Lord Aurelius

Killing Kerbals? What's that? /jk I always revert flights or quickload if something goes wrong so I haven't (permanently) killed a Kerbal in quite some time, although aircraft testing especially usually results in lots of mishaps that do (temporarily) terminate some unfortunate Kerbals who are resurrected a short time later to try again with a tweaked design (or less shoddy piloting at least). That said, yes I do feel bad about killing them (which is why all of my designs are extensively tested using the methods described above so that I technically don't have any dead or stranded Kerbals).

Long time since I've looked at this thread (haven't played much KSP since 1.0 hit and obsoleted the excellent 0.90 version of this mod and have been quite busy IRL). I'm sad to see the current state of affairs, hopefully something can be arranged to keep this mod alive in one form or another given how much this mod adds to the game.

I'm not a big fan of ATI cards, especially in laptops. Their power efficiency leaves a lot to be desired (not only hurts battery life, but also the longevity of the machine due to excess heat), in addition to the aforementioned driver issues. Not to mention that the APU in the laptop you linked is weak on the CPU side, and games like KSP and Minecraft tend to be CPU limited. If you're wanting a relatively inexpensive machine, I would actually recommend something with an Intel CPU and integrated graphics. The newer chips have surprisingly powerful graphics (at least compared to the older chips) and can run relatively recent games without issue so long as you don't turn up the resolution or detail levels too high. Make sure to get a larger machine with a 45W CPU to maximize your performance. If you have the budget for it, there's also a few decent entry level gaming laptops: http://www.anandtech.com/show/9812/best-gaming-laptops

This needs to be mentioned again. The new forum is a big step backwards in terms of readability. Hopefully it won't be too difficult to bring back some of these elements in the new software.

If I were in charge of KSP's development, this would be my armchair developer plan for after 1.1: Phase 1: Finish adding new game systems 1. Kerbal Actions (KAS/KIS like functionality) 2. Limited automation (KOS, limited mechjeb) 3. Life Support (one resource simplified, ability to turn off using difficulty settings) 4. Player information tools (some kind of mission manager with alarm clock, dV readouts, maneuver planners, etc) Phase 2: Overhaul career mode 1. Implement a story mode option for career (possibly with randomized elements so every playthrough isn't exactly the same) with increasingly difficult missions across all the planets (and lots of new anomalies to visit) 2. Improved science (more experiments, more incentives to actually explore rather than just biome hopping) 3. Upgradeable parts (so that all parts can be competitive in the late game and still preserve a progression) Phase 3: Balance & Polish 1. Add a LOT more content (especially on planets) 2. More high quality parts to address holes in the current lineup 3. Improved audio 4. Improved graphics 5. Massive balance pass (tech tree, part stats, contracts, etc) 6. Go through the game with a fine-toothed comb and clean up inconsistencies This is a pretty high level overview, but it sums up what I feel still needs to be done with this game. After each new feature, a quick balance pass should be done to ensure that the game is still playable (like is done now) but once everything is in place we still need a comprehensive pass.

Squad hasn't given us much information on the console versions of the game other than that they're planning on releasing it for the PS4, Xbox One, and Wii U, and that they're working with another studio (Flying Tiger) who is doing all the work porting the game to the consoles. We don't have any information on how the console versions will compare with the PC version, or when they might be released. I would venture a rough guess that they will be released relatively soon after the 1.1 update since the devnotes have alluded to the fact that the console versions are being built from the Unity 5 development version of the game, not the current release version we have now. Squad has said that the Unity 5 update is taking longer than they anticipated (which is why we just got the 1.0.5 interim update), but I would guess that early next year would be a reasonable timeframe, although there's always the possibility that they'll surprise everyone with a Christmas release.

This particular argument against an aether doesn't actually work. If the aether is displaced by matter but not the other way around, then the aether wouldn't be able to exert a force on the mercury to displace it in that example so what you're seeing would be expected behavior either way.

That's what I would advocate for. I'm not saying we need full TAC life support in stock, but something is needed. USI life support is a great candidate, especially given RoverDude's position with Squad. I wouldn't be surprised if it's already being planned for 1.2.

Following that line of logic, why do we even bother with EC, or even fuel for that matter? It's just extra parts and weight and they can be generated easily enough with the right equipment (especially EC). From a realism standpoint, the case for life support is obvious. From a gameplay standpoint, it balances manned missions against probes.

