Psycix

Thank you for your feedback. I partly agree, yet those points can be solved otherwise. Simulationist: Yes, but, performing the same experiment again in another flight from a different container is a different experiment. Picking up the same rock, taking the same picture and sending it off is not. Also, if, for example the goo got affected by a certain environment, we'd need a new sample of goo for the next one. We can't simply close the doors, forget that the goo was scorched by gamma rays and pretend it's brand new. So I agree, that experiments may be repeated, but I think this should DEFINITELY not be with the same materials, at the same location, at the same time. Biomes already solve a part of this: Doing the experiment in a different biome is already considered a new experiment. (Perhaps the first experiment of a certain type on a certain body should give the most science, and repeating it in different biomes yield science with diminishing returns, much like the current system does for one single experiment.) Gameist standpoint: The energy requirements may be substantial, but as soon as you get the solarpanel this turns into: "We require a lot of something we have an unlimited quantity of." Transmitting _is_ free. You do know that the game has timewarp and you can send off dozens of experiments in a minute of playtime by generating the electricity at warpspeed? And the problem still stands: Imagine an experiment with a value of 10. (Numbers are arbitrary and guesstimated to my gameplay, I will test ingame and provide screenshots for accurate numbers once I have time) 1 x sample return (100%): 10 points of science. The next time it will be worth 5. Total: You gained 10 points with a sample return mission. 5 x transmission (50%): 5.00 points of science. The next time it will be worth 7.5 3.25 points of science. The next time it will be worth 5.87 2.93 points. Next: 4.4 2.20 points. Next: 3.3 1.65 points. Next: 2.5 Total: You gained 15.03 points without even returning anything. (which you can still do afterwards) How is this not flawed?

Simple suggestion: Be able to take pictures and send them home, for science. Pictures made from orbit Pictures made on EVA Pictures made with probes Pictures made with rovers Pictures of spiderman!

So the idea was that a returned experiment was (depending on the type of experiment) worth more if brought back rather than transmitted. I remember a quote along these lines: "A picture of a rock is much less meaningful than returning an actual rock." However: You can only return one sample, and as soon as you hit the solar panels, you can easily re-gather and transmit data an infinite amount of times. The system is now as follows: "Sending the same picture of the same rock a dozen times is worth more than returning the rock." Obviously, this does not make sense. My proposal: -Repeating the same experiment does not grant any science points. -Transmitting can only grant x% of the science points, depending on the type. -Returning a sample grants the remaining y% of science points. x+y=100% -If you did not transmit about it, you get those x% points as well upon returning (a picture of a rock is worthless when the rock itself arrives) -If you DID transmit about it before, you only get y%, but as you got x% before you still got the full x+y=100% in the end. -Mystery Goo and material bays close after observation, preserving the specimen in the state in which it ended up. -Some experiments acquire huge amounts of data, but only exist in the form of data (think of infrared imaging or radiation measurments or such) these experiments can either be transmitted live, or stored on a harddisk-like device for return. It is up to the player to decide which method is most suitable, and both give the full 100% of available points. This makes non-return probes and rovers viable missions that grant all available points for the given experiment. CURRENT: RETURN REPEATED a few times = all points TRANSMIT REPEATED a lot of times = all points, no need to return or any combination thereof = all points SUGGESTED: TRANSMIT = part of points RETURN = all points TRANSMIT + RETURN = still all points REPEATING = nothing

So now we're going into mechjeb-like discussion: "It's cheating!" -"You can't cheat in a singleplayer game!" "It's still cheating!" etc. Also, you guys are aware that the wiki will be very likely to document every bit of science you can do including the points you can get? Is this cheating as well? Like Zoom said, the days of secret cheat codes and easter eggs in games are over. Every single aspect of every single game will be thoroughly documented and is available for reading somewhere.

Wonderful video! Do you happen to have any footage from your friend's side? Did he see you broken?

I do agree that consoles are ****e in terms of processing power. It is the tuning of the games to the standard capabilities of the hardware that makes games run well on them. I've always been a big fan of powerful cores rather than a lot of them. Gamers do not need more than 4 cores. My i5-2500K is clocked on 4.2 GHz and makes KSP run "good" to "horrible" depending which way you look at it: Good because: Compared to most KSP players my KSP runs incredible as I'm on the high end of the spectrum here. Horrible because: Comparing to other games, KSP lags like hell and accepting massive lag is part of the gameplay. I do not agree with your statement on KSP's quality of coding. Although it is not the fault of KSP developers, the unity engine's physics are simply "previous gen". A modern physics engine (which a game like this requires more than any other) is multithreaded or GPU accelerated, capable of running much heavier simulations on the same hardware. Interestingly enough, I tend to play more "niche" games which also lag because of singlethreadedness. Dwarf Fortress, which is commonly throttled by heavy singlethreaded CPU loads. And Garry's mod, sometimes relies heavily on physics while the source engine's physics are singlethreaded and can have a hard time keeping up.

0.54? I think it is very likely that we will jump over that number to 1.0. Will the time capsule also be opened in that case? People of the future, is this prediction correct?

