Kerbart

Supercell shows that making people wanting to pay instead of forcing them is a much better approach (apparently they're raking in a couple of million usd per day on Clash of Clans). "Perhaps we innovated too much". *snicker*

Alt+PrtScr will get you a screenshot of the active application window only.

Weather. It's pretty important in the life of the modern seafarer, and that's with satellite information giving warning of storms (or complete lack of wind). Imagine you have no clue what's around the corner, weather-wise.

It's under development. Userbase would flak the #### out of Squad if they spend a couple of months on a release that "only" fixes bugs. Microsoft has done that a couple of times on a small scale and it didn't go over well (at one point they completely overhauled the internals of the calculator and then got to hear "you didn't even touch the calculator"--so much for users appreciation of "under the hood" work). The most "underwhelming" version of MS Office? Office 2K. They "only" made it nearly bug free (god I how I yearn for those days instead of having to work with bug-ridden Office 2010. But I digress) More of a challenge, what one user calls "bugs" is considered "features" by another. "Unrealistic atmospheric re-entry". If you consider that a bug it should be fixed NOW. If you consider realistic atmospheric re-entry a feature, you'd rather see it implemented in a "real" update (and not half-ass patched in a "bugfix" release) The game is sold under the "it's a work in progress, it's not perfect, it's not complete" premiss. Rather than throwing a fit over its shortcomings it's better to simply enjoy the crap out of the current version and be surprised how much better it is getting with each release.

"Rocket and satellite were successfully inserted into sub-orbital trajectory at x:xx"

To get back to the original question: 1) What does it add to the gaming experience? 2) Adding a new feature, what are the chances that the developers have to spend time developing, debugging and enhancing this feature? If Squad feels (1) outweighs (2) they'll go for it. If they feel (2) outweighs (1) they won't. Remember that there's limited resources in the dev team, so they have to pick wisely what they're developing. PGP might be on the list, but only if a whole bunch of other features have been implemented first.

I'm not sure if “since 2000 we've been hit by dozens of asteroids and we didn't notice one g### ### thing†is sending the right message if you want to alert the masses about impending doom.

If we're off to lala-land, why settle for the Unreal engine? I propose the Super Practical Analytical Computational Engine (S.P.A.C.E.) which: Renders Ray-Trace graphics at 50fps, requiring only a single core 1.2GHz processor and 512 MB of memory Offers n-body physics for a 2000 lightyear universe on a 0.1mm resolution Has no problem with 5000-part ships Has built-in multiplayer support Comes with a special LEGACY module that makes porting over games that run on the Unity engine a trivial task I know this is all BS, but so is Squad switching over to the Unreal engine, so why stop there?

If anything needs to be changed (and that's a big if) I'd go a step further as mentioned earlier, and make Minmus the 0° inclination-close-orbit moon, and Mun the far-out with inclination "harder" moon. That makes Minmus the perfect starter for new players and adds a bit more challenge to the Mun. If would also, at the edge of Kerbin's SOI, make Mun a perfect staging point for interplanetary missions.

So who's the first to pick up a dozen and put them in a spinning ring?

That makes sense. Aren't they made out of cheese after all?

While on the subject of overpowering and 5hr burns. I think that time-acceleration is way overpowered and unrealistic as well. It should be 10×, max. More is completely unrealistic and thus removes the fun from the game.

Why stop there? Seriously, give us a list of 5-10 icons to pick from and just a freetext box (maybe a drop down with existing choices) of the "class" you want to create. Or up to, say, 5 custom classes. Explorers might want to have a "duna," "eve," and "Jool" class series of ships. Someone else who builds a moon base doesn't care about that but wants to split up his "ships" in "crawlers," Living space" and "rovers"

Well, technically speaking, the KSP opening screen shows something like this. But in game... that's kinda cool!

The question is irrelevant. Remember the formula for speed (in a circular orbit)? Plug in the numbers for a 5000 ton asteroid (and that's a fairly big one, as I understand) and you'll get G×M = 3.337×10-4. Now, assume a close orbit of, say, 100m; your orbital speed will be 0.0018 m/s. One sneeze will give you escape velocity, basically.

Heck, land a MkII capsule at Duna--and back--using an Ion drive, no need to reset the game. And then see how overpowered it is.

And get an "I'm afraid I can't do that" when you ask them to be opened?

It would make things a lot easier if you could get anything into orbit by just slapping on a few SRB's and you're good to go. I have no problems with the current setup. I view SRB's as "when you're just a smidgen short of delta-V to get into LKO and a dozen or two of boosters can fix that" Not to mention the entertainment factor of ejecting your boosters before they're completely burnt out. Always good for a rapid (not not totally unplanned) disassembly.

I hope the devs realize what they did. Orange tanks are now routinely used as tanks for friggin' boosters?

I think that technically speaking it's kind of a mod. But one that comes standard with the game and provided by the devs.

I am guessing that, from a distribution perspective, the asteroid pack is effectively a mod. It doesn't require a lot of code to be changed. Where .24 on the other hand, is a complete update of the KSP program. Guessing, mind you. I have no clue what goes on at Squarters (Squad Headquarters)

Well at the late sixties the NERVA nuclear rocket engine was developed on which the LVN in KSP is based. So it's not a matter of "could", it's a proven concept.

I might be wrong, but probably because of this: This is not the first “people who don't explore the game the way I do cannot possibly enjoy it†thread about MJ. Hence the, almost canned, responses. As dedicated as some posters are to the Noble Art of Rocket Science, very little of them seem to be aware that The Ancient Art of Communication is not just for poets and politicians, but for anybody who wants to have a decent discussion. It’s the tone that makes the music, posting “how can you enjoy the game when you do not play it the way I play it†will consistently provoke the reaction that is displayed in this thread. Yes, every single time. See, the OP could have posted something like this: There are many uses for MechJeb. For instance, to get an instant readout for flight parameters that are impossible, or cumbersome, to get elsewhere. Or to automate tasks that are perceived as boring and mindnumbing after performing them for the gazillionth time. For beginning players using MJ for automated tasks might be an obstacle in mastering certain aspects of the game. For players who insist doing everything manual that seems like heresy, but on the other hand it might stop players from quitting the game out of frustration. Can Mechjeb help you understanding how to perform some of the harder maneuvers of the game? Or is it a matter of “I like to build something and see it fly, and could care less about being able to dock myself. At least for now?†If you started out KSP using MJ, did you end up learning how to do certain maneuvers through it? Or not? Does it matter? Then it would have been a fair and balanced question that probably would get reactions from new players who use Mechjeb on how they use it, what their motivations are, and how it helps them to enjoy the game. Instead, the OP opted for writing an opinionated piece with “where's the fun in that.†With predictable results.

Wait, other players get to decide how someone should enjoy the game?

Ironically you're answering your own question. Leave it to the high school student and most of them will pick a very narrow field with only things they have interest in or deem important. That's not the right way to create academic minds. Or even minds at all. Being exposed to various elements of the world we live in is not a bad thing.