MythicLionMan

I actually prefer a list of what's been found and where to a checklist of all available science. I like 'discovering' science and part of that is the mystery of knowing what is and isn't science. A checklist of science would make it seem very mechanical like I was just collecting farmed crops. Science is after all about discovery and exploration, not about checking items off of a list. Since there's plenty of science around there's no need to collect it all, and it's more interesting (and more realistic) if after several missions I discover a new 'reservoir' of science to tap. Maybe I didn't realize that I could take the goo canister to different biomes or I didn't know that I could perform experiments or crew reports in LKO. That said, the game needs to provide better hints about where to look for science, and when I do science in an area the results should nudge me towards additional science. Implementing maps of science results and ensuring that the lists are informative will help with this and I assume that the developers have other ideas for the future. Right now since science and the tech tree are all we have in career mode and the temptation is to try to maximize science extraction, but eventually there will be other tasks to accomplish that I expect will be better suited to checklists. There will probably be checklists of missions that will come later in the development of career mode. Stuff like 'land two Kerbals on Laythe' or 'build a space station'. It would even make sense if there were some science based missions such as 'observe the gravity of Jool'. I don't think that all available science should be known so that there's always be the possibility of discovering a new source of science.

I had a very similar idea. I was hoping for a general waypoint feature (like my GPSr) to allow me to mark a location that I observed from orbit. I was thinking of discovering anomalies (I have yet to find one). The waypoint would be like a flag with no geometry. I really like the idea of extending this to science experiments as well to suggest a ground landing location. Science is currently very mechanical and this would make it feel more like actual discovery.

Yes, that's what I was trying to say. I've edited my original post in an attempt to make it more clear.

Switching ships to an unused type is a good workaround, but it's currently pretty cumbersome, particularly since i have to switch to the target in order to change its type.

Can it? Did I miss something or are you suggesting that I configure my standard RCS for top down (landing) mode and then configure docking mode for chase view? I guess I could configure my non docking RCS thrusters for top down mode since I only really use RCS for docking or for killing horizontal velocity while landing. The default config is a bit backwards when landing. It doesn't solve the issue with planes vs rockets (though this could be fixed with yet another global control mode) and it doesn't help when trying to control something from strange camera angles, but that is a bit of a fringe case. I'll try playing some more with my control mappings to see what I can come up with.

I agree that the 'quick remapping' could get confusing which is why I envisioned it as a modification of the actual mapping as opposed to a completely new mapping. That way it's always possible to revert to the original mapping. The real source of the confusion is that it's already a very complex problem. The game currently attempts to solve it by having multiple modes (docking, flight, EVA, rover) and each of these has its own control mappings, but these aren't enough to cover all cases (for instance plane flight vs rocket flight or docking vs landing). Doing different quick remaps doesn't eliminate the complexity since it's just adding even more modes. Maybe one way to help keep it from becoming too complicated would be to make it a part of docking mode. The remapped controls would only activate when docking mode was active and the docking view could show the current mapping and the UI to change it. This wouldn't work so well for flying an airplane though since that normally isn't done in docking mode. None of what I've said here sounds like it would prevent things from getting more complicated though . I do think that some system allowing additional mappings is needed and the current system is getting pretty cumbersome (particularly when I have to exit to the main menu to make any changes to the mappings). I do like BrokenPhysics suggestion to not bind these features to any key by default so they would only confuse those who wanted to be confused.

Currently the only way to adjust the controls (or even view them) is to exit to the main menu. This makes for slow feedback particularly when configuring the dead zone and sensitivity of the joystick which takes some back and forth to get right. The input controls should be available in the config menu in game for tweaking and for reference. In addition to completely remapping the controls there are several 'quick' changes to the input controls that are useful depending on what the player is doing. For instance swapping roll and yaw makes sense when transitioning from flying a rocket to a plane (which can happen mid flight) (this is particularly noticeable when using a joystick). Likewise the RCS controls that are best for docking (where I view the ship from behind) are the opposite of those that are good for landing (where I view it from above). There are also situations where it makes sense to orient the camera in a way that makes the navball centred controls counterintuitive. I propose a 'quick flip' option for rotation and RCS controls. A modifier key could be used to swap the direction of any axis, and another key could exchange any two axis. For example Mod + W would reverse the controls for the pitch axis. Another key would allow the roll and yaw to be swapped. Another way to do this would be to have a 'quick config' window that would open to flip the controls. The 'quick config' window wouldn't be as complex as the full input configuration window and would just swap the inputs without reconfiguring them, as well as allowing them to be reset to the default. One advantage of this approach would be that the game would be paused while this window was up but if the RCS thrust were still rendered when the controls were applied it would be possible to see how the controls were configured without affecting the game.

