Vindelle_Sunveam

Javster's argument is interesting, Kerbals require more Dry mass to be sent into space, and we all know that every tenth of ton is a real struggle to put up there (at least for me, and this is why I enjoy probes and rovers so much besides the big "no kerb until a proof of concept probe does it" because I hate when they are standed). So, ok, but I also think rovers should have something to do, like ground spectrography of a gound sample using a plasma torch to heat the ground, as does Curiosity with it's "death ray" . As we know, this tech is more likely to give us good results than samples brought back into our atmosphere. So why not see what is possible once Reputation is included ? Let's say that a spectrography brings no rep, as in nobody cares except the scientfic world, ans surface samples bring a whole lot of rep, but few science, as these are used for PR (museum exhibits and such). I won't bring any figures as I have no idea on how things are gonna be scaled. PS : Nothing should prevent anybody from doing both in one go, not oblige them to.

Actually, kerbals "missing in action" always find a way back to the roster. It takes a bit of time, and you are not told. You don't wan't to know how.

I do not like the idea of KSP becoming an arcade game. With KMP to be implemented, I like the idea of collaborating. Because that is what the space community does. Wether it is research or business, all space operations stands on organisations helping each other, collaborating as tightly as possible to harness the perils of space. the space race is a thing, yes, but is is not the era that gave us the most, nor the best. It was ****ing cold war, and I don't want a game that promotes exploration and space boldness to bear the ideals of the cold war. We have enough games to do it, and plenty others will come to fill that market while jolly science and collaboration is ever so rarely put in the spotlight of the gaming industry. I know that what I tell you might be a bit heavy compared to the fact that "it's just a game", but that is what happens when I think a game is that unique. I care for it's influence.

Then, if you can't even conform to that, which isn't a problem of habit, Sirrobert's point enters the game : it's probably up to you as you seem unable to use so little self-control. (Here I judge only by your arguments, it is not an attack, just a deduction based on the very few declarations you made.

If you are in flight, just hit Esc and click settings. There is a slidebar for every type of ingame sounds. To do so before starting a game, just go in settings from the main menu and hit the "audio" tab, there will be the same sliders, plus a few more options. PS : If you are looking for a mute shortcut button, there is none.

Exactly this. If you can't get to the UI problems, why even bother with a complicated port on very underpowered machines (even though, it would be very cool if every thing is taken into account, as accelerometers for fine controls ) I'm not against it, but mastering touchscreen interface on desktop computers seems like a prerequisite to go mobile.

I completely agree, even mainstream games like the Elder Scroll have this kind of options in the GUI. This is enough of a proof to me that this is a basic thing that should be let to the user to custom (I mean, EVEN Bethesda think of implementing that). One more thing, if you know how to load an autosave (I don't ), you can disable auto save. { FLIGHT { CanQuickSave = False /*cannot Quicksave. TRUE is default CanQuickLoad = False /* cannot Quickload, I recommend that you do it, not to zap your whole progress ;-) TRUE is default CanAutoSave = False /* Cannot autosave, for some reason, I also turn it off on my permadeath game. TRUE is default CanUseMap = True /* False if you are a cyber commando/a number cruncher with mad piloting skills. TRUE is default CanSwitchVesselsNear = True CanSwitchVesselsFar = True CanTimeWarpHigh = True CanTimeWarpLow = True CanEVA = True CanIVA = True CanBoard = True CanRestart = False /* Revert to launch : What's permadeath with a time machine that activates just before your doom ? TRUE is default CanLeaveToEditor = False /* Revert to VAB/SPH TRUE is default CanLeaveToTrackingStation = True /* Keep that TRUE (default) ! Or if you don't, I'm just not responsible, it could be disastrous for gameplay. CanLeaveToSpaceCenter = True /* The same as above. TRUE is default CanLeaveToMainMenu = False /* FALSE as default. I never tested it as TRUE, but maybe it could be useful... unless it doesn't save. } [...] DIFFICULTY { MissingCrewsRespawn = False /* only useful if you want permadeath, again. Otherwise, crew is "missing in action and respawns anyway. TRUE is default }PARAMETERS Don't forget to NOT copy my commentaries in your persistent.sfs

Just add more boosters EDIT : On a more serious note, just use the lucridous tech of the most amazing space engineeres ever : the checklist. There is nothing more to it, as you will start to as for it at the end of a flight, but next time, it will be somebody else asking for the auto disable at atmosphere exit. This is a DEBUG tool, therefore, I do think demands regarding this feature are to be overlooked.

