KrazyKrl

I would love to see procedural cargobays. Think of a bay that has 8 parameters: Bay Width (Internal Ceiling Width) Bay Length (Overall Bay Length) Bay Height (Internal Wall Height) Bay Door Length Offset (Able to leave a gap at either end of the bay) Bay Door Width Ratio (Concave/Convex closed cargo bays available) Bay Door Length Ratio (Stubby bay doors) Bay Door Close Angle(Concave/Convex bay doors) Bay Door Open Angle The base size of the doors can be extrapolated from the bay width and bay door close angle, which is why the width and length of them should be a ratio.

Maybe a simple "right facing triangle" added to the space center button containing most of the space center buildings in a submenu. So you can click the space center button itself, and have an option for the others available.

I would love Laythe to be a sort of bizzaro-earth-alike sort of easter egg themed/science planet. As for a memorial, I'm not sure it would be in good taste at this point in time; especially for a fictitious sci-fi character to be along side pioneers like Neil Armstrong.

What about the best of both worlds? Pre-render the craft into an overlay, and add it to a very "Kerbal looking" loading screen. i.e. Render the craft internally from the dorsal side or something, into a high-res overlay texture. Then have a bare-bones type of crawler/transporter animation that the craft overlay gets pasted onto during the loading screen. It actually doesn't sound like much work, other than somehow making the texture in the first place for each loading screen craft. (And assuming long loading screens will be a thing later.)

Most of that information is probably planned for 1.0. I know the Delta-V in-VAB option is in. Kerbal Engineer already has the information, without the Mechjeb autopilot. (And there are plenty of streamers on KSPTV that you can watch to get very good tips on how to orbital mechanics too.) I would NEVER recommend someone use mechjeb autopilot-to-anywhere to just learn the game; this game is about making mistakes, and fixing them. It just wouldn't be Kerbal, without explosions. Using a magic autopilot just removes the entire point of the game, and turns it into "rocket legos". Reintroduce the "avionics package" part, with "Hold Heading" feature. "Avionics Package also contains a "VTOL Engine" action group, which would automatically thrust limit to keep vertical speed == 0m/sec; but only when "hold altitude" is enabled via the heading/aim prograde/etc... widgets. Adding target-able waypoints to KSC sounds like a reasonable idea, it would also be nice if your trajectory would also account for current AoA, and atmospheric drag. Because planning your orbit with maneuver nodes would be amazing, even in-atmosphere.

The Navball always is controlled with the same orientation keys. The problem comes with whatever part you're using with "control from here". THAT part's orientation matters to the navball, and ends up being how you control your craft. Feature request: Ability to switch control orientation (or an option to "set vertical" and "set front") via right-click on a "control from here" part.

I was expecting a booster. I'm disappointed now

At least 3 friends, my nephew, and my nephew's teacher; and I guess my nephew's teacher's students teacher's students also.

I don't think that root part inheritance is needed for this function. Just a simple "eyeball" gizmo on "5" next to "root". Enabling this widget lets you left-click parts to turn them into ghosts, right-click unghosts parts. Ghosting/unghosting also affects any child parts, so ghosting the root node would ghost the craft, right clicking the root node would unghost the whole craft. Ghost parameters like translucence and color is configurable in the menu for VAB options.

I guess you can claim that the practically infinite electricity of the RTG, and the absurd ISP of the LV-N requires some downside. Part-locking should be tied to your game difficulty chosen. But you should always lose rep for failed launches, and even more rep for failed launches causing nuclear fallout. An impactresistance buff to the RTG and LV-N would probably be a wise idea too. An RTG runs off of the heat of the decaying uranium though, there is no actual nuclear reaction; and iirc, it's mostly (easily shielded) alpha and beta decay. RTGs are honestly not that radioactive. A nuclear reactor isn't that radioactive until run, lots of the radioactivity from nuclear reactors comes from fission products from, and after, the reaction itself. A note in-game about a reputation loss if those parts destruct in a sub-orbital trajectory less than 60km or 1,000 m/sec. (Arbatrary numbers I just made up.) And an increased rep loss for a used LV-N destructing under those conditions. The launch itself has a reputation loss, a nuclear payload could add "bonus -rep". You could even add a "radioactive trefoil" next to the LV-N overheat gauge in the staging tree; and only shows after the engine has been fired at least once, and is meeting the requirements of massive reputation loss. Of course, the hazard indicator has a tooltip stating "massive reputation loss due to radioactive fallout if this part explodes." This isn't about adding nothing to gameplay in my opinion. It's about making reputation more meaningful in the game.

