Darnok

Ok so it is letter from some name... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V._Balakrishnan_%28physicist%29 who has worked in a number of fields of areas, including particle physics, many-body theory, the mechanical behavior of solids, dynamical systems, stochastic processes, and quantum dynamics. He is an accomplished researcher who has made important contributions to the theory of anelasticity, continuous-time random walks, and recurrences in dynamical systems. My 1st guess ^ time warp to? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilhelm_Bjerknes Norwegian physicist and meteorologist who did much to found the modern practice of weather forecasting. self explanatory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Val_Logsdon_Fitch is an American nuclear physicist kaboom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Ambartsumian He worked in the field of physics of stars and nebulae, stellar astronomy, dynamics of stellar systems and cosmogony of stars and galaxies, and contributed to mathematical physics. interesting more stars in Kerbol system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_system ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Francis_Hess who discovered cosmic rays radiation? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikram_Sarabhai He is considered the father of India's space programme. moar capsules? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Weisskopf During World War II he was Group Leader of the Theoretical Division of the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos,[2] and later campaigned against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. KABOOM? V from important name that fits Kerbal in context, funny, very funny.

Project Voice?

Lol people are not murdering each other over stories in books... it is all about ideology and power, either your ideology is on top and you and your family got power or mine. Books only helps to spreading different ideologies

Hmm I know about continuously burn... but I've read or seen some document on youtube about satellite powered by ion engine doing it in way I described... just not sure if this satellite burned away from Earth SOI or just went to some high orbit in few burns.

Well that solution killed realism of low TWR engines, because you can do transfer in one go (single burn), while real ion engines would force you to 1. first make burn to put AP before escape from kerbin SOI, 2. wait one orbit or even repeat those steps few times 3. and burn again to reach target. Of course it wouldn't be fun from player perspective As for realism niche, try to imagine angry birds with imaginary trajectory physics I am sure it would be very fun (sarcasm) People in here are not only here to build, fly, orbit, land, we also like explosions and for most of the time I want to test my ideas in almost real environment and situations for example re-entry. As for orbiter vs KSP, well KSP gives you more freedom in building your crafts, I haven't seen any other game allowing for so many uses of single part, you can just flip part and it is something else. That is incredible and real aero won't stop people from doing that, they would just have to pick proper fairing for their creation

Please read my post again... I've said "I am not saying that every game should teach you physics, math and lots of things like simulators" Ion engines were too weak for people that doesn't want to waste their time in 20-30 minutes burns. Solution suggested by SQUAD is good, but not perfect... perfect solution would be to decrease engine power like people supporting realism suggested and improve time warp mechanic, so you could use more than 4x time warp during acceleration and your craft wouldn't be disintegrated. They will do whatever they like it is their game, but that doesn't make them all knowing And how do you know what I know? How can you tell what are my qualifications? Maybe I am person that could teach SQUAD new things about game design? Also calling people "realism junkies" is close to insult imho. As for realism IMHO realism is neutral ground, so stock game should be close to real and fun of course. And for people like you... well you got mods, you are advanced enough to use mod with any imaginary aero you want to. While close to real aero should be for new people that doesn't know how to use mods. It is also strange for me that modders are creating real aero not their own imaginary-worlds like in most games, I think we can blame early access for that. In KSP for quite a long time stock aero was imaginary (not real) and people started to create mods with "close to real aero" while they should do opposite. Devs should create almost real world and modders should add their own fantasy, imaginary addons to make game fun as they see it. After reading blog I think that Devs are afraid of lack of diversity, because without diversity in crafts designs KSP may be boring, all rockets would be almost same with almost real aero. Solution for this is imho give us lots of parts that can be tweaked in many ways.

Game is stopping people from building close to real rockets and planes because unreal crafts have better performance. Also suggestions to add more realism are good, because realism can encourage people to learn and explore issues that later can be used, or at least show off in front of friends While the lack of realism does not teach anything it works opposite it can harm if game is played by person without knowledge about aero and physics. I am not saying that every game should teach you physics, math and lots of things like simulators... IMHO game shouldn't harm you, and KSP is advertised as "game with very close to real orbital mechanic" and most people can think that "real" also applies to other parts of game including aero. I am here because of this "almost real orbital physics", I wanted to learn something and I don't understand why people are saying that learning close to real aero or physics in games is something bad and can't be fun. I prefer to learn almost real physics in some imaginary world with green, funny creatures instead of learning imaginary physics with real looking humans.

