tntristan12

What's wrong with warp drive as an end game goal? Realism? The game stopped being realistic the second it suggested public support to send manned missions anywhere but the Min. I play KSP to push the envelope, not recreate the same punishing limitations we experience in real life. Meh.

I balked at this idea for about 10 seconds, and then I thought about it... adding infrastructure to other worlds would be a really cool feature! I'm not sure this is exactly the best way to do it, but the idea definitely has merit. I for one would love to have little roads connecting parts of my base. Something like this would be great for another expansion pack. Perhaps one focused on colonization or something similar.

You guys are all about big features like time warp dropping and simulations, and I'm just sitting here like "what about clouds!?"

Not much I can add to this idea, but it makes a lot of sense to me! I can see why the devs added the penalization from a gameplay perspective: mission control wants you to do a job whether you like it or not. Of course, this would give you some way of influencing the exact nature of that job. Seems like a good middle ground to me.

Please... allow me: "Meh. I'm so so about sea planes, and that other stuff I've been getting from RSS and RO for years now. Glad about bug fixes, but where's my optimization pass?" Does that just about cover it? P.S. Nothing but respect for your work, Regex! Someone's gotta be the designated wet towel

The music is for public use. I've heard KSP songs in several places already. It's a little jarring, I'll admit.

I'm just gonna leave this here.

Just my ZW$6.45 on the proposed new feature: I love it and must admit I am pleasantly surprised that it's even making it into the game. Sure, I might miss having to overcome the signal relay to KSC issue and the time delay problem, but to be honest the DSN solution they are proposing makes a lot more sense. Relay networks are expensive and even NASA only really ever uses GPS to do orbit determination of low earth satellites. One thing I would like to suggest in hopes of making it more "realistic" would be to copy/paste the physical tracking station to spots all around Kerbin. Even if they don't function and mainly exist just for aesthetics, it would still help prop up my brutally fragile suspension of disbelief. As for the signal delay and flight computer stuff, I can probably live without it. I'm sure someone will mod that stuff in eventually anyway.

What he said. There are always perturbations from the two-body solution in orbital dynamics. This is because the Earth is not a uniform sphere, there is solar radiation pressure, gravitational pull from the sun, moon, and other planets, and even general relativistic effects must be accounted for in highly precise systems like GPS.

What he said. In real life, orbit determination is not a trivial task. Long range missions require very precise equipment (see Deep Space Network) and near-earth orbits can use a combination of either ground stations or GPS. Astronomical objects like planets, comets, or asteroids can be OD'd using ground stations or space based observatories. The bottom line is that you need to determine a range from either radar ranging or parallax measurements (parallax is the difference in position observed between two concurrent measurements, which is how 3D imaging works). You also need a relative orientation, which can be determined by knowing the location of a ground station on the surface of the earth, or using the relative positions of astronomical bodies such as the sun or Polaris (the north star). Other methods include magetometry (measuring magnetic north using a digital compass) or integration of IMU output. - - - Updated - - - This is correct. Orbit determination is a statistical process, meaning there are no absolute determinations. We can only say what the probability is that an object has a certain orbit.

I know this doesn't apply generally to KSP, but I'll make an exception in this case... you, sir, are a cheater!

Or they could just allow kerbals to spawn in command seats... But I do see the benefits to being able to spawn them independently.

I think this would be an excellent feature to introduce settings for. The ones that come to mind are the "classic" (i.e. the current sound in space), "muffled" (emulating a "deep ocean" type sound where engines and explosions are very muffled, which isn't realistic but arguably more aurally interesting), and "realistic" (i.e. no sound in space). I would go for muffled, myself. Also, when you're IVA, you should be able to hear your engines, etc.