Well, seems that you can quite do watever you want. Keep your science in your pocket, and spend it when and of you need it. Designing missions is the best way to know what you need. If I didn't plan to send a rover on duna, I would never have unlocked this part of the tech tree. I almost never sent kerbals anymore :-D Sorry for the long time. Thinking + Forum makeover combind XD

Thay is true. I was thinking too much about the roleplay element of bringing a science/telecom sat in orbit and fotgot that such payload was too damn light. Also, according to the fact, that I sat, that all the fuel should be used, I forgot about bringing fuel in orbit without connecting it to the engine. I will make changes so it is accounted for.

No, you will just have an undefined eccentricity, which will lead to the absence of the parameter. Duh.

The best you can do at the moment, is to make a skycrane system with 2 docking ports (1 to doch to the payload, and another to the main ship) and refuel it periodically. But before doing it, make sure it is the most "economic" way of doing it, if DeltaV/Budget/Tonnage is your thing.

Pecan is right, everything in this game is useless. Uselessness is a necessary condition for the game to be. On the other hand, I do not know how you play and can assure you : as far as rovers go, they have very interesting features : you can use them until bored provided you have enough batteries to last a full night (hopping probes runs out of fuel). They are lighter than manned missions and do not require return trips (hurrah for DeltaV ! Praise the single transfer window !) So, you know, whatever fancies you. I almost never put points in the aerodynamics part of the tech tree, some people do not bother with the rovers, or even the expensive science equipment, and none of it is wrong (cf. 1st line of this reply).

Verner Von Kerman is swamped with all your launches, and he needs to refill his mug. Build him a satellite launcher his trainee can handle (he only knows how to stage ). The rules : Build a rocket. Stock vessel. No manned modules, even empty. Hit "launch". Raise your throttle at 100%. Once it is done, you are only allowed to : stage and switch between the vessel the map views. You cannot shut your engines down ! Do not pack too much fuel. Establish a stable orbit WITHIN Kerbin's SOI. Any escape trajectory or periapsis <= 69900Km counts as a disqualification. The scoring system is the following : ( Payload Mass (in T) * Apoapsis (in Km) ) / orbit eccentricity. Orbit eccentricity is : (apo(+600) - peri(+600))/(apo(+600) + peri(+600)). Payload mass doesn't include oxydizer, liquid, solid monopropellant or xenon fuel tanks EDIT : (that are connected to any engines), propulsion devices, decouplers nor separators. Hints : Ballast : Do not put these in the last stage, as it will only lead to uncontrollable spin, I recommend you make sure such devices are jetissonned before 35 Km. I did the video before thinking of the scoring system, as I wasn't sure it could be possible. This is not my entry, as it has almost no payload. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

16787 = 19185/4*(1.5+2) (mach1+noflip) this is a very difficult and fun challenge, good work on the rules EDIT : Mute or muffle the audio

Sorry for the time it took, I had to learn how to edit a video :/ This is way harder than I thought

As you might be used to notice, maneuver nodes make the "burn towards" marker like the burn is going to be instantaneous. As I set my maneuver node for long burns headed for interplanetary transfers, I tend to keep my ship burning not towards the burn marker, but prograde, adjusting my ships' attitude to keep it aligned with the vector for the whole burn. This implies good empirical guesswork, but it is quite comfy. Still, I prefer to inform you that I do my interplanetany transfers with Skipper engines, so it might not work for you.

