S4qFBxkFFg

I agree with OP - the out, in, out, in, out, in... routine is pretty tedious. Probably better than 0.22 though, I think the reports can be stored now without entering the capsule?

I agree with your other points, but if you think kerbals never have facial hair, check out Wernher Von Kerman's moustache next time you're in the science archives. (In response to the "they're not male or female" argument, does anyone seriously imagine Wernher to be of indeterminate gender?) However, as someone else said, although I think it's important we get female kerbals (for several reasons) there are more important things the game needs (e.g. better aerodynamics). It's probably sensible for it to be implemented when the IVAs get improved and we can see more of all the crew.

This would be my preference: 1.Better Aerodynamics 2.Better IVA's 3.Resources 4.Better Performance 5.Money/Economy 6.Multiplayer

With the current state of the game, there's no wind and it's pretty easy to land on any type of flattish terrain, so "extra" runways aren't actually necessary. I'd like this to change though, so that when you use the basic landing gear, you have to use a flatter, hard surface (this could even be a dry lake bed, like in the picture above) and land without any significant sideways speed or Bad Things * might happen. The likelihood of an accident would depend on the speed and angle the wheels are moving at while in contact with the ground, and what biome (grassland/beach being safer than mountains/highlands). Then, you would start to need things like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_shuttle_landing_sites . So, you could either start off with alternative runways or pay to have them built in player-defined locations. Once weather makes its way into the game, that'll be another reason to have multiple runways of different direction at the same location - bring it on! * for example: Small Gear Bay collided with ditch / herd of kows / sand dune / herd of kamels / igloo... (select at random based on biome) Structural failure between Small Gear Bay and Mk1 Fuselage etc. etc., parts everywhere, crew still alive in cockpit if you're lucky

I want this too - it could probably be implemented by targeting a point on the surface of a celestial body, rather than the body itself. In the game, it could work by having a "Target Surface Location" option pop up when you right click that point. Totally agree; this has always puzzled me - wouldn't it have been easier to use the "real" view for everything and not have a separate way of displaying the space centre? I should really read through the game controls at least once...

I'm glad this point has been raised, because that (combined with a space/flight sim) is exactly how I'd like "my" game to be. In real-time strategy games, I always preferred construction of my base/castle etc. to the pitched battles. I can't comfortably say this makes me an artist, it's just the way I prefer to play the game. I don't think I'm alone here. Following that thought, I think my ultimate goal with KSP would be to turn the Kerbal civilisation into a multi-planet sustainable one so that even if Kerbin sustained multiple Chicxulubs, the Kerbals could still survive and flourish. In this scenario, some sort of resource extraction and processing would be absolutely necessary. However, I don't think the goal I've just described is something that can realistically be put into KSP version 1.0, at least not in a form we could best appreciate. Summarising the above, I'd like resources, but I'm happy to wait and see what the devs come up with next - for all I know it could be something I'd find more enjoyable. Just don't forget that some of us like creating a "masterpiece" we can sit back and admire - it should be possible to keep us happy whilst also satisfying those who prefer different aspects of the game.

Yeah - it wasn't a serious suggestion, even though I think it would be a good idea for other reasons. I like fuzzy dice, or an air freshener though...

This is why we need female kerbals - so we can use the way their hair hangs to determine the acceleration/gravity vector.

Agreed - I posted the following in similar topics recently: If simulated recovery is too difficult, it's probably quite easy to make an equation that determines cost based on distance from KSC, with a difficulty multiplier depending on biome (e.g. x1 for grasslands, x10 for mountains).

It's a good idea, although I think it's probably been suggested before. Part sorting probably needs an extensive overhaul - some decisions (such as RCS fuel and thrusters being in different groups) just strike me as weird.

I never thought about this until now, but I want it. It's probably not too difficult to add, given that much of the VAB/SPH code would be used - also, a "clean room" interior would be one of the easier ones to create - plain white walls/floor! (I think quite a lot of people would want to see Kerbal technicians, dressed as per OP's picture, walking around in this building.)

No need for a cutscene, why not do it in the game engine?, with a basic model of something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawler-transporter If the player didn't make the CoG low enough, or if it goes too fast, it could even topple when going up the ramp! (OK, it auto-levels in real life, but where's the fun in that?) More seriously, I'd prefer if the cinematics could be done in-engine wherever possible - because any work done to improve the effects there will have benefits in other parts of the game.

An excellent mod! I've actually gone ahead and deleted the stock parachute parts (well, moved to a backup folder outside the main game folder) because I like these ones so much - all working fine so far.

I got the demo when the full version was at 0.21 - and it was only 3-4 days before buying.

I second this - it's also equatorial (so good for observing in the ecliptic, where you would expect undiscovered planets). I can't remember off-hand if there are any other higher altitude mountains near Kerbin's equator, so that might be worth considering too. (Although if the difference isn't much, better that it's nearer KSC.) Further on, it might make sense to have the player build observatories at Kerbin's poles, to get better views of the skies there (e.g. for extra-Kerbolar observations or highly inclined comets).

Good idea - I know the devs are planning to improve IVAs in general, so I hope they add control panel lights at the same time.

What would be funny is if they added a new planet, but didn't tell anyone, and it wouldn't appear in the orbital maps until either a probe or Kerbal is close enough to see (or hit...) it.

My explanation for the enormous densities in the Kerbolar system is that it formed in a part of space where interstellar gas and dust coalesced around fragments of a shattered neutron star - it'll do as long as I don't find out it's impossible...

Wouldn't any fluid (that didn't react with the physical structure) work for the LV-N? I am thinking that this could be relevant for refuelling away from Kerbin - just add some sort of pump and dip it in the oceans on Eve or Laythe. (Yes, it's technically reaction mass, not fuel, but I'm assuming the actual fuel mass will be small, even if not negligible.)

The lasers are probably the closest out of those options. My main irritation is the presence of sound in vacuum.

Thank you for all the replies - I've added some of the cheaper options I could find to my Christmas wishlist, but I probably should get to the library at some point too.

There are already birds in the game. Just listen...

Yes - there could be a button that would switch celestial body for the player, for example. Why would that be necessary? I would imagine almost all of the code could be re-used, except for the graphics being massively simplified, and making sure the simulation doesn't have any persistent effects. The only extras I suggested were adding a reverse option to the time warp buttons (so you could rewind) and clicking/dragging craft around the map view (which I'm aware could be non-trivial to implement).

"...so we put a space simulator in your space simulator so you can simulate space while you simulate space." I know people have suggested wind tunnels, so this might complement that idea, or be seen as redundant - so let's discuss it! My idea is that there could be a simulator facility at the space centre, which sort of works like the main game, but has certain features like the spacecraft being outlines/wireframes, Kerbin/Mun plain spheres, etc. There would also be time controls, but they'd work in reverse as well, and you could even click and drag spacecraft around the map view. This would be an alternative to the "revert to..." options, with the intention being that while you can still just build and fly if you want, you really should have simulated it first. (Obviously, this would be a lot more useful once costs to building a spacecraft are implemented.) Thoughts?

Excellent! I can see this being especially useful for stage recovery, once that gets to be possible in the game. (Before I realised falling parts got deleted at the 2.5km limit, I put parachutes on all my lower stages, with the 'chute set to activate immediately on separation. This often had worrying effects at high speeds, so deployment that waits until descent would be nice.) Once we actually have to pay for MOAR BOOSTERS, recovering them will be imperative - we can look forward to a rain of spent boosters and lower stages gently parachuting into the sea...