metl

I put reaction wheels on everything. They work. They allow for fine control when trying to land without adding the extra complication of balancing RCS, until I am ready to begin docking missions. As far as the stock craft, they always seemed a waste. Honestly I never considered them lacking for a specific reason, I just assumed whoever built the stock craft sucked at the game, even though he was the one making the game (paradox?) My personal feelings is that they craft should be capable of performing basic feats for those learning the game to be able to use as a reference. I avoided building anything that looked like the X for a long time because I knew it didn't work. It made learning the game that much more difficult for me because I did not have working examples of how to accomplish what I wanted to accomplish. If the X would have been able to do a Mun landing and return, I would have understood much sooner some of the little nuances of the whole process.

Carer integration would be cool. Preferably before level 4... Also, I would love to see the button get placed in the stock toolbar. As it is right now, it never stays where I put it.

Holy crap! This is amazing! That is the one feature that was frigging driving me absolutely nuts! This is on the level of Chatterer or KAS! Damn fine work!

Please, nobody say "I like warm hugs!"

I have to agree with you. I had gotten to where I was really beginning to question decisions and pathways taken during all of the dev-note releases. Once getting my hands on it, I am overjoyed (except for the barn.) #BringBackTheBarn

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Very nice idea. Might be just the thing needed to balance out the budget system.

Keep running the "gather science from space near Kerbin" missions alongside the outsourced science strategy (rep to science). After a few launches, you will have enough science to unlock basic solar panels. Then just leave the pod in orbit and transmit crew report, complete mission, take mission, go back to pod, transmit crew report, complete mission... repeat until upgrades can be afforded. On hard difficulty at around $18000 and 15 science each report, I made enough money to unlock tracking station 2, launchpad 2, and MC 2. As soon as I unlock the next crew center, I will be off to the mun with a decent amount of science ready to finish out the level 1 R&D tree.

The trailer park and barn were freaking awesome and I hated that the took them out. I am even more upset after getting to play with 0.90 and seeing that there are only three of the five levels implemented, there are huge jumps in what an upgrade provides (while some like R&D require a ridiculous amount of funds to upgrade past level 1) The extremely limited starting tech made sense when it was a trailer park. Now it is just an ugly hindrance full of empty lots surrounded by pointless pathways. The first two tiers' building look okay, but the center overall is hideous in the current implementation. Hopefully it gets some more work (and the Barn returns!)

I think they are going to need to implement more for engineers to do. As it is now, I have zero use for them. I've not had to "repair" anything since I did it for fun shortly after they made wheels repairable. There has got to be a balance between including part failures and not having to scrap a mission due to a random part failure.

I would rather see the biome areas unlock on the map as you collect EVA science from it (or some type of on the surface science such as a rover.) Keep it simple though, so unlocking one biome area unlocks all of that type of biome across the entire planet for view (so you know what biomes you have and have not been to.)

Welcome to KSP anonymous.Your life will never be the same again.

But that is half of the fun That being said, Squad has yet to disappoint me so I imagine it will be better than the speculation... speculates? Lol!

I guess (a) would work just fine, but that seems like bit of a stretch to justify stripping a ship from being able to simply hold a steady heading without another part (although admittedly on large craft that is already needed with the SAS modules unless rotation is already almost nil.) ( is a bad assumption. There are some players that do not like manual docking as it is and use MJ just for this reason. I enjoy docking and I enjoy the challenge. Others do not and that is okay. EXPANDING on the basic SAS functions is a really cool idea. LIMITING, not so much. That being said, the idea of losing the pilot mid-mission and having to really fight to not lose the whole mission might provide some intense moments

So if we change the terms around, can someone please clear this up, in case I am still not understanding something. I am concerned that unless I have a PILOT (even a basic one) sitting in the craft (or a basic probe core), I will NOT be able to "lock" the heading ala reaction wheels (current SAS function.) Is that how this will now work? If so, then I stand by the issue of if I build an Apollo mission with a CM and a LEM using the 3-kerbal pod, I will need to take two pilots or place a probe core on one of the ships. Assuming they also fix the timewarp-rotation kill, then unless I have two SAS enabled modules (probe or pilot), if I bump one or the other too hard and it starts spinning, then I am going to have to EVA the pilot, fly over, enter the spinning craft, turn on the SAS, stop the spin, EVA back over to the other and try again. And be honest, has anyone ever truly been able to kill ALL rotation without using SAS or the timewarp kill? There is always just enough residual that you end up chasing the docking port around (0.1 m/s is really annoying when applied in the right direction.) I don't think everyone is asking for much. Leave the basic SAS (or reaction wheels or whatever term you want to use to refer to the heading hold feature) and add the others as upgrades for the actual "Pilot" or probe core. Maybe that is what they are doing, and everyone is getting confused because of the way Harv stated it?