About - CONTRACTS - I share your fear about the lack of lore in the contracts system. I know it will feel that way in the beta release (as it does with sciencs flavor tecxts), but I also think that background text can be kept for the "big polish of 1.0. If it isn't done for 1.0, it will be a big let down, making this part of the game quite lame. OTOH, as things are now, I would be ok with 0.24 coming with no flavor text. As for the objectives, I really do not see what could we get exept "achievements" objectives such as those you suggested. I would be a good incentive to test some designs you just wouldn't have thought of by yourself. Maybe some more commercial services could be asked of you (such as "plug our 3.5t snack dispenser on the last docking port of your station") since the game tracks your progress and if it is precise enough to ask such precise things. The incentives provided by contracts could be interesting because it also could mean missions with mixed interests, like some sort of sponsoring (ie. I want to sell "Slurp"tm on Jool, and you can slap some science equipment on the back of the billboard). As far as - SCIENCE - goes, I do not give up as long as automation is still considered by SQUAD (ex : a gravioli reading costs 250 E with a comm16. you activate the automatic science readings, and if the probe have enough E, it sends the data. Rinse and repeats itself). I think that "more biomes" and "no science button mashing" should be made in the same update together, but not necessarily this one. Contracts and budgets seems quite like a big load enough. REPUTATION : I just hope it will be nice. I lack forsight to tell what SQUAD is going for, but I cannot think of a good thing if reputation is like a single mesure. I only can think of a faction (kerporations?) related type of rep that would work, and only if it influences gameplay (for instance, probe fans may have good rep with Kerbodyne, and spaceplane enthusiasts with C7. SSTO Builders may have bad rep with rockomax :-P )

You may want to use the almost weightless structural fuselage for better mass distribution. For the slight imbalances you can come up with, Alt+WASD sets the trim.

That is not a witty suggestion, but do you realise that with a ground klaw and a command seat, you could make a springy thing (usually, these looks like horses or bikes) that we have in parks ? Pump it with RCS and you are done ! I agree over 100% with OP.

Cannot we simply have a modifier button to press while holding Ctrl or Shift ? It would work similarly to the trim adjustments (Alt+S/W). I understand that it cannot be the Alt modifier because alt+Shift would cause major problems for people using different keyboard layouts, but there still can be an analog solution insn't it ? As modifier+Ctrl would look and be used like trim, it wouldn't be hard to adapt to this new mechanic and would not make the action groups do things they are not supposed to (they are toogle buttons, not "dial" commands like WASD, ctrl & shift). That is my take, what do you think of it ?

I agree with Kasuha on the fact tha Kerbals do not need more ways to die. On the other hand, supplies management could be interesting as a stock feature. I think that the outcome of a supplies shortage proposer by Valley is interesting because it would just make them go dormant (on strike ?), but not die, just like our favourite space pet, the isopode, but better, since Kerbals do not have a life span. Besides, it fits some of the proposals we had here as far as game mechanics goes : ressource tank (sorry Valley, I "blended" the cofee maker and the water under this abstract ressource), waste tank and recycle unit.

Oh no, do not worry, this isn't meant to be a complaint thread, I just want to see if people can reach a consensus on what could be a minimum configuration for KSP, so we do not have to suffer the elitist players who do not want to receive criticism based on the fact that if other people want to complin about the game, they should better buy themselves a better computer before giving their advice on performance related issues. It is good to have the feedback of everybody, including both low and High end computer owners and that is why I think we should set a hard limit not to cross when dismissing someone's argument based on his aviaible processing power (or other specs I do not understand). I personnally think that KSP should be able to run on 2008 mid range laptops, but since I have not enough knowledge, I do not take my advice seriously. And that is why I sat this discussion up.

I agree with MSD and MKI. More on topic, tntristan12's solution looks very élegant, as it would give Kerbals coming from very long missions a very long break (such as is given to aeronautics employees, such as mobile mechanicians). However, it would also give you more responsibilities as to how many Kerbonauts you have : send bill on a 6 month mission in your LKO station and have too many kerbonauts, and I assure you that you won't be seeing him for a while *retirement five* (may or may not be something you want, I leave it to you).

Actually, I am aware of those. However, it is also specified (since the software is still under heavy developement) that these specs can change. I still think that you brought a valid point, just saying it is not set in stone, and as is, can raise some fear of seeing the program becoming too ressource intensive for long time players who grew to love the game and do not have very high end computers (as user Red Iron Crown seems to represent a part of).