It's possible to filter the map view and the tracking station view by craft type. This is very handy for cleaning up the map when trying to select something, but often hiding ships that I don't want to see also hides the ships that I do want to see! If I'm trying to dock two capsules and have selected one as the target, disabling capsules on the map hides the active capsule and the target capsule as well as any other nearby capsules. Either the current ship and the target should always be displayed or there should be an additional tab in the filter panel for the 'selected ships'. It would also make sense to render the icons for these two in a different colour to make them easier to pick out in the map view.

I was thinking of suggesting something similar so I'll just add to this thread. I like the keybinding idea a lot, and I like the PIP idea as well. The PIP would make it possible to manipulate the node while seeing the target, but it can sometimes be hard to set the focus on the target when it's far away. Once the control node is created it's possible to change the focus to the control node using tab, but the area of interest often lies halfway around the solar system. I can change the focus to the planet I'm trying to reach, but it isn't where I'm going to rendezvous yet. It would be useful if I could also tab select to a distant encounter (or the predicted periapsis of the encounter) when planning a Hohmann transfer so I could fine tune the node more precisely.

Thanks. I've been playing KSP so much lately I haven't really had time to keep up with the forum After last nights marathon trip to Jool I figured I'd better not play tonight or I wouldn't get any sleep again.

I really like that idea! I always have an internal debate about whether or not I should revert a launch or restore a save. I justify reverting as a 'simulator run' but I like the idea of having to fix my mistakes occasionally. Penalizing people for restoring saves usually doesn't go down well, so rewarding them for not saving is a great idea. And learning from mistakes just makes so much sense. I learned the real world skills I use to play the game by making mistakes, so learning the virtual skills should work the same way.

