[Specific music for planets when approaching or in orbit around them.]

This should be done after the audio stuttering bug is addressed.

[Don't completely discard mass of physics-insignificant parts]

KSP is a game. Not a realistic simulator. Even games that go as far as being as realistic as they can be tone things down for the sake of gameplay and performance.

If KSP simulated everything, the game could only be played with a cluster.

[Make stock adapters be able to hold fuel]

Almost every part in KSP should be allowed to be filled with fuel.

[Steam Free Play Week?]

On the other hand, allowing a certain type of access to the game can allow for more people to get into it. Plenty of other games have run a "free weekend" for either the full game or a certain part of the game (usually multiplayer) with good result. However, KSP's demo, while somewhat outdated right now, is still robust enough to give you a solid sense of what the full game has in store. With that, I don't see KSP doing anything akin to a "free weekend."

As for a gifting thread, that'd be up to you. I wouldn't want to see steam IDs thrown about the thread though. The handling of code exchanges should be handled through PMs, while requests be made in the thread.

Completely outdated.

Plus, free weekends are only given to complete games. Ever saw an early access title on free weekend?

[Backed into a corner: why a broken feature can end up worse than none at all]

Well, this is assuming the aerodynamics will be redone, which is highly unlikely.

[Kerbals Become Smarter with Experience]

As far as we know, the stats serve one purpose and will eventually serve the same function: Nothing.

[Kerbals and Dwarves]

Every fantasy dwarf is like this, not only the ones from Dwarf Fortress.

You should play tabletop RPGs more often.

[Back into it!]

I recently had to take a short break, 5 months from the game due to life events. Now I'm back and I'm lost! I don't know where to start, don't know what to comment on, its like its an alien world. (no pun intended)

TBH, you didn't missed anything that great in practice...or not. You'll only know when it's released.

[Alternate names for updates.]

0.24 - Contracted....Or not. Who knows?

As long as you don't go the Canonical route of using "adjective that starts with one letter + animal that starts with the same letter.", this should be fine.

One a second thought, those 10 minutes of cloudy feature development should not be wasted. Who knows what feature we will get or not get if the devs was time thinking of nifty names for their updates.

[Road tracks]

I would upvote for terrain deformation as well.

[Axial tilt for planets]

This being an optional feature that can be turned on and off would be better. Once again, KSP is a game. You're not training real astronauts here. And someone who becomes an astronaut at a later point because of KSP most certainly will not use the same maneuvers of the game IRL.

[developement time]

Even if this were true, it *still* wouldn't make all the forums useless - much of the forum is stuff like challenges, or people sharing gameplay moments, or asking questions and getting answers, or showing off addons - there's a lot more to the forums than talking about development.

Don't forget that the forum was the primary way of communication between SQUAD and the community. Why would anyone care to build reputation and that much hype over an Alpha/Beta/Whatever game, provide funcionality for mods and all that jazz? How many indie games have done that?

If you're complaining that things aren't clear, you can start by making your own writing clear. What, exactly, is the difference between a mod and an addon? For that matter, what's the difference between a major official addon and a DLC? If, as of the release of ARM, it becomes impossible to buy KSP without ARM, what's the difference between that an an update? Are you just assuming that describing something with a different word means there's an actual difference in the thing itself? That it actually matters whether you call ARM a DLC, a mod, an addon, or an update?

-A mod is something that is not supported by the company that owns the game, and it's most likely made by a 3rd party or an individual separate from the company. A mod is something that changes the game in some way, without necessarily adding content to it.

-An add-on is an addition that is separate from the core game developed and can be either done by the company as an option or a 3rd party supported by the main company. So there's no difference between a major official add-on and an add-on.

You also may recall that modifying something is different than adding to it.

-A DLC is an add-on developed by the company who made the game.

Consider that ARM is not even inside the main SQUAD folder. What's the difference between that and an update? You can remove it from the game without major hassle or without breaking it.