I completely agree: What is a sandbox if it doesn't allow you to do everything? The very definition of sandbox is that you are free to do what you want, having access to unlimited of everything, including possibilities. If career has a feature which sandbox doesn't, is it really sandbox? Everybody should be able to play the game as they want, and choosing to do science in sandbox is something a lot of players will want to do. On top of that, career mode is more of an introduction to the game for new players rather than a hard challenge for experienced kerbalnauts like us. "exploring science and the tech tree outside of career mode" is something that makes little difference to experienced Kerbalnauts.

So then we will grind by doing the same science, with the same vehicle in different places. 1 lander 1 interplanetary transfer stage 1 launcher for both Launch a bunch of them, go everywhere, do all the science. Of course there are exceptions, like Tylo and Eve, but a good lander could land on pretty much any moon or planet, albeit being overkill for a lot of bodies.

With the biome system coming up, I'd like to see a tidal-locked planet (tidal locked to the sun, that is) where one side is completely melted, and the other side frozen. Imagine the amazing landscapes in between and all the science we could do.

This is going to open up many, many new possibilities for those of us who like to "go big or go home". I am also going to use it to reduce lag on static structures like Munbases.

For starters, your CoM (center of mass) is not inline with your thrust (I assume you do not fire the 909 until after separation), though that would cause an upward tilt. Aside from that, you could try adding some struts between the two bodies, maybe the top one wobbles and pulls it to the side.

Are the engine exhausts hitting your payload or other parts? This might cause them to push that down with the same force as they thrust themselves up.

In KSP the air is static to the ground. In terms of wind and distance it does not matter which way you travel. This is a frame-of-reference problem. A circumnavigation is not faster because the planet rotated: You still have to make the same path over the same sphere. It is just from an outsiders point of view that looks at you making more or less than a full circle in order to do the circumnavigation. To you, it doesn't matter. The only difference would be that if you go WITH the rotation, centrifugal forces will be stronger and you will have less gravity, which makes you able to travel at a shallower angle of attack with less drag. Think of it as partial orbit supplemented by lift. Of couse, this effect is minimal.

The closest thing I'd imagine would be some sort of fuel cell that runs on glucose and sugars in your blood. Since it'd burn your energy, it would be great for people who need to lose weight! But I do not think that the hassle of implanting foreign objects in your tissue is worth this application.

So retroactive scanning is a no-go. What about server-client, so that one server can simulate multiple scanning probes? +1 to the wider scan path using a heavy, advanced scanner (or, a multitude in combination!)

You're right, I was mainly talking about first stage engines and stuff, I should have specified that.

This seems great! I can't wait to see what kind of new content will be created due to this. Mainly looking at hypergolic thrusters. Slapping that X button every time is going to take its toll, I am going to need to get used to this. EDIT: For what it's worth, I vote against a system with pressurized tanks. This is uncommon in reality as well, as the fuel tank would have to withstand the same pressure as the combustion chamber, which is usually 70 bar or higher. Remind yourself of the fact that the turbopumps in a rocket engine have to pump the fuel into the combustion chamber, and therefor have to deal with the full backpressure of such. The only rockets with a pressurized fuel tank are SRB's, which have to be like that per definition of design.

Why not make them using stock parts? Decoupler + Command seat + parachute (optional, recommended) + sepratrons (optional) = ejection seat!

The point Brofessional makes is it is likely that a lighter engine with more fuel in most situations weighs less than a nuke+fuel that features the same amount of delta-V. This is especially true if you want to have a appreciable TWR. As your total amount of deltaV increases and your desired TWR decreases, the nuke becomes more favored, but contrary to popular belief, for most practices it is usually not worth it! Proof: http://imgur.com/a/iNqmQ http://imgur.com/a/yuUH4 Most people "default" to nukes, completely forgetting how much extra fuel they could have carried were they to use a lighter engine. Engine weight matters! @OP Although I find it very creative, a set of radial engines and a perhaps a tad more fuel will likely grant you more delta-V for less weight. That nuke is half your plane's mass.

A simple way to look at it is: You do not gain vertical acceleration because centrifugal forces (upward) cancel out the gravitational forces (downward). Another way to look at it is: As you fall over the planet, gravity makes you gain downward velocity, but lose horizontal velocity. In the end, your speed is the same (in a circular orbit), but you are simply going in a different direction. The reason you do not hit the ground, is because you moved OVER the planet (or the planet under you) and what first was "down" is now a different direction. The speed gained on one side cancels out the speed gained on the opposite side, causing you to travel in in an circular (or ellipse-shaped) path. Make sure you imagine the situation from the correct frame of reference!

This math has been done: You'll reach space, but not orbit!

I think that with career mode coming, this might just be one of the cheapest ways to return from the Mün. Weighing it down could also be done with extra crew space, and soon perhaps science modules. If the craft is big enough to require not one, but two or more SRB's, you could radially attach them and eject them when you reach desired orbit. Except that wouldn't make it very one-touch-return anymore.

I did this last night, around the same time katateochi posted his. I was surprised to see we have such similar designs! The difference is that I went with a straight up vertical launch. This was launched from 0*N 81* W (might be E, just pick the one that faces kerbin) Plain luck caused me to splash down no more than 25KM away from KSC!

So what is this AirSync exactly?