Fifi

This should be connected with this suggestions, btw. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/44507-Allowing-axial-symmetry-in-VAB-and-vice-versa http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/44813-Change-vehicle-Tree-structure-%28single-parent%29-to-adjacency-matrix-%28multi-parent%29 They should fix the issue. But anyway a ground vehicle testing and building facility (some crash and acrobatic course included) would be a great idea.

Support. I'd love to have my rocket decorated with mission flag.

If we run some suggestion system, the read by Devs will just go to the other category (and they'll probably be able to set them a priority) with notice about approvement, consideration or declining.

I think it should be configurable (both colour and the mode) and the space one should be enabled by default and mentioned alongside the plane one in tutorials. There should also be a keyboard shortcut to switch the modes.

Just some thoughts from the other discussion: One of the most fascinating part of KSP is that you actually watch ship running on orbit (or on straight line, if we are talking about interstellar travel without a galaxy) and slowly arriving the maneuver node or encounter. Of course it can - and should - be speeded up by the time warp, but this way it still got the feel of a real space program which doesn't jump the ship to the right place but slowly move a long time with just a little corrections. I thought that Devs were saying (as a "warp drive") about engine which teleports from one star system to another. If it's just an engine like all the others (despite the fact it's a FTL drive, explained by Alcubierre maths, or very fast conventional drive) and the ship will still move in map view over a course line - it's completely ok for me and I just misunderstood it (then sorry for the mess D: ). Hmm... tidal forces, space debris, asteroids, I don't know. Maybe the speeding up will take a long time. D:

I don't say it will be a long journey. The typical journey to a nearby star would take about 10 years if travelling at 70% speed of light. I got space program which has over 40 years while other stars aren't in game yet, so I think it would be kinda ok. Well, it depends if Devs meant "warp" as a FTL drive or as a teleportation ("warping"). It looks more realistic compared to "click, I'm here". Yes, but explainable in the matter of science. Well, Kerbals already look to have endless life (my kerbals haven't changed in 42 years ;> ), so I don't think it's a problem. Of course it's not realistic, but relativity is a basic law of physics while the biology couldn't say for sure that there couldn't be autoregenerating life. It would be realistic, but why then don't put crew stranded in space? One of the most fascinating part of KSP is that you actually watch ship running on orbit (or on straight line, if we are talking about interstellar travel without a galaxy) and slowly arriving the maneuver node or encounter. Of course it can - and should - be speeded up by the time warp, but this way it still got the feel of a real space program which doesn't jump the ship to the right place but slowly move a long time with just a little corrections. I thought that Devs were saying about engine which teleports from one star system to another. If it's just an engine like all the others (despite the fact it's a FTL drive, explained by Alcubierre maths) and the ship will still move in map view over a course line - it's completely ok for me and I just misunderstood it (then sorry for the mess D: ).

It's on that list because it's confirmed to be implemented in the future releases (so people don't have to ask for it)? So... no, I'm not. I'm only making suggstion about why it should be done that way instead of planned one. Proof (Capt'n Skunky post): http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/17209-Interstellar-travel?p=238683&viewfull=1#post238683 @hotcrazyfruit: Anyway, FTL drive (instead of teleportation D: ) or - better - normal drive at 80% speed of light is still more realistic and interesting. I don't think that things on Kerbin will change much - my space program have already 40 years without other planetary system (it's twice the time of journey to real alfa Centauri and back without the use of FTL drive).

This suggestion is adressed to the rumours that future version of KSP will contain "warp drive" (it was said by the Moderator somewhere on the forums). I think that KSP is a physics simulator, so we should be able to timewarp more (only the timewarp mechanics should be fixed to don't magically pass ships through the atmospheres at high warps and to stop at maneuver nodes) instead of SciFi magic "warp engines" (o.O). Kerbals should be able to hibernate (the ship should be out of control during that process unless somebody attached probe core to it). That would be better than magic warp drives (I think hibernation is less unrealistic than "warp drive"). What's actually the fun of interstellar journey if it's done in one click? Time warp at least simulates time pass and we still see increasing date. It would be nice if we'll have bigger time warp and realistic engine (huge nuclear one, bigger ion engine, electric sail or Alcubierre drive). The issue with a long speeding up could be fixed with making hybrid warp after apoapsis of the last celestial body in planetary system possible. By hybrid warp I mean warp which could be huge (for example 10 000) but during which engines could work (altough the thrust level, roll and direction are fixed and physics disabled). There could also be a restriction that it couldn't be turned on if the ship hasn't last at least 2 minutes of speeding up at desired thrust level without structural linkage failure or changing the direction more than 5 degrees. And btw. I think the first thing to fix before new solar systems should be the terrain (the closest terrain should be randomly generated noise, to don't look so blurry, but to look HD even if it's random - also the higher views on terrain should have improved resolution, cause now it looks like unsharp photography ). Thanks in advance for taking it into consideration.

They could just hibernate. That would be better than magic warp drives (I think hibernation is less unrealistic than "warp drive"). What's actually the fun of interstellar journey if it's done in one click? Time warp at least simulates time pass and we still see increasing date. It would be nice if we'll have bigger time warp and realistic engine (huge nuclear one, bigger ion engine, electric sail or Alcubierre drive). The issue with a long speeding up could be fixed with making hybrid warp after apoapsis of the last celestial body in planetary system possible. By hybrid warp I mean warp which could be huge (for example 10 000) but during which engines could work (altough the thrust level, roll and direction are fixed and physics disabled). There could also be a restriction that it couldn't be turned on if the ship hasn't last at least 2 minutes of speeding up at desired thrust level without structural linkage failure or changing the direction more than 5 degrees. I made separate suggestion of it, btw.

