Decho

I'll be starting a new career And shortly afterward will be going into sandbox to mess with RAPIER before heading back to my new career save.

I'd rather have resources, but that isn't to say I don't want multiplayer too. For me the main thing resources would do is make the planets more interesting, which KSP sorely needs - though I do see Squad's argument that the resources system as planned would require players to have mastered much of the game's mechanics before seeing any return, which really isn't what you want.

I'll still play without it, but I am disappointed it won't be in the stock game (and those parts we saw looked really nice too).

Woah woah woah, A4 Pacific http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Number_4468_Mallard_in_York.jpg and full wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNER_Class_A4 I strongly disagree with any statement that American steam locomotives are any percentage better than those of Britain. On topic: Yay RAPIERs! I've been following the development of SABRE for some time, am very glad to see it getting some stock love in KSP

I too would be interested in this.

I would like to see sub-divisions within the existing categories in any case, which mods could then take advantage of. For example only showing liquid fuel and oxidiser tanks in the propulsion tab, with another for engines.

The main one for me is making rockets look realistic, and no unfeasible part clipping (putting stuff inside decouplers and similar is fine though). In general I try to keep to a maximum of three stages to orbital circularisation, normally only two dropped.

Well I downloaded it and it works great in and of itself, all the KSP functionality was fine and was pretty easy to set up. A problem I'm having though is that the CCP server program really screws with my computer when it's running - making some (seemingly random) programs unresponsive and preventing me from using Alt+Tab and other shortcuts (on the first attempt using I had to do a hard reboot as I couldn't even get task manager up). I'm on Windows 7 64bit by the way, can send a DxDiag if you'd like. Edit - If there's somewhere else you'd prefer bug reports/feedback I'll happily oblige.

1-st person EVAs would be amazing.

As others have said, it's thrust vectoring. This is typically either moving the nozzle or entire motor on a mechanical pivot (the former being what happens in KSP), but there are a few other methods - a good example being a Japanese system which introduces water into part of the exhaust, which cools it and reduces the thrust in that area, effectively altering direction of net thrust for the motor. As for rotation control, if you have more than one engine then this is easily achieved with thrust vectoring again - simply gimbal the nozzles/motors on opposing sides in opposite directions, if only one engine though then you'd probably be wanting fins, or RCS for upper stages.

This also. Surface samples and EVA/crew reports really bring in the Science.

Yet another Physicist here! We get everywhere you know... Current gravity model is pretty much fine, I can live without L-points, and as others have said only thing really missing is a better aerodynamics system. Also I'm currently doing a master's in Space Exploration Systems, and most of the core calculations that are done use exactly the same approximations as KSP. Of course final stuff account for various perturbations but back-of-the-envelope is where it's at.

I own copies on both, Steam one was ready much faster, but it's the store version that I normally use long-term.

Mouse and keyboard, I tried using a 360 controller but had problems with it. May get a joystick at some point.

I finished this a while ago, but: and the eclipse which happened as I was moving my habitation module into position:

Standard parking orbit for me is 71km, my station is at 105km.

You have to get the sensor to be almost in contact with the rock, which given the position of the sensor can be very very tough.

Building my first proper space station. Four launches so far, at least another two planned.

Really Take On Mars isn't much similar at all to KSP, you more customise your rovers/landers and then only get control once they're on the surface (though you will eventually be able to have some control over the landing). That said if some of the rover features could get implemented in KSP I would be a very happy bunny - namely the cameras and the picture-in-picture views from those cameras while viewing outside the vehicle, and of course some of the science instruments like cameras. Also while I doubt it will ever happen if KSP graphics ever get close to Take On Mars in terms of planet detail then I doubt I would ever even be tempted to play anything but KSP.

I'm perfectly happy with the current solution, it approximates reality well enough for most purposes and makes mission planning so much easier. The only realy loss are lagrange points but I can live with that.

It isn't really a bug, but if I transfer a craft from the SPH to the VAB, changing the type in the savefile, it'll load but still use the SPH symmetry options. This has made building rovers irritating.

If I'm not preparing for a burn then I'll deactivate my engines to stop accidents like that happening, it's the safest way I find.

I mostly use ions for precise orbital adjustments, normally only on geosynchronous flights where precision is key.

Nope, that was 23 years before I was born. And as others have said will be disappointed if I don't get to see a manned mission at least to the moon in real time at some point.

On an old save I had a lander and rover on Minmus, had already been to the mun, thought I'd give it a go, lander didn't have quite enough juice left (forgot to refill). I RV's the Kerbals back with the command module using the backpacks though, so it was left abandoned.