Fifi

First of all - thank you for not being angry at me. And sorry again, I just posted the first version without thinking how it all looks from your perspective. And about the problem - I also think that engineering things by myself would be better, I just want it to be done via setting fuel flow chart or something, instead of putting pipes everywhere. (because on a real plane all of that stuff would be hidden inside the tanks/fuselage and looked a lot better) I suggested option for fuel autobalance, because it would be easier to implement, but of course some "fuel management computer" part with fuel flow diagram designer will be way better and more challenging. About my designs - I actually completely ignored the 0 fuel states, because there's no other way to check it other than burning all the fuel or counting tanks (which fails if they are of different size and/or different empty weight). I mainly took care of good flying abilities at full tanks, aiming for fuel flow corrections after Devs make it more configurable. I guess yes, but it would be better if we could adjust how it should flow manually, like Scoundrel said. I just want to hide all those yellow pipes and focus on planning them instead of pushing editor to its limits to place them in a strange configurations. xD

(I only want to notice that I changed my previous message and want to say sorry about the previous one - I just had a bad day)

Without fuel balancing I could only make it barely-flyable all the time or good-flying with the full fuel tanks. I just took the second choice, because I don't want to workaround missing valves and make my plane looks bad. The first choice would also destroy aerodynamic specification. Even perfect design with CoM and CoL in proper places will became messed up after time, because the CoM moves while CoL can't. Of course we can fix this by adding fuel ducts, but it doesn't make sense because in normal, real-life planes valves exists (and we can even redirect fuel flow and crossfeed as we wish). So why do we have to make our design ugly or more complex instead of having realistic fuel flow? Now the only thing we can do without fuel ducts mess is to do a lot of test flights and put CoM at fuel 0 CoM - but it will fix only the begining and ending state, not the interim state. Even with full and 0 fuel CoM at the same point, the 50% fuel state will have CoM moved backward - because planes lack fuel balancing. The second problem is that even current workaround is uncomfortable, because precise centering the fuel 0 state to always be CoM is impossible without any marker (like CoM, CoL and CoT markers). Of course we shouldn't make KSP too easy, but - to don't make a contrast - we shouldn't also make it much harder than reality.

Support!

*bump* I think this would also help non-jet planes.

Och, I didn't know that it doesn't affect lag. But anyway it would look better if the fuel tanks would manage fuel balance by themselves. I have, for exampe, very simple supersonic plane (with non-delta wings xD but they looked better and KSP doesn't notice the difference ): But with more fuel lines it will start to look strange. (as for now it begins to increase pitch after burning 1/2 of its fuel)

But this increases number of parts, which would cause lag on bigger designs. And it's a workaround, because normal fuel tank weights so much, that two additional valves wouldn't be a problem, while it would look more aestetic than complex designs. In your and Rune's constructions it actually looks good, because they are not jet planes. But jet plane looks better if it doesn't have a lot of stuff standing out of the fuselage (I know that some people will just clip the part inside, but it's bug using and it looks awful).

Ach, sorry. Don't know why I haven't noticed.

Addition (not mine): http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/45519-Celestal-bodies-with-axial-tilt-obliquity

But that will slightly increase lag (unused part just for instrumental adjustment?). D:

I would like to suggest an option to setup fuel flow in each fuel tank during construction in VAB/SPH and during flight (like the fuel usage on/off option). I made a picture (sorry for this quality) about how the center off mass moves in an aircraft after burning about 1/2 of fuel now and how it gonna look if my suggestion would be approved: With this option we would be able to (for example) make a plane and set all fuel tanks to have the same fuel level (so the fuel will be pumped all the time), which will stop planes from losing mass balance (by the moving center of mass D: ) during longer flights. I would also like to suggest an option for enabling/disabling fuel usage of a certain tank in VAB/SPH (it's already possible, but only in flight), so we don't have to do this every launch. Thanks in advance for taking this into consideration.

Thank you and sorry for the trouble.