I'm also confused how you can consider something that on release is given for free to all users of KSP, and which on release replaces KSP 0.23 in stores, and which makes changes to 0.23 instead of just adding new things (e.g. joint strengthening, engine rebalancing) a "mod" or an "addon" instead of an "update"; the only thing really addon-like about it is it partially uses the addon framework for its new parts, but it's really pushing the boundaries of the word to say that that alone makes it an addon.

I'm not considering anything. That was what SQUAD said themselves. At first, it was a DLC. People complained about that profusely. Then it turned to an update. People complained about it profusely. Then it was stated that it was a free add-on that could be removed from the game.

[How much would 64-bit actually matter?]

The things that would make a difference in KSP:

-Multi-threaded

-64 bit

-Loading on demand.

-Disk streaming.

-Better memory management and garbage collection.

-Better collision calculations.

-Lazy loading.

And other things like that.

[Getting people interested.]

One thing you clearly should never do is talk about the development cycle or...introduce these forums to new players. They're gonna think their opinions really mean anything around here and will end up banned.

[developement time]

The point is, discussing it on forums is not going to make the development cycle any faster.

Exactly. The same way that complaining about bugs more than once won't make them get solved faster. The same way that suggesting features won't get them into the game. The same way that complaining about people's complaint's won't stop them from complaining.

So, in essence, the entirety of this forums is useless according to your statement.

Also, one thing that's getting on my nerves. Most people here assume that just because you're complaining about the lack of clear communication about updates, that means the person is whining because they're not getting the updates they want. Really? You're gonna diminish a person's opinion to a matter of whining because you don't agree with their opinion or is a SQUAD fanboy? Essentially, people are not allowed to have opinions, unless they are the same as yours or the developers you so adore.

One thing is very clear and I dare you to prove me wrong in this:

-There is no clear definition on what SQUAD is gonna do in any release of KSP no matter how many deblogs, livestreams or anything they do. Let's look at ARM. At first, it was stated to be a DLC, then a mod and we only got to know it was an addon when the afformented thing was released.

[developement time]

I'm going to throw out a thought that I haven't seen yet in threads like this.

The absolute amount of time between updates isn't important. Whether it's a week, a month, six months, whatever, is not what seems to matter.

What matters, I think, is this: If the time between two updates is longer than the time it takes for players to exhaust all of the content from the first update, then people will start getting impatient for the next one. Or worse, they'll lose interest in the game before the next one.

So you can have tiny updates every few weeks that give people a few weeks worth of "new stuff to do" , or you can have huge updates every few months that give people a few months worth of new stuff to do, and everything is hunky dory. That seems to be why the 0.18 update is looked upon so fondly: 0.18 introduced docking, which vastly expanded what you could do in the game, and kept people busy for months.

The problem arises if you have updates every few months that only give people a couple of weeks worth of new stuff to do.

If people are currently getting antsy about the release schedule (which they seem to be) then shorter release cycles alone probably won't help very much, since those shorter cycles will also have much less content. The only way to get more stuff per release would be to have more people working on each release. KSP has a very small team, and given this I don't think it's reasonable to expect development to be much faster that it currently is.

The problem is not only the development schedule. The problem is that we don't even know what to expect in updates. Development texts are vague and broad and even have a disclaimer that there's no guarantees the proposed features will be implemented in a next version when features are mentioned. KSPs version release is pretty much a blind bag, where you hope the PRed features are in the game and you only find out when you get to play the new version. It's almost like a time consuming lottery. They dwelve greatly on the unlikely scenario that you win (get the part/feature/functionality) but forget to mention or hide what will happen in the likely possibility that you lose. And the most dangerous part is: The developers only do a small push towards said time consuming lottery. The users are the ones that do the rest, fantasizing about features they're not even sure are being made or will be released and hyping up the game for other people as well.

[A Few Small Ideas]

Funnily enough. The original mod which the Subassembly feature was based off had the functionality proposed in #1. Granted that you had to create folders externally, but the mod would read and use them as hierarchy, it would be a simple matter of adding extra code to handle folder creation and renaming.

