ddenis

I'm against DLCs for game in current state. Not until it will be finished and polished. If they drop KSP halfway and start adding better skybox or clouds or anything that is an essential part of the game I'd be angry. But if they finish the game and then propose some interesting addition to it - I could by it.

First of all... I would love to see it in stock. kOS is good, but there's easier way... Smart Parts Auto-staging device that detects empty tanks and SRBs Timer that triggers stages and action groups after a countdown Remote controller that triggers actions on nearby vessels Altimeter device that triggers actions and stages once a user defined altitude is reached Radial fuel controllers that control fuel lines' flow In-line fuel controller that controls fuel flow A fuel valve to dump excess fuel and produce slight thrust

Always use it for manned rockets, but I use it with RealChute and Sum Dum Heavy Industries.

I aim to Ap 100 km and Pe from 80 to 100 km. It's needed because my second stage often has TWR ~0.5-1 at ignition, so I need time for circulation.

It would be useful for everyone. Not only for doing things but also for appreciating beauty of explosions and failures.

What about numeric keys on the right part of keyboard?

I'd say that it's brakes, but looking on your pictures - you've closed engines in your plain. You have to have free space behind engines or they won't work.

Every kerbal can control rocket, not only pilots. The difficulty is that the automatic stabilization won't work, but it isn't impossible. Just something to learn and practice. Small tip: time warp in space stop spinning of a rocket.

Kerbal Joint Reinforcement - less wobbling of your crafts. And Deadly Reentry, cause I love it + heatshields. upd. Stockalike Station Parts Expansion - love it for stations.

I'd delete this problem, because: To know when to finish aerobraking I'd need to babysit the craft, because I won't calculate how many orbits are necessary to slow the craft enough. If in this time warp is limited to 4*physical, I'd rather babysit my craft during aerobraking, then watching as my another craft slowly flies through space in the middle of nowhere. Also, you could be interested in [WIP] Principia: N-Body Gravitation and Better Integrators for Kerbal Space Program. That's what I'm waiting for. From link above. unstable low orbits are in the far future (I need to discuss that with ferram4, it's aerodynamics), I guess that update will have to come with basic stationkeeping.

Not a backup but you can save you game in different save files (Alt+F5) or Save in the main menu in the Space center. If I got the idea correctly.

For last year I've played only with mods (from 10 to 30+), it isn't buggy. All what you need - is to not install incompatible mods, which change the same part of the game e.g. antenna range and remote tech. My must have mods are: FAR, DRE, Real Chutes and Kerbal Engineer. Look on CKAN - it's an util that allows you to install/uninstall/update mods without checking every page on forum.

trying to launch a new station module with SRBs. Forget to snap SRBs to separators, not central rocket...

What if instead of upgrading buildings for reputation a separate settings for building prices would be added? Isn't it better solution for "not grinding"? Because changing one currency on another, which you would also have to grind - isn't a good solution. And your solution to set "money pay-out at 50% and reputation at 200%" is a way of adding separate settings for building prices, but done in a bad way.

You think about probes as a technology of the same generation, difference in them have to be rather measured in decades. Is it possible to install new software on the Sputnik 1 which was launched in 1957?

What difference either it money or reputation if player gets both of them at the same time, doing same things? Or it's done under impression that with reputation it would be easier... But it depends not on currency, but on price. I'd even agree with deleting science and reputation from the game in it's current state and game won't lose anything, if experiments would bring money instead of science as well as researches were made for money.

As were said in the first comment to your post: All crafts you've built and saved in your game are saved into (KSP/saves/<savename>/Ships/(VAB or SPH)/) folders and they named exactly how you named them in the game "rocket_or_plain_name.craft". From this folder you can copy and move them wherever you want, it's your blueprints. Such possibility absent in the game GUI (graphical user interface) but allowed by the game through game folder and absolutely valid / legal.

It sounds like mods, each one can try hard to become good moder. And reminds me next mods: tweak scale, tweakable everything and welding. I would like to have them in stock. Or do you have some example which cannot be done with this 3 mods + moving stuffs with gizmos? But mod such part you don't want?

After 600 hours of game I've almost never reused rockets from the same game (ssto and plains isn't my cup of tea). I've thinker several times about reusing crafts from previous versions, but always ended up building a new one, because from version to version my opinion about design changes, as well as stock parts with their characteristics and list of used mods. I'm not saying that it's a bad idea, but that this idea looks better while the one hasn't played some time when a brand new shiny rocket can be build quite fast. Usually my crafts are built to fulfill some goal, but goals are changing with each update. Maybe because of this, the ability to copy craft files is good enough (post above my).

I couldn't care less about: - how fuel is named - fuel's density - particular number of fuel while the units in which it's measured isn't given I would like to have: - changed % of Payload to rocket mass so it would be needed to build bigger rocket in stock, but it would also require and changed parameters of building updates and etc. (I couldn't even get to orbit with 18t limit and halved isp) how it has to be done... there is many ways of doing it and I don't care which is used. - ISP staying as it is now, because if it would be e.g. halved, then a "magic" difference would gone... 390 and 360 gives "bigger" difference is eyes of player than 195 and 180. - updated ratios of full:empty tank masses to have empty tanks be lighter (more realistic) - updated mass of engines to be more realistic (if I remember correctly, big mass of the engines were coded to give to rockets ability to fly in stock atmosphere) And the question for me is how to combine: lighter engines with tanks and decreasing % of payload to orbit. It's either the density of fuel or flying time to orbit. And based on real rockets I would prefer time needed to get to 100 km with proper gravitation turn be around 10 minutes*, so the fuel density is the only value left as for me.

So, reading this thread I've came to a conclusion, and it was expected, that all opinions are divided: 50% of participants think that Stayputnik is useless in current state or it's broken, as thread name says. 50% - think that it perfectly in gameplay and have fun playing with it in it's current state. Some part think that it has to be moved in tech tree. And the majority of the gamers haven't opened, read or care about this thread and the Stayputnik (is it with or without the SAS)

Yeah, "more difficult" sounded not right for me. I agree with: "different", "feels not right" or "strange", I would even agree with "a bit harder" or "quite harder" but nothing unbearable. Or another term. But I would argue with the first part. I play with mods which shows dV. Usually I build landers in such manner, that they have just right amount of fuel to land and get to orbit and then I can abandon it without docking. But stock KSP limit players ability to plan due to absence of dV information. If we could dump fuel/oxidizer in the KSP, then players wouldn't have problems with carrying extra weight (now-useless oxidizer). On trip to somewhere player have full lander in any case and it's a dead weight even if main engine uses the same fuel, because taking fuel/oxidizer from lander we can take too much, that the one wouldn't be able get into orbit again or land. It could.

Why and how fuel-only LV-Ns would make craft design or mission planning more difficult? I don't see any reason for mission planing getting any harder. Benefits... a bit more logical and realistic engine. And more dV for the same weight of fuel. It's questions not about benefits in craft design, mostly, but how players see it.

I'd like to see propellers for mk3 plains.

Absolutely love this idea with mention that I want procedural wings to be stock with fuel in them.