Nope. Interstellar journeys and thousands of new planets to achieve is too fascinating to give up. ^^

Support, really important suggestion. And this would decrease lags (imagine ship without ~100 struts everywhere D: ) and maybe make Linux version playable. I don't think it's Unity stuff, rather PhysiX or game engine. EDIT: It would also change the way we make landers, middle stages, etc. and connect them to be more comfortable.

It's already done, the currently detached parts are stored in some buffer. It's only the matter of making second object of this class or second collection (wherever it's stored) and modyfying VAB and SPH a bit, so it could be pasted also as first part (if the base component of selection mets it's criteria). The symmetry (VAB, SPH, rover) also shouldn't be a problem (it's just a bunch of modifications to the existing code) and will remove all bugs caused by workarounds. Of course it would be better if projects won't be based on a magical "first part" (and center of wobbling), but that's the topic of another suggestion, because it's actually really complicated.

I think that KSP is a physics simulator, so we should be able to timewarp more (only the timewarp mechanics should be fixed to don't magically pass ships through the atmospheres at high warps and to stop at maneuver nodes) instead of SciFi magic "warp engines" (o.O). And btw. The first thing to fix before new solar systems should be the terrain (the closest terrain should be randomly generated noise, to don't look so blurry, but to look HD even if it's random - also the higher views on terrain should have improved resolution, cause now it looks like unsharp photography ).

There should be a suggestion-tracking system, to make sure if any Squad member have read it and what's their opinion (no, considering, maybe, later, implementing, do not suggest even in the other form). Refreshing the idea - the only way to actually make it noticeable - is a workaround. It's not about upvoting/downvoting, there's not so many suggestion that Squad members couldn't read them and set their status - it's about avoiding good suggestions to got lost on n-th page because of the new ones.

*bump* Btw. This option should be connected with Rover Symmetry suggestion: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/44742-Rover-Assembly-Building-Rover-Symmetry

Ops, I didn't knew that. D: Sorry for the mess.

I think ability to set vessel type in VAB/SPH is an important thing, it should affest vessel icon on the Load list. Thanks in advance for taking it into consideration.

It would be really nice to see that fixed.

Is there any option for double output? I really like the full resolution one (that small one looks blurred ) and I know that there's a limit on this forum, but it would be nice if we will be able to get both versions (80px and the small one) - I, for example, use it as a target of this picture link. To be honest, the best solution will be to make a suggestion of increasing forum signature image, it's not a big difference. Btw. The flag marker is an awesome idea. There should also be a SSTO space plane unit.

@up: There was a lot of versions, I'm not sure which is the newest. Ponitifex, Bridge Construction Set, Bridge Builder. I personally remember Ponitifex 2 and Bridge Construction Set. @topic: I forgot to notice it, of course this feature should be toggleable. ^^

I think feature which would colour parts indicating the construction stress could be a very useful idea. The more complex ships are sometimes too laggy to notice what's going on in time of linkage failures (or after, 100 of messages in the same second isn't helpful), so the option to enable marking parts in flight with colours describing their stress will be awesome. You know, something like that: [stretching] purple <-> blue <-> light blue <-> green [normal] <-> yellow <-> orange <-> red [compressing] How it looks like (screenshot from a bridge building simulator I used to play some years ago): I think that option could really be helpful and save a lot of Kerbals. Thanks in advance for taking it into consideration.

Shouldn't it be better to made a part which will function as a on-board computer? It would be programmed in Lua/Python/whatver and maneuver ships for us. This would allow automatic fleet to do it's jobs. I don't know if anybody remembers this game, but connecting KSP and Colobot would be a great experience. ;>

I think everyone who ever built a non-SSTO space shuttle or launched jet plane to other planet will agree with me, that doing it using stock tools is extremly hard (for example launching aerospike plane to Duna needs building lifter in SPH () or copying it from SPH to VAB (which results in symmetry madness, bugs and reverting to SPH after every "Revert flight"). Or making a multi-part ship for a payload which could be easily launched in one shoot. I know that somebody will immediatelly jump up saying that some of it can be done with the use of mods, but: a) It's bugged as I said - neither Subassembly Loader, Subassembly Manager or Editor Tools can't do it as they should because of the way game handles symmetry and projects. This is basic functionality, it's really odd that clipboard and attaching space shuttles to rockets isn't in vanilla game but have to be such a hard thing, which can't be even done properly using mods. Also the Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V (also between the projects) would be really nice (and would do subassembly without need for implementing it - which would remove the most must-have suggestion from not to suggest list without really completing it). I think everyone who ever made a complex rocket will agree with me, that without proper handling of clipboard (which mods fail in, as I said) and symmetry & project compatibility between VAB and SPH it's a really complicated task. Thanks in advance for taking it into consideration.

It's kinda short suggestion, but really important. Mars do have a lot of flat areas (and so Duna had before 0.21), but Duna is currently totally covered with dunes. It would be nice if there will be some flat land too, because landing there with a higher speed plane is very difficult now (although still possible) - which makes taking planes with high maximum range to Duna hard. Thanks in advance for taking it into consideration.