AlamoVampire

Not necessarily no. @Alshain It would be folly to forsake single player for multiplayer. They have overly much that must be done before its appropriate to touch multiplayer like say the current major instability with the constant crashing. Do i expect new mechanics? No. Do i want to see say GP2 where Eeloo takes its spot as a moon as i think was originally intended? Yes. I also expect they will fix career mode to ya know make sense and have a story at some point too but ling before multiplayer. I also hope they take as long as they took for resources to ensure its done properly and not slapdash. @jwenting a reason to NOT have it. Its one of many reasons i know multiplayer is a bad idea imho

Its been suggested that its an issue with unity 5 memory management

I agree right up until the inevitable and entirely unavoidable happens after they add a thing not needed: single player content development and polish suffer because resources forcibly shift to the not needed thing.

@Alshain Lack of imagination? It's the imagination of HOW IT WILL GO WRONG that makes me say its bad.

why is it people still want multiplayer? there are far too many things that can go wrong, too many hurdles <part counts, mods, trolls, etc> to be accounted for for this to be viable in a game, that I have said before, and shall say again: KSP does not now, nor has it EVER lent itself to anything more than a single player game.

wasnt it possible at some point to do this with KIS/KAS? but stock would be sweet

could be neat, depends on how they design the aesthetics ofc

Question, why not make it so we have 2 variants (multiple sizes would not count as thats scaling lol) 1. As we have now. 1. Where deflating = yes and RE-inflation possible with engineer lvl 4-5 only. That seems to fit all of us yes?

Depends on mission needs. Think about say the spirit and opportunity rovers. Single inflate-deflate cycle set were enough. Also consider that a heat shield inflatable or otherwise are typically one and done. Shuttle heat shield was the only mostly reusable do in no small part its tiles.

Even just to be able to just deflate so a rover or something could drive out/off would be fantastic

@longbyte1 Spaceport! Thats what it was! And ur right. Time tells all

@ZooNamedGames Ok THAT I've no clue on. But I can see how it'd be an issue. Do note if you use Eucl3d it will NOT be that smooth. Here is my gantry class shuttle in side view as an examples of what eucl3d can do. They will thicken portions of your craft, note my wings elevons. All mk3 stuff

@JLE Honestly it depends how you want to. You can use docking ports if it can take a clamp jr or a stack decoupler. Both work, but this assumes you either have the rover as a subassembly or can quickly/easily rebuilt from scratch.

@coyotepunk05 Hello there. I will skip the part about what 1.1 added as frankly the dev notes cover that. 1.1.2 added a UI scale thing for most parts of the UI, so there is a way to adjust it As to landing gear and legs? Well sir, they are frankly bugged at the moment. Walk into em and pop for one example. Unity 5 has issues with things like landing gear, there is a patch <if i remember correctly> coming sometime this summer for unity that SHOULD address that. Also, as a personal hope, I am hoping it addresses issues with how memory is handled as random crashes are plaguing a rather sizable portion of the player base. Welcome to the forums, happy exploring!

sad part, if memory serves at one point oh around .21 or so, they had a mod repository, cannot think of what it was called, but, then, they tilted the boat, went with curse, people got mad, kerbal stuff was our retort to curse, then stuff and things, KS went down, a new site came up, it decided it wanted to support multiple games, ppls feathers got more ruffled, and here we are.

Define normal? Do you mean like a model of the real saturn v rocket? If its that Im sure any hobby shop or nasas gift shop should do, if not that then im not sure..

That my good sir is up to you, but, fwiw if i had to choose, id go saturn shuttle

I like being able to tailor the game to suit what id like to do. Even considering getting opm

neat stuff! The first one MIGHT be a bit delicate being that thin, but should be fine. The shuttle should be ok too. The models they print are well done for sure (have one myself)

<rubs the back of his head before speaking> If you would like an honest, nothing held back response, then, here ya go: 1. You have 0 viable control surfaces on your wings, they move counter to what you need from valid ailerons. You need up/down motion from them that runs along the trailing edge in parallel of your wings, not the current configuration. 2. You have an extra bit of fuselage at the end of your craft, from what I see, its not needed. 3. You have 0 horizontal controls at the aft (rear) end of your plane. While, YES, a V tail can work, the control surfaces you have on your plane lack the deflection force needed to control horizontal (roll down the central line <tip of nose to tip of tail>, Lateral roll (yaw or left/right side deflection, think turning a car on the road that is yaw-like) or pitch (up/down). 4. Your wings look as if they are not around the Center of Gravity of your plane which will make it highly unstable, not to mention you have a rather extreme dihedral angle (as in, you do not need THAT much angle on the wings) which may cause further instability in the aircraft. Now, just so people do not think I am being mean, I am speaking from experience as a radio control scale and sport pilot, and from far too many years on flight sims. I am sorry to take your plan to bits like that, but, in truth, it has a number of issues that would affect its ability to fly in a manner you intended. I hope this frank and blunt critique helps. I wish you all the luck in the world.

We need a way to go horizontal again!