JimmyAgent007

I agree with this, helps keep things sorted.

I used 3 docking ports, 4 also worked, dunno how concerned you are with your part count but thats my 2cent solution

they talked about the odds of an asteroid hitting something you dont want it too and that it would be an 'astronomically' small chance. Space is big and I dont see a lot of meteors being in the same loaded radius around your ship at once unless you are collecting them. I suspect though that they are a single part as far as physics calculations are concerned so it shouldnt be that big a deal. They did say that they wouldnt be 'on rails' so they may be setting it up to process when you are not focused, im interested to see if that translates over to debris from your ships and if they will no longer be on rails when you arnt focused on them. as for fragments, well i think they can just pulverize on impact and disappear or be indestructible and ricochet off each other in some manner. so there shouldnt be fragments

You dont even need science to get into space, anyone else see the first level tech grand tour of the system? Science is a moot point until .24 comes out. Also i agree with the "if you dont like it dont do it" solution to all these kinds of problems.

I agree, we all know the score. Lock this before it gets out of control.

remember they are working on the NASA pack too, so it should be out a few weeks after .24 but it might also slow .24 a bit. either way is fine but keep it in mind that this isnt a normal update cycle

I agree, almost everything should need to be brought from Kerbin, except maybe fuel tanks, struts, and other no complex metal parts that you could refine from local ore. Though until resources gets put in, everything would need to be shipped.

I think the OP was just asking about the development cycle times. Most of us know from experience but some are new. The best answer is to play KSP and not worry about the update until the final phase, I think its experimental (right?). Thats the only time you should hold off on KSP, if you are the person that feels the need to not play right before an update.

Maybe an offworld launch site would have a tonnage limiter to smaller craft, so it can build rovers and jet pods or satellites. But i do like the general idea of what Nuke is getting at.

They could always lie and add a month to whatever their best guess is so that if they miss it they got wiggle room but if they hit it then they release it 'early'. but they already tell us the phase its in so we can guess to ourselves and quit pestering them. they got a lot of work going into this one so they need to take their time.

If they fix it they wont be doing it just to be jerks, they will do it because there are related issues messing up the game for the rest of us. Id rather no have to deal with a game full of bugs just because some people want them.

The first time i had to get a Kerbal out to push I didnt think it would work. I just thought it was a joke that people on here liked to tell.

.17 i think, the second demo. i think i saw an article in PC Gamer while at the bookstore, made a note in my phone and checked it out when i got home. played the demo for about 15mins before i threw money at squad to get the full game. then got two friends to buy it.

I dont break parts often, but when i do its in a massive fireball. That being said, I like everything the OP has said on this topic.

I hope the have stat tracking, like how much a rocket costs while you are building it as well as how much your space program has cost so far with a good breakdown. Just for fun tho, nothing so complex that you need to be an accountant to understand just want to know how much Jeb has gotten blown up and so on.

what about walking around on a planet with a science detector (looks like a metal detector)

What about unlocking a tier by accomplishing a specific objective. ie. tier 2 or 3 unlocks when you make a stable orbit of kerbin, 4 when you land on the mun and so on. I would like to see more branches with fewer parts per node and the science bits being introduced earlier. I dont like unmanned being early at all but that argument has been done to death and i dont want to get into it.

given that we dont actually know how wormholes work, the way i think of them is as two points in space and time that have been folded together or linked in some manner. kind of like the game Portal or Star Trek DS9

anyone up for picking up where he left off?

Im aware there are issues preventing this, my whole point is that this thread, is to discuss wormholes and how they are used within KSP if they are ever implemented. If someday they are then we already have things worked out, if not, then mods might have the power to do it. Its about a possible solution, not how necessary it is. I dont understand why so many people are offended by this topic. If you think it will never be relevant then ignore it. Those of us who like the idea just want to talk about it.

Default to bottom would be great, im not sure why you wouldnt want them there but on the rare chance you do then you would need to move them anyways so at least they are all in a single group.

Squad might be more receptive to a new solar system if we show them a viable manner of getting there. A bit like multiplayer, they didnt start working on it till someone showed them how it could work. Even if they never do anything we talk about, its still a possibility for mods so why not have it worked out in either case.

that was the point of the polar orbit, to make it hard to get too. but i could settle instead for them just being hard to locate. I just didnt think it should be something you could get too without the tech tree maxed out late in the game. where would you put a wormhole?

of course it is a matter of opinion. Im just trying to keep things as a constructive discussion rather than argue without substance. sure it might not work at all and we could all just be spinning our wheels if we cant figure anything the devs would accept. but there is a chance that there might be some kind of solution if we put all the ideas on the table and talk about them constructively. the what not to suggest list is there to stop "givz us warp drivez now!" posts. not to stop actual discussion. of course its sci-fi, but its also a game and we need to figure out the least sci-fi method possible that might work. wormholes dont require any tech part to achieve and i like that, but the super heavy/expensive FTL drive you need to use in deep space might also work, these are the ideas we are trying to go for. since neither actually exist beyond theory we need to accept a bit of sci-fi with them. but the devs have stated that they dont want warp drives, so we need a natural phenomena instead. not saying they wont change their minds if we figure something workable, but this thread was made to discuss the use of wormholes if they were ever implemented in the game. so lets stop attacking each other for our ideas and focus on that. if you dont agree thats fine

Would make a nice little addition.