About the Duna thing (http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/44506-Making-the-procedural-terrain-generator-to-make-some-flat-areas-on-Duna-too). It actually was suggested before, I just made a Suggestion topic of it: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/42888-No-dry-lakes-on-Duna-for-spaceplanes It's quite important for all spaceplanes pilots. This also was suggested before (it just got lost): http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/44622-Ability-to-set-vessel-type-in-VAB-SPH

Btw. How do you think a kerbal in such a rolling rocked would feel? D:

What about the other 4? Btw. Addition (very nice idea): http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/45243-New-planets-suggestion%28s%29

Up: True, that's why the whole propulsion method makes me react like this: Solid boosters + safety? But more specifically: of course one can put out a missile solid booster, but when it comes to bigger - and more complex - boosters it becomes harder. I don't say it's impossible, cause I'm not a rocket scientist (despite my flights in KSP and Orbiter), but it's probably seriously complicated, cause nobody at NASA ever tried to do this (or I'm missing something).

Electric sails, nuclear pulse propulsion (like the Project Longshot).

Addition: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/44506-Making-the-procedural-terrain-generator-to-make-some-flat-areas-on-Duna-too http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/44622-Ability-to-set-vessel-type-in-VAB-SPH And that non-mine ones: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/44813-Change-vehicle-Tree-structure-%28single-parent%29-to-adjacency-matrix-%28multi-parent%29 http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/45085-Resources-How-Where-and-What?p=578350&viewfull=1#post578350 http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/38087-Musings-on-Resources-and-Sample-Collection-Analysis-Return

Btw. Are there any chances on fixing that?

Btw. What about adding this on the list of already suggested: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/44506-Making-the-procedural-terrain-generator-to-make-some-flat-areas-on-Duna-too http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/44622-Ability-to-set-vessel-type-in-VAB-SPH And that non-mine one: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/44813-Change-vehicle-Tree-structure-%28single-parent%29-to-adjacency-matrix-%28multi-parent%29

I think it could be toggle'able to "low-end mode". Terrain is very important - almost all the "I DID IT" pictures and land bases spots desperately needs good one.

Me too. Studying IT is killing my free time. Anyway, please, include my suggestions in the list (they are all small changes, but would help making the game perfect). Here they comes: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/44507-Allowing-axial-symmetry-in-VAB-and-vice-versa http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/44931-Random-noise-on-nearby-terrain-instead-of-blurry-textures-HD-without-much-RAM http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/44506-Making-the-procedural-terrain-generator-to-make-some-flat-areas-on-Duna-too http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/44622-Ability-to-set-vessel-type-in-VAB-SPH http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/44510-Stress-display-%28via-colouring-the-parts-in-flight%29 The first one optionally (better yes - it would greatly improve game engine) connects with that great suggestions (not mine): http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/44813-Change-vehicle-Tree-structure-%28single-parent%29-to-adjacency-matrix-%28multi-parent%29 http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/44742-Rover-Assembly-Building-Rover-Symmetry Thanks in advance - both to the person, who will make a list, and to Devs who will read them and consider if they are good enough (remember, I can always improve them and think about better solutions).

I know that suggesting higher resolution textures is on do not suggest list so I thought of another approach to this problem (well, planets and moons should look nice also from closer distance and from surface, it's sad to land somewhere and see oversized textures around ). It's a very simple solution - instead of loading high resolution textures into memory, game could just make a random, detailed noise (that could even also easily generate bump map), which will be lost after moving away. It will have the full resolution (as for the viewing distance) and look like a perfect HD image, without increasing CPU and memory load. And about the higher-distance textures: the biggest ones (land shapes, etc.) could be just a little bigger, so they will look HD while not as high as needed to lost the sight of geographic shapes (well, it won't be much more memory than 3-4 textured parts, so it won't be a problem) and then (at a lower altitude) the point directly below the ship will slowly start being replaced by the procedural terrain and random noise textures. (of course I don't mean ugly random noise from CRT TV, but properly calculated one, to resemble natural grain) Also the random rocks, trees, cactuses, grass, etc. could have a HD resolution using this - which, connected with randomization of their shapes and sizes, with decreasing details when the distance to them is bigger (which will cut out lags caused by them), would greatly improve visual side of the game. Thanks in advance for taking it into consideration.

Oh. Thanks for explanation. I was scared that it would be some magic super uber drive. ^^ I just understand it improperly. So... I'm off the thread, sorry for taking your time guys.

Yup, i just understand it improperly. Thread off, sorry for taking your time guys.