Great. I can stick a stayputnik on top where the parachute goes. Wonderful. There's a saying "A solution in search of a problem." I feel like that is what they did hear.

But the basic SAS is NOT the same, because in order to use it, you have to have a PILOT. Nobody else can use it. So for an Apollo-style mission (or any mission requiring two separate vessels,) to have stability assist in both craft requires TWO pilots. Suddenly there is no room for an engineer because he isn't smart enough to flip the standard SAS toggle (very useful during docking.) That is the problem with the changes. I just can't see the justification of doing it this way. I get the advanced features and overall I think KXP is cool, but every kerbonaut should have some basic piloting abilities. Harv ssaid it himself in the last part. if there is no pilot, there is no SAS.

Banned for being a Mann wielding a pan.

Thank you for replying, and I apologize for not seeing this earlier. I missed it on my subscribed list. Anyway, it may have been messed up because I had originally installed MC2 after playing with an earlier version of FP and I don't think I ever fully deleted the original FP folder, I just removed MC2. I actually just saw your post from earlier about the new features and changes to FP coming, and was greatly impressed. The survey changes should address most of the issues I had personally with them before and make them much more enjoyable. I don't know that "incentive" is really the problem as far as rewards, but more like just wanting other things to do besides random, pointless surveys. It looks like the new changes will address that as well though with actually having something to do there besides just flying or driving over it. I'm glad to hear that "revisit" missions might make it in eventually (if time allows) and congrats on getting into the base game! I look forward to seeing where it goes now that it has Squad's official "seal of approval."

The best part for me was the reference to these being turned into the laws of accounting. I work for a small municipality where things would be so much better if our city clerk would first realize that she is NOT smarter than everyone else (including our auditors), ala "19. The odds are greatly against you being immensely smarter than everyone else in the field. If your analysis says your terminal velocity is twice the speed of light, you may have invented warp drive, but the chances are a lot better that you've screwed up." She frequently suffers from "24. It's called a "Work Breakdown Structure" because the Work remaining will grow until you have a Breakdown, unless you enforce some Structure on it."and then she fails miserably at "10. When in doubt, estimate. In an emergency, guess. But be sure to go back and clean up the mess when the real numbers come along." I am tempted to print these off and leave them on her desk...

Did they seriously take the barn out? That upsets me. i was totally looking forward to starting in a barn! I absolutely loved the idea. It just made sense, especially when you consider that the US itself used old farms and barn silos as missile hangers. Enough people really griped about it enough that they scrapped it? That is a true loss to both historical references and for the kerbalness of it. Other than that, the rest of the update looks pretty cool. One question though: Can kerbals have experience in multiple disciplines? Being forced to take two pilots for something like an Apollo-style mission just so both craft won't spin stupidly when trying to dock is going to be really unhandy.

The best thing about this thread? Seeing everyone's vastly different ideas on what they enjoy. Something to be said about a game bringing together so many varied people.

If you've done the proper research for a paper with proper citations and not just copy and pasting, you should have enough knowledge of the physics to be able to explain it as it goes through the process. If you are trying to use KSP as an out for a quick and easy grade (and your in college) based on what a bunch of random people in a forum tell you, your professor is going to rip it apart. But hey, it's your grade. If you were one of my students, I wouldn't just accept a video presentation of a video game as hard research.

well. Said.

I was meaning an hour in real life time, sorry about the confusion. I agree with you about being able to just strand kerbals, and hadn't actually thought of that. Hmm. Your rep idea is interesting. I'm not entirely against a life support system. I just think it needs to be kept simplified (TAC is too much.) As I suggested before, leave it as just ONE item (call it "snacks", "oxygen" or just "life support") Leave out all of the complicated recyclers. Make it work similar to electricity (although with a deadly consequence,) use light-weight parts so as not to make it ridiculous to plan large missions, and maybe in late-stage put in some type of life support generator similar to electricity's RTG, and it might work. If kerbals have a set consumption rate, then you can plan how many generators you need to make it a permanent station. Make the electricity requirement of the generators scale with the amount of crew, and presto. A simplified life-support system with deadly consequences that is easily managed. At the end of the day, let's remember this is a light-hearted "tycoon" game, not a real-life simulator. Keep it fun. And explodey.