Improved water Dynamics, an improvement pack in 4 parts: First: Improved buoyancy and object/water impact mechanics. The current "water" is a simple placeholder, I still don't get why a 1.0 release with placeholder water is still going through. Kerbin is, what, 60% water? Second: Inclusion of hybrid Air/Water parts. Tweakables for current engines to work in an aquatic or semi-amphibious environment. Imagine replacing IntakeAir with IntakeWater, and using a water adapted simple jet engine that uses IntakeWater and ElectricCharge to provide thrust. "Wet" "Wet" Wings that carry fuel and are designed for water usage i.e. hydrofoils. Also, the density of the fluids on the surface of the planet could support HEAVY loads. Third: Undersea biomes(hydromes?), and possibly seeded RNG ground clutter related to biome; with separate experiments for each. Not necessarily sea creatures, but possibly suspended trace elements. Along with sea currents, and assorted icebergs or object "junk". Fourth: Undersea anomalies, and other reasons to make an interplanetary submersible a viable project for your space program. Moving undersea Kraken. Using mapsat components in a cargo bay to keep them dry, and mapping the seafloor. Trace element extraction from the seawater itself. All could be yours, if the price is right.

People have already suggested several in-game improvements to the action groups system, including a type of GUI programming interface that uses something like configurable command blocks. As long as you need to program it yourself, I would love to have some sort of automation available. For things like "open the pod pay doors, wait 5 seconds, extend corned beef antenna of righteousness."

There is no other system. A hierarchical tree is the only way to denote any assortment of items. The problem comes with non-parent-to-child relationships. Even in a system of equal parts, any arbitrary component could be listed as "parent" and anything interconnected would be a "child". Now, simulating physics while introducing forces through a web, instead of a tree; gets absurdly performance intensive. Which is why something like PhysX, and massive computational parallelism is required. i.e. An arbitrary web of 25 components, each component is connected to, on average, 3 other components. That's 75 connections, with 75! possible paths for physics forces before dampening. 75! == 24,809,140,811,395,398,091,946,477,116,594,033,660,926,243,886,570,122,837,795,894,512,655,842,677,572,867,409,443,815,424,000,000,000,000,000,000 possible physics paths.

Yes, buying and selling your resources should be made available. But go into some sort of "ongoing operation." Something like a "science per day" buff that can stack with itself, and have a duration. i.e. Trading off science for funds takes 1 kerbal month; over some threshold the science takes extra months to complete. The catch is, a diminishing returns formula for the "tax" on the science. Something like (Tax = (Sci / (Sci+(Mathf.Round(Sci/10))+1))) You can raise the taxation on yourself to make the buff diminishingly more effective. I know that time based mechanics suck because of time warp; but if you have currently running missions, the steady income over time of some resource could be more beneficial than some lump sum. (Or you could tax something like 50% of the funds to get it converted instantly.)

Just an entire ground clutter system would be amazing. It could be generated via a seeded value; so it can remain identical to each game. Of course, it could just be some sort of "clutter mask" that gets applied to the surface of the planet. And when you get within <arbatrary distance> they appear. Each distinct type of clutter could have its own science pool for that biome. i.e. Trees in temperate biomes share a science pool. Rocks in a temperate biome share a different pool.

I can't see higher time warp factors available until some sort of Kerbal Alarm Clock is made standard. There are problems with missing SOI changes and the like, for a real availability of time warp, you need to save points of interest like SOI changes to a specific timecode. And I don't think KSP currently has any capability of doing that stock. Remember that you're increasing the simulation speed of the entire KSP universe also; it's not just limited to any one craft. And since things are simulated every "frame" or "Kerbal Planck Unit", and are built on one another; they MUST be simulated to some degree to keep the integrity of the KSP universe.

I would be all for aerodynamic failures. The log of your flight just needs to somehow reflect that a joint failed due to aerodynamic loads. The flight log needs some love though. Possibly something that would enable you to see how your craft failed. Something like a pseudo-VAB, where for each failure or error-type message in the flight log; it records the state of the craft, and the environmental conditions for a few seconds in either direction. Sort of like a "Kerbal highlight reel". This would help newer players deduce not just how their craft failed, but why.

