL Mk3... Vertical engines are set with "ignore throttle position" on toggle, on action group 3 Vertical engines are set with "shutdown engine" on toggle, on action group 4 Horizontal engines are set with "ignore throttle position" on toggle, on action group 5 Vertical and Horizontal engines are set with "ignore throttle position" DISABLE, on action group 9 Vertical engines are set to 30KN - 100KN thrust limit (30% - 100%) Horizontal engines are set to 0KN - 500KN thrust limit (0% - 100%) What this would let you do; is let you use the main throttle position to control each engines one at a time (Since multiple throttles aren't implemented). Along with a floor on the Vertical lift engine thrust while they are enabled.