Yes, please add this one... for people that thinks it may be too hard add option to disable heating.

Drop the backwards compatibility. People will create new amazing designs and forget about old ones as soon as they learn new tricks with improved mechanics.

No, because you can calculate debris path, save it, and then it just move this part of ship using calculated path. Those calculations also should include point when it hits ground, so even if you time warp it should hit ground and explode not just be deleted.

Why? MechJeb can calculate landing site in atmosphere... why not use this mechanic to calculate debris/dropped stages trajectory, while they are still in 2.5km zone, and put things "on-rails" later?

Game UI should show what will be the rotation of the planet when we get to it.

Constellation Lander (empty) parts: 61 weight: 30t (tanks are not full) size: 3.8m/3.9m/13.3m

Agree with this one, imo MK1-2 commad pod should have weight lesser or equal to 3xCommand Pod Mk1 (0.84t*3=2.52t). MK3 Cockpit can have larger weight ~5t, just add there one more crew spot.

We have options now, so both your idea and NEAR or FAR are possible in stock.

This is great and very realistic idea, for example having 50 kerbals in your program and after 2 years time warp you could have 0 on account

What... black hole is sphere like star, so you can make orbit around it or not? My question is why light bends it's path and turn into black hole?

Even light can't ran away from black holes gravity... so does gravity decrease speed of light? During not so big bang there could be no gravity at all, so speed of light could be much much higher, right now we have many gravity sources, so they can decrease it.

Well since we have difficulty options we can have both NEAR and FAR. I want re-entry heat for my crafts to give me feeling that going back to kerbin is not super safe (that also means we will need heat shields... new parts yay:) ) and I want more realistic restrictions for rockets and planes shapes, because right now even for noob like me it hurts to see some designs (we should get stock fairings with this fix and crafts inside cargo bays shouldn't count for drag and lift). On hard mode would be nice to have deadly re-entry + FAR (or any other solution that would give close to real world aero), on medium NEAR + deadly re-entry, for easy settings only NEAR.

- science parts - engines (crash or overheating for too long should break engine) - command parts (manned and unmanned) disable control and torque on broken parts - tanks, it could have a leak while broken? - docking ports, we would have two options repair or undock mannualy... send kerbal to pull or push something

Well in 0.90 most people is building space shuttle, so I will just build something else Constellation Copernicus Habitat WIP parts: 42 weight: 17t height: 3.8m width: 3.5m length: 9.0m

Agreed, IMHO it would be awesome to make it tweakable, so you could choose from different versions of same engine... Simple way with two options for EVERY engine in game - add vectoring - lower thrust (5-15%) - larger weight (0.5-1.0t) - higher costs or - no vectoring - better thrust - lower weight - lower costs. OR make it more complicated with many options where we can tweak many engine stats - vectoring (y/n) - thrust (80%-120% of current thrust) - weight (also +/- some value) Now for example I want something with shape of LV-T45, but I don't need vectoring, I need largest thrust it can give me... after I am done with tweaks game should calculate weight and costs changes It would be great for carrier mode as representation of technological progress.

not before multiplayer sorry

1. bigger landing gears, wings, bigger orange tank, SRB, landing legs 2. new aero, stock fairings and cargo bays for rockets 2m (for orion service module), 2.5m and 3.75m 3. more adapters for different configurations, those new are awesome, but moar would be "awesomer" 4. more capsules and lander cans, how we can make space program with only two capsules? We have 5 cokpits!!! that is not fair 5. larger structural parts, only ~3 meters beams are pretty short, we should have one with orange tank length

You are right, but costs and efficiency of such "moon walks" makes it not worth a try IMHO. Like I said before to colonize planets and get our hands on its resources we should change our way of thinking about "planetary colonization". The way we do this right now is too expensive and too dangerous and from both reasons we are still here with single space station few decades after 12 people were on moon.