The administration building is horribly designed from a strategy standpoint. The rewards it gives you are just absurd, and I don't believe they can be reasonably nerfed without making the strategies themselves nearly non-existant. I suggested a rework of it into something more fitting of a space program here.

I would LOVE to see some sort of hierarchical menu for the parts that makes up your craft. Instead of needing to click every individual part, it could be split up into either a tree menu of items, or a contextual menu for each objects function(Just like the VAB part bin.)

Well, what I was trying to suggest; is a sort of "skill selection" dependent on your kerbal's star rating.

Well, the flat percentile bonuses for each level of profession has no inherent "wow" factor. You'll just go up in rank, and go "Yay 5% bigger numbers". And I'm at a loss to what exactly scientists could offer as perks as they increase in ranking. More that I think about perks for your crewmembers, I think it should be some sort of "specialization" system... You get 1,2,3,4, and 5; star abilities. They are reflected each in Science, Engineering, and Mission Control. If you use a skill for the profession it is intended, there is no penalty. If you try and use a skill from a profession the Kerbal is not a specialist... They require something like 2/3/4/5 stars instead as a penalty for 1/2/3/4 star abilities of a dissimilar type. Each Kerbal would have 5 "slots". And you would have a pool of 15, or more, specific abilities you could slot. Obviously, the mission could be achieved without them being equipped with any specifics, or having the crew have the abilities without customization.

I have a few ideas of my own... I don't want a "free" autopilot at any level in KSP. Pilot 4 star pilots - Increased in-atmosphere stall resistance(something like dampening when near stalling). And landing assistance for both winged aircraft and vacuum spacecraft. 5 star pilots - orienting a ship to a maneuver node, following the node during physics frames, and would be able to initiate and end burns according to maneuver nodes or action groups. Scientists 4 star: Science containers activated (and crew reports gathered) by 4 star Scientists have an innate boost to the science gathered by this crew member tied to his rank. 5 star: Enables ScienceAlert type functionality; and extra science lab options relating to samples taken (or goo containers, etc.) Engineers 1 star: Warning on any low resources. Can tether components together. (Something like KAS, to keep something disconnected from the main craft, attached.) 2 star: Repack Parachutes, Manually Extend powerless Solar Panels via EVA. 3 star: Repair devices on spacecraft, as long as they are not totally destroyed. 4 star: Replace completely destroyed components, as long as the parent component is still intact and at 100%. Requires parent component to "save" something like a "mounting location" 5 star: Ability to remove, and attach, any component. (Something like the VAB, but is limited to parts that currently "exist" on the craft)

Realistic Aero should be close to what should be implemented. Anything less, and there would be problems with weird rules that make no sense for aircraft. With something as complex as aerodynamics, you cannot use a simple approximation and get anywhere near reasonable results. A large part of aerodynamics can be ignored, or otherwise made a negligible factor, for a rocket pad launch vehicle built taller that it is wide; and using things like nose cones with cargo bays for aerodynamics. Aerodynamics is, of course, much more complex for aircraft; than a flying hot dog. But the orbital mechanics in KSP are largely realistic, with some performance shortcuts used. And Orbital mechanics is much more foreign to learn, than flying a paper Kerbal airplane.

Lots of the issues you are having are a limitation of the engine that KSP is built off of, Unity version 4. Squad can't really support x64 addressing, due to Unity itself being buggy in x64 builds. x64 support on Linux platforms is fine for some reason though. KSP is essentially written as a mod for the Unity engine, and inherits any deficiencies that are in the engine itself. Some problems can be worked around, but programming a game is a very complex process. And you did sign on for early-access. Problems are to be expected. Everyone is waiting for the Unity 5 engine, it should bring some much-needed stability and performance enhancements (hopefully.)

I'd rather have them tweaked a bit. ScienceGuy MkIV: Science containers activated (and crew reports gathered) by ScienceGuy MkIV Are subject to ((ScienceGuy level + 1 ) * (5%(Or some other science bonus)) This would make the bonus science scale with the ScienceGuy's experience. ScienceGuy MkV: Science Rules mode activates, enabling ScienceAlert type functionality; and extra science lab options relating to samples taken (or goo containers, etc.)