I think stock needs life support (in the same way that reentry heat and antennas are being integrated) not only to make ISRU more useful, but to balance the game as a whole. Right now probes are at a pretty big disadvantage to manned missions, and this will only get worse with the antenna logic. For a weight penalty of only 0.5 tons (less if you use the external command seat) you can slap a lander can on anything and gain access to a lot more science experiments (crew reports, eva reports, surface samples), and can reset experiments (or at least pick them up and put them in the pod so you don't have to return everything) and don't have to worry about antennas, not to mention infinite EVA fuel in a pinch. Even one way missions are feasible since there's no penalty for stranding a Kerbal (another thing that should probably be looked at) and fresh Kerbals are readily available via the rescue contracts. I agree that life support shouldn't be mandatory for all difficulty levels, but it's still such a fundamental part of space travel that it needs to be integrated into stock. ISRU would be a great tie-in mechanic for long duration missions.

IMHO, life support is going to be added to stock at some point. Squad's already working on remotetech like features for 1.1 and life support is a logical next feature after that. Another limiting factor besides time could be a limited supply of repair parts.

+1 to this, it's basically what I said earlier. The game does not communicate the fact that the stock craft are supposed to be flawed, that information seems to be entirely limited to the forums, yet the people who are most likely to attempt to use them are new players who probably haven't looked on the forum or used any community tutorials. I personally found the stock craft to be basically useless for the most part and I didn't bother with them at all when I was first learning to build things.

Squad has hinted that improved graphics/VFX and such are planned at some point, but definitely not until after 1.1 and maybe even a few updates after that.

While that's true, it doesn't make the suggestion for progressive wheel damage any less valid since the rework sounds like it will be for the driving handling and physics, not the damage model. I think that a progressive damage system is a great idea and could be extended to all of the parts in the game. The current system leaves a lot to be desired.

This would provide some great opportunities to tie in with an improved career mode. Complete certain milestone contracts and a model of the craft used ends up in the museum. A few general purpose displays (with editable plaques) where you can choose the craft file would be great as well.

I would also recommend Linux Mint. It has great compatibility since it's essentially a modified Ubuntu, but it has a much more sensible and usable UI and configuration.

I get the point that the entire game is a simulation and there's always the revert button, but it would be really nice to still have a simulation mode where you can start your craft anywhere and specify the staging/fuel load/etc (and rewind time) so you don't have to tediously refly large parts of a mission just to be able to test one particular thing (in my case: stage separation of very large rockets), not to mention how tedious lander/rover testing is without hyperedit.

That's a good point, right now it wouldn't make much sense to do a contest given that the parts/physics tweaking is still a WIP. Still, even an unofficial contest could generate some ideas and designs that Squad could use when they're ready to update the stock craft. Hopefully after 1.1 we'll see more stability in terms of parts and physics between releases (provided the parts actually get properly balanced) so something like this would be more doable.

The stock designs are pretty poor overall. I'm not expecting a full grand tour craft or manned eve lander, but I do expect the designs to work well in the current version of the game to provide an example to beginner players or a decent starting point for more advanced players who don't want to build a whole new rocket from scratch for a basic LKO mission. Right now the designs do beginners a disservice since most of the designs don't work very well, and a few don't work at all and thus do a poor job of showing a new player how to build a good rocket. Having the community provide new designs is a great idea, and fits in with how other parts of the game have been crowdsourced. The company logo/flag contest showed how well that can work and I think we could get a lot of great designs for the game. If that's their function, then the game does a very poor job of communicating that. I've only heard that said here on the forums, long after I decided the stock craft were mostly worthless and poorly designed. A better approach would be to have a tutorial that gives you a flawed rocket and some guidelines on how to fix it without directly giving the answer.

I also like to use it for micro rovers that don't need reaction wheels.

The only part I really never use is that micronode. There's quite a few specialty parts I rarely use, but I have yet to find a good use for that node. It also seems to be a buggy part (similar to the rockomax node) in that even though it's symmetrical, you still have to rotate it until it's happy and will connect.

This looks like a great question for XKCD's What If blog.

All of them.

How big are the sensors needed to spot a shuttle RCS plume at the distance of Mars? Are we talking a liquid helium cooled infrared telescope, or a (large) solid state CCD like what FLIR uses in their cameras?

No rush, thanks for looking into it. I'm not planning to do another big career until 1.1.