Superfluous J

Okay then put all the probe, manned, and plane parts in the initial node and then just branch off normally from there. Also, "contrived for no purpose other than restricting what you can do" is a good description of the entire tech tree mechanic.

The land around KSC is multiple square kilometers of perfectly (rounded) flatness. Granted, you'd have to taxi to the brownish patch of launchpad area to get full 100% recovery upon landing but other than that there's no *need* for a runway. And just to be clear: I'm envisioning a "launchpad" that is literally a patch of dirt. Or darker grass or something. Not even a bump up to it. Spawining a plane there, you could take off in any direction (except maybe toward the VAB or another building) with no problem. EDIT: Heck, it could even work the other way around. Make the first barn actually a SPH and make the "road" runway where you launch your rockets or planes. It feels very Kerbal to me that they'd be setting up a rocket and then yell "CAR!" and pull the rocket off to the side for a few moments.

Random thought that goes along with Kipard's radial diagram (which I quite like. I was fiddling with a similar one myself a while back) and Baythan's "big 3" starting plans. It'd be a bit kludgey, but what if you started with - say - 1000 science points and each of those 3 nodes cost 1000 science to unlock? You could unlock one right away, and then would need to earn a lot of science to unlock another. There would then also be some other branches that had things like structural parts, science parts, electronics, etc on a more normal progression. So one playthrough you could go for probes first, another planes first, and a third manned first, but in all 3 you'd be able to unlock the thermometer and girders with the same amount of science points invested.

Just for clarity, I'm not backing off of anything. I want an aerodynamic model that is more realistic and more fun, just like almost everybody else in this thread.

"Needs" is probably a strong word, though it'd keep people from asking I suppose. Though honestly I might install this mod in 0.90 just so I can ctrl-shift-click and not hit 4, click some random part next to the part I want to be the root, and then the actual part I want to be the root.

I love how we've got 10 pages of arguing over the definition of a single word, when everybody wants (roughly speaking) the same thing: An aerodynamic model somewhere between real life and what KSP has now. The "Realism" crowd seems to think the "Gameplay" crowd wants crazy unrealistic stuff like double drag on* parts that are sideways or maybe drag based on the shape of the last iteration of the vessel in the VAB before the one you launched. Conversely, the "Gameplay" crowd seems to think that the "Realism" crowd wants anything more than 1 degree off of perfect to not ever leave the ground lest is interfere with some sort of atomic-level simulation of the universe. Of course, I'm being hyperbolic but come on. Is anybody actually arguing that the gameplay would not be improved by a more realistic model? Or that - once gameplay has been sufficiently improved and more realistic changes would make the game less fun - that Squad should continue to make it more realistic just because "screw having fun this must be perfect?" *DOUBLE DRAGON!

Random runway/launchpad/sph/vab thought: If the "launchpad" is just a flat area (which I think it wasn't, but it makes sense considering what we start with now is about as complex as a pitcher's mound and that'll be tier 2) and the VAB has the ability to make planes, then no, you don't need a runway. Just make your plane and put it on the flat launch pad.

I've noticed several times that the "EVA" button goes away when it shouldn't. Frequently this is when I'm landed: The EVA button shows up. I click it, and my guy goes EVA on the ladder (so is "flying over" wherever he is). The EVA button disappears. I right click him (still on the ladder with no EVA button) and take the 100% available science. I store it in the pod. I let go of the ladder, my guy falls to the ground, and STILL no EVA button. I right click him, take the 100% available science, get back in the ship and recover or take off (depending).

I also suggest you start a new thread, and get Youen to update the first post linking to your thread. If he won't, that's sad. If he is actually gone so can't, a mod should be able to do it. A random post buried in a past page of a thread is no place for an update.

All of your advice is good, but I wanted to add to this one. Every single space station you put up with a contract should have such a fuel tank on it. You're already putting a station with power and a docking port, why not throw a couple fuel tanks on it for a future just-in-case?

Take a picture of your ship right before you would test the part. F1 in the game, saves the file in ksp_win\screenshots\ and upload it to somewhere (Imgur is popular).

I think RemoteTech is better as a mod. It adds a *lot* to the game but really changes it fundamentally. Signal delay is evil though and must be destroyed. ()

It's extremely variable, but early LKO missions rarely break $10k and early Mun/Minmus missions usually stay under $20k, I think. Back in 0.24 my Jool-5 mission ran about half a million or so, though costs may be different now.

It looks like your strut turned into a... is that a Stayputnik probe core? You may want to start with a fresh install of the game.

No, because they would show up in the little display as weighting 18.1 tons and it'd be instantly obvious why they are invalid. I'd be happy if they just always rounded up on the display. If your craft weighs 18.0000000000000001 tons, say it weights 18.1 and be done with it.

The game actually tells you, though it's vague. Start a new game and check out Mission Control's upgrade text. Note it needs a tracking station upgrade for "mission planning" or something like that. That's maneuver nodes. tl;dr you need a single upgrade to Mission Control and another to the Tracking Station.

QBE is *the* core to put on a ship that won't have a pilot. I stick it on top of the MK1 pod and gizmo it down to almost hidden, and then stick the parachute on top of it. Don't even need to "control from here" to get the benefit. I've not gotten far enough into the game to need anything other than that. Well, satellite missions, I suppose. For those I've just made dumb debris-like satellites out of a Stayputnik probe, solar panel, and antenna. Drop 'em, collect the cash for completing the mission, and then delete them in the tracking station. Or add a thermometer and keep it around for any "science from space" missions. But yeah, the OKTO2 is not the only probe core you will ever use for anything ever, now. I think that's a good thing.

Of those proposed, I chose mining facilities. They're high on my list. But top of my personal list now is a reworked aerodynamic model. In addition to that I'd like joint parts so you can fold your ships up while launching. The ability to clip stuff into your rocket makes procedural fairings less necessary but without some sort of arm or hinge or something, you're still going to have so many times when you need to launch something small but there's no way to make it fit in basic fairings. And dV displays. Always and forever.

Having to test in staging is the bug. Being able to move stating around is the kludgey fix.

I'm somewhere between 5 and 6. I'll never make or maintain a full-blown mod and will also continue to play other games, but I've done a bit more than put up "a few YouTube videos" I'm also not intimidated by Scott Manley though he still knows more than I do.

I had a ship that KER said was something between 17.9 tons and 18.0 tons. KSP wouldn't launch it. I took a tiny bit of fuel out of the highest tank and was good, but it was annoying.

I don't think the Stayputnik needs to be improved or removed. It would probably be a good idea to note in its description that it has no stabilization mechanism though. There are dozens of parts that rarely see use, and dozens of ways to fine-tune the game and decrease the memory footprint that doesn't involve removing a part that people actually use. The good part is, now that we're in Beta, we'll start seeing those improvements.

True this. If they have to do it in stages I'd love this to be the first stage. Presuming they have stock fairings. Preferably procedural* After playing FAR with KIDS and then FAR without KIDS, I have (for myself) realized that the "must-have" 4.5km/s dV to orbit is not actually all that "must-have." The increased need for your rockets to be sleek (for me) more than makes up for all this great savings on dV. Sure, you can put more up but you have to figure out how to put it on the top of your spindly little rocket. *Wings, too, but that's a different discussion ;D

Not who originally asked for it, but I'd love this if I could get my brain used to it. X is the perfect key because (except in physics warp) you're never throttled up in warp anyway. One request (if it's even necessary to code around) is to keep the "1x warp" text from showing up if you hit X and are already at 1x warp.

Yeah but with my method you only need to remember one word. With yours you need to remember the name of everything you'd want to change in the file. Including science