[KSP Featured In Guinness Book Of World Records]

Hold your tits together before making assumptions. This is the gaming version of the Guinness Book. So, yeah a mention in a page of a huge book with thousands of pages. And it's not even a full page. Breadcrumbs picnic everyone?

The only record KSP might set is the 'first alpha game with proposed and launched DLCs'.

[developement time]

You're forgetting that ARM featured a few new parts (including the claw which needed new mechanics to be coded and tested), random generation of asteroids and related mechanics along with maneuver node improvements in addition to the mentioned joint enhancement (which is a major improvement) and bug fixes.

For slightly over 3 months since 0.23 that's not bad. Also there was a similar slowdown in development last year at the beginning of the year with 0.19. (also about 3 months)

-New parts are not improvement.

-Random generation of asteroids that only add artificial challenge is not an improvement.

-New mechanics for a claw...Mechanics that KAS does since 0.19. How is that an improvement?

-The maneuver node new functionalities and fixes were present in mods since 0.19

-The joint enhancement is something that ferram made as a MOD as well. In fact, KSP's joint recinforcement works so well, that it's better to use Kerbal Join Reinforcement instead.

The 0.23.5 instead of a 0.24 may be confusing, implying that it was less work than a full number version, but that's simply because 0.24 was planned to be the contract update and the ARM patch was done before the contract branch.

It's not even possible to measure what the plans for 0.24 are. If you go for the vague development texts that HarvesteR often posts, you better star buying snake oil. In practice, we only know what features are added in KSP once we get to play the new version.

As to your question. I think that achieving scope completion is possible by the end of the year and that's what we should see this year. Whatever more career mode mechanics are planned shouldn't be as much work as the contract system framework and budgets, though I am curious as to what they will be. There aren't many gameplay frameworks that need to be implemented (multiplayer mostly and a few minor things), just a lot of content and polish (planets needing polish, new planet(s), biomes, new contracts, new parts, improved aerodynamics, science rebalancing, VAB/SPH editor improvements, new UI features). Overall I am pretty certain we will see version 1.0 within the next 24 months.

I don't think so. So far, KSP is using a 'kangaroo' development model that jumps from Alpha to Beta constantly. Plus, if you notice, everything you suggested pretty much requires redoing big parts of the core game. Considering KSP's current development model, the only thing you'll see in 24 months is the announcement for a possible version 0.25 that may or may not have the features proposed.

[Kerbal Space Station have to learn from Spin Tires !]

Well, considering we have useless asteroids that don't do any damage and only add an artificial type of challenge to the game, this is an idea worth considering. We have wheels with horrible collision and too fragile on any terrain.

Also, other idea worth considering: A clear objectives and development description. And that game is not even playable yet.

But, of course. People are too busy bashing the ad to notice those things. Let's just opt for the status quo of 'our game is perfect because it's unique.'

[developement time]

I feel like they added enough to make this a complete game, but not quite.

That's a huge understatement. Calling KSP a 'complete game' is the same as calling Duke Nukem Forever 'an example of accelerated game development'.

[[1.12.*] Deadly Reentry v7.9.0 The Barbie Edition, Aug 5th, 2021]

How do I edit DRC settings? I don't have the Toolbar UI button.

[[1.0]Vanguard Technologies | EVA parachutes | still works]

Would be too much to ask for automatic parachute deploying?

[Night Science]

That would be useful. I dislike how the career mode of KSP artificially forces you to explore biomes to gather currency to unlock new parts.

[Exactly how bad is the aerodynamic model in KSP?]

I apologize if you took my post the wrong way, but you agree that KSP is wonderful so far, isn't it? I do, too.

Not really. KSP has a cloudy development model that JUMPS between Alpha and Beta and the total lack of communication between the developers and the community, along with the need of oranges to repass info to the community is abismal at best.

Also, where did the "spokesperson" thing come from? Anybody would have said the same thing if they thought like I did.

Exactly. If 50 people say a foolish thing, it still is a foolish thing. Just because you like the game, that doesn't give you a license to go all out and defend it on a personal level, as if you were part of SQUAD or part of the development team. And even, if you were, that would be an unethical and unprofessional attitue at best.