Disclaimer: I am a (mostly) non-programmer who has only tried my hand at modding once or twice in all the time I've played KSP. I do not know how the system is going to work behind the scenes once U5 is fully integrated into the game, and so this suggestion constitutes what is effectively a major wish of mine that I'd like to impose on the game and community. Fortunately, it sounds like now is the best time to pitch a suggestion like this, given how the game is currently experiencing a bottom-up overhaul. So here goes. My suggestion is this: "Down" is any direction opposing the net force acting on a kerbal. That is it. The reason for this suggestion is because there seems to be two separate systems in place for kerbals on EVA. The first appears to govern kerbals on planets - they may walk unimpeded about the surface of the planet or moon they are on. The second is for kerbals in free-fall - floating through space, perhaps in orbit around the planet. What I would like to see is just one system that covers both scenarios. The primary implication if this is that it would allow for artificial gravity, wherein a spinning ring or accelerating rocket ship would allow a kerbal to walk upon its surface. Currently spinning rings are a novelty that only allows other vehicles to experience the artificial gravityness. Why not kerbals, too? Another thing I would like would be to see this principal extended to IVAs. Specifically, I would like to see the internal views in space reflect the zero gravity, or artificial gravity if it can be applied. We need not allow kerbals to roam the cockpits, but maybe putting a few physics objects in there would get the message across. This would also deter sideways habitats on planetary surfaces. For the longest time, this has impacted my immersion, and now that you have the opportunity to fix it, I'd like to see it fixed. Thanks!

Yeah... Silly us for expecting a feature to be complete in the release version of a game.

Well, I'm sure this is just a placeholder and they will flesh it out in future updates and WHY ARE THEY CALLING THIS UPDATE 1.0!?!?!? *breathes deeply* Happy place. :|

[citation found] Thank you!

[citation needed]

Great idea! As far as resource transfer, the game already supports docking linkages that do not permit resources, and in this case there would be no docking port to click on to activate resource transfer, so I think perma-resource lock is pretty reasonable.

But then, if you are going to make special cases for every type of orbit you could be in (don't get me wrong, I don't think there should be an orbit restriction at all), then wouldn't it just be easier to use *one* system that addresses all possibilities at once? I've seen a lot of insta-scan vs. scansat arguments breaking out, but what if the high-level scanner just insta-scanned whatever was visible in the field of view of the planet? I've brought this idea up several times and nobody has yet seemed to pick up on its merits, so I'm getting a little frustrated... I think what bothers me the most about the current mechanic is that it makes time even less of a consideration than it already is. I mean, what if you only brought enough juice for a flyby? Shouldn't you be rewarded with at least *some* information for your effort? Instead, the game says "Nope! You gotta do it *my* way whether you want to or not", and that bugs me...

Also, hitting a kerbal with an airplane at 100m/s shouldn't merely punt them a few hundred meters and have no other damage besides that.

The number one thing that bugs me about the tech tree is that it forces you to start in exactly one place. I like manned rockets just fine, but there are some saves I start out with where I'd really like to launch unmanned sounding rockets, or begin a purely airplane focused save. The tech tree should have multiple points of entry. Not just the one!

About weather: I'm neutral about it, except I think it would make Jool/GP missions epic, because you could literally get to a point where the wind rips your craft apart!

The number one thing I want these days is a science system overhaul! It bothers me so, so very much that I can take a "mystery goo" reading in LKO, then return my sample for maximum science which involves de-orbiting it, subjecting the sample to high G, heat, temperature, and a changing atmospheric composition, only to have the sample remain in the exact same condition it was in when I had it in orbit. *shudder* Seriously, the science system could be so much better than it is without necessarily being grindy (which is another problem the game already has that totally needs to be addressed). After that, I want immersion! I want little quality of life and aesthetic fixes that allow things like clouds, kerbals that can experience acceleration from rotating rings, persistent rotation rate during timewarp, sound that tapers off as you jet off into the atmosphere, things like that. This game has so much potential to be a mind-blowing, life-altering experience, and to some degree it is, but little things like that make the game feel a lot more like a hodge-podge collection of disparate parts than a gelling, cohesive whole.

Thanks everyone! I know it's a but of a personal tale, but I guess I was feeling reflective. In any case, I'm grateful for the devs and this amazing game!