FlowerChild

I think he means in terms of gameplay. Both involve giving purpose to placing objects in specific orbits, even if the "story" reasons for doing so are different.

Just got a 502 error trying to give this thread 1 star. I think that sums things up nicely.

Thanks nightingale. You rule

Consider me schooled I was under the (mistaken) impression that given docking ports result in tree connections, and given you can't set up multi-connections like that in the VAB (say with bicouplers and such), that it simply wasn't possible with KSP's current architecture. Now that I know about it, I think it would actually be really cool if that functionality were exposed through the VAB to make it a little more accessible.

Hmmm...that really makes me wonder how fuel flow is handled in such cases, but thanks for clearing that up regardless

Hmmm...I could be wrong as it's been awhile since I looked at the relevant classes in the game, but if I remember right, the data structures that track how parts are connected within a ship don't support the "loops" that would be created if multiple connection points were allowed. Not sure how this kind of thing would be possible without that changing, but like I said, it's been awhile since I took a look at it. Doesn't Squad normally aim for Tuesday releases to match the dev notes? I'd think it would be more likely tomorrow.

I doubt that's the kind of thing that would be fixed without announcement. I think it would basically require restructuring the entire docking system to allow multiple connection points, and the way ships are handled internally to accommodate having multiple paths between parts. I really don't think that would be a simple fix, as it would potentially affect many different systems such as fuel flow.

If you're looking for cost savings, you also have to take into account how much money you could be earning with the same amount of time. I think this is the big thing that prevents mining from being a useful game feature rather than just a gimmick (and this has been true of any resource system I've looked at, including my own, not just the stock one). For any given unit of player time, you can advance your space program a lot more through other means. I realize some enjoy setting up the operation simply for its own sake, and that's totally cool. However, in terms of being a practical gameplay solution to anything other than a handful of problems (the Eve landing/return example mentioned previously being one), I feel it leaves a lot to be desired. The relationship of player-time to in-game resources is a rather sticky problem to deal with for this kind of system.

On a "random things that may help" note: If you had a previous version of KSP installed, and installed 1.0X on top of it, trying with a completely clean install again may help some issues. No idea if it's related to this one, but I know there was a fair bit of wonkiness back when the 1.X versions came out that was cleared up with a fresh install. Given you've uninstalled already, it occurred to me that you might be half way to a possible solution already

That doesn't mean it's your space program personally making the components. In fact, it's suggested throughout the game that they come from external manufacturers. I think the whole idea of starting with an amateur or hobbyist rocket launch facility and building up from there suits the game just fine, and doesn't need to imply any incompetence with regards to the Kerbal species as a whole, just about your particular space program when you're getting started.

Yup. For those that play a lot of career, there's a noticeable big gaping hole in the building progression where the barn was obviously supposed to go. If you take a look at stuff like the launch mass limit and part count upgrades, they jump from tight to almost immediate irrelevance in no time, indicating there's a level(s) missing there. Internally, the building upgrade system even recognizes more levels than we currently have and has values defined for them. I personally don't care what they look like, I'd just really like to see that progression be more fleshed out (as it was intended to be) from a gameplay perspective.

I blame Renegrade for the ongoing epidemic of Monty Python quotes. He started it.

To answer the question in the title of the thread (which appears to be distinctly different from the poll topic): Yes, I do find stock reaction wheels to be overpowered and to feel "cheaty". I don't say that as any kind of realism argument, but rather a gameplay one. The reaction wheels minimize the use of other (more interesting) control systems like RCS, and while I suspect Squad did this to decrease the initial learning curve, it in turn creates a spike at one of the more difficult parts of learning the game, which is first docking. IMO, learning that you have limited maneuvering capability in vacuum early on is a fairly trivial bump in the difficulty progression that would help introduce players to the use of RCS. Instead, that's postponed until later once they decide they want to attempt docking, when they already have a huge hump to get over in terms of difficulty. So, instead of learning things like balancing thrusters gradually in general play, it's all dumped on the player at once during what is likely the most difficult portion of learning to play the game. Personally, I think that using RCS more and thus having limited maneuvering capability also makes for a more interesting game overall as you have to keep in mind the efficiency of your maneuvers rather than simply performing them willy nilly. I rarely play stock these days, but when I do (generally right after a new release), I know that the reaction wheels are one of the things that bug me the most.

I think trying to redefine cheating to avoid feeling like you're cheating, and freaking out because people even ask if something feels like cheating, is cheating.