A lot of the discussion about the tech tree has focused on the tech tree as a 'tutorial' for new players. Since I'm a relatively new player (and a complete newb on the forums) I thought I'd give my perspective after playing with the new update. I started playing KSP in late August, early September, so before the update I played for about a month and a half. That said I'm a bit addicted so I've played a lot in that time. So far I haven't tried any mods and I'm just playing the stock game. Initial Rection First off, if I hadn't lurked on the forums and watched some youtube videos I wouldn't have had a clue at all about how to do science. As it is my research let me know that I could take samples from the launchpad and do other experiments without flying at all which got me started and let me learn the ropes. For now I'd recommend new players start playing in sandbox mode since the science is still pretty opaque, but I assume that this will change as career mode is fleshed out. The tech tree is decidedly odd in places and doesn't always make logical sense, but it is a gameplay mechanic so some artistic license is to be expected. I didn't find it overly difficult or overly easy to unlock nodes, but as I progressed I started unlocking nodes much faster than I could use the parts in them. There were parts (like the sepratron) that I'd never used in sandbox mode and I had assumed that I'd find a use for in career mode, but they flew by so quickly I didn't really need them. This may change as other aspects of career mode place more constraints on the game (escape towers?). I found some of the messages about storing samples confusing. I only found out that I could store multiple EVA reports for different biomes stored in one capsule by reading the forums. Had I known I would have spammed the radio less. The distinction between a crew report and an EVA report is also a bit hazy and confusing. SAS I've only tried the SAS in the demo, 0.21 and now 0.22 and I must say my favourite was 0.21. It might be because I use a joystick (I bought it just for KSP). With the new SAS my ship bounces around a lot more and I have to give more jerky input on the joystick like I did when I was using the keyboard and 'feathering' the input. I like the joystick because it lets me give very small steady inputs, but the new SAS doesn't seem to like this. Collecting Science I do like that the science doesn't interfere with the open nature of the game. Science is plentiful enough that I don't have to extract every last drop of it and I can still pick what missions I do to collect it. It feels right that science isn't something that I can exhaust in an area since it's not a crop. That said, my OCD kicks in, and when on a mission I find it hard to not transmit repeatedly until I've exhausted an experiment in the current biome. Even though I chose to do this it does become tedious. I stopped reading the science text and just kept retransmitting until I got a 0.1 return value. Making multiple flights to extract the same information seems like a waste of fuel, and a big part of space flight is about being efficient, so there is a gameplay mechanic that encourages this spamming in addition to my OCD. I agree with other players suggestions that fewer transmissions be required to extract all of the science and that there be two pools of science points per experiment, one that can be transmitted and one that must be returned to make sample return more valuable. (Though requiring sample return for a thermometer reading does seem pretty weird). Finding Science Finding biomes on Kerbin and the Mün from orbit did add a sense of exploration to the quest for science. This got tedious as well, but I feel that was due to the repeated transmissions, not having to search. Putting myself in an inclined orbit that swept a lot of the terrain below was interesting and seeing the world scroll by below was pretty neat. I could spot the different biomes from space, but I only knew they existed because of information I read in the forums. I like having to 'search' for the biomes and wouldn't want it changed so that I started the game with a global map of where all of the science and biomes are. It would feel too much like just picking stuff up and that doesn't really seem right for 'science' even if it is just a technology currency. That said I think some mapping tools would make exploring the biomes more rewarding and fun. I looked into the persistent file and noticed that each science report contains the planet and biome where it was made. If it also contained the lat/lon these could be plotted on a 2D planetary map (or the 3D map) so that I could see where I hadn't explored yet. (I'm assuming there will also eventually be a UI that lists all of the science collected without looking in the persistent file). To make hidden science easier to discover early scientific discoveries could lead to more science (which is how real science works after all). For instance an initial EVA report could tell me that scientists would like to have EVA reports from orbit over different areas (one of the current Mün reports suggests landing in craters, another could suggest observing them from orbit to indicate that they are separate biomes). I should be able to learn how the science system works by using it. Another enhancement to science discovery would be an active mapping tool that would help discover biomes. Essentially it would be an instrument that I could activate and would do EVA reports constantly for me, and update a biome map of the areas I had covered in a 'fog of war' style. I could review this map and see which areas of the planet I had 'explored' by orbiting. Instead of showing every EVA report created by the auto map I'd only see the unique ones. By checking the map I could see where EVA reports suggested a sample landing. It would also be cool to see the pattern of my orbits painted on the map as I filled in areas :-) Different mapping tools could detect different science targets, so it would be worth scanning again when I had different technology (i.e.: a satellite camera would detect biomes that were good targets for sample return, later I could return with a gravity meter and detect areas worth sending a seismograph to.) This way there would always be new areas worth exploring and I wouldn't be stabbing in the dark. The map views would have to allow different 'coverage' overlays to allow science reports and coverage maps from different scanners to be displayed. This kind of mapping could prove useful for other aspects of gameplay such as using a radar map to find level landing sites (I often don't realize I'm landing on a hill until it's too late) or to detect resources (don't know if this is how kethane works or not). Another twist to make discovering science more interesting would be to randomly upgrade several biomes in the solar system when a new game is started. This would be superficially similar to the original biome but would have a much higher rate of return for surface samples or ground experiments. The orbital EVA report could hint that the scientists want a sample from that particular biome. For instance "This mountain looks like it's made of quartzite. A sample of those rocks would help us understand how the area formed." or "The gravity of this crater indicates that the ground is particularly dense. It would be an interesting place to locate a seismometer". Thoughts On Overall Direction It's hard to evaluate career mode overall at this point since it's obviously not complete. This makes it hard to comment on the balance of the science system or the tech tree without knowing how they will be affected by money, government, public opinion, kerbonaut management, etc. What I can say is where I'd like to see it go. One of the brilliant aspects of KSP is that there's so much to do - there's literally an entire (small) solar system to explore. If I decided I want to land on Duna it's challenging because of the way the game models the orbital mechanics. If I then want to get a sample return from Duna's poles that mission has it's own challenges. Neither of these missions had to be coded by the devs, but they're both challenging and interesting in their own way because of the constraints imposed by the games physics model. In a sense there's an infinite number of these 'procedural missions' that are challenging and rewarding without having to be individually crafted. In my mind the goal of career mode (and science in particular) is to steer me towards these missions and challenges without (excessively) limiting my choices. If I'm a Manley man I can choose to fly to Jool from tier 1 of the tech tree, or I can build and learn slowly with other missions nearer to Kerbal. But the extra limits imposed by career mode give me an increasingly difficult set of goals to work towards like landing or observing new areas. That's pretty much what I was doing in sandbox before 0.22. I did return missions to Minmus, the Mün, Duna and one way trips to Eve and Jool as well as building a space station in Kerbin orbit. I did these things to figure out how to do them and learn skills such as transfer orbits and docking, but I didn't do any of them particularly well (it's amazing what a few orange tanks will do). I intend to revisit each of these missions being more efficient with my delta V (and hence my costs) by refining my ship design and my transfer orbits. I don't think it matters if the game starts with probes or with Kerbonauts, but there should be times when it makes sense to use probes instead of Kerbals. There should be a reason to build a space station, a reason to build a surface base, a reason to do fuel transfer, and a reason to use almost every one of the stock parts. Elements such as resource mining that radically change the way you reach distant planets (by eliminating the need to boost fuel out of Kerbins gravity well) should be introduced late in the game once the solar system has been explored traditionally. I don't think that the game needs to mirror the history of terrestrial space programs (all of which are under performing for various reasons compared to predictions when we first put men on the moon) but career mode should create similar constraints and opportunities for the player. There's a reason we've sent many probes to Mars but no humans. It's very expensive and dangerous to send humans to Mars. And while Kerbals may have little regard for safety (green goo) it's still easier to send a probe to the Mün than a Kerbal because life support is heavy, complex to develop, and expensive. If the game ever gets life support then I imagine that the first tier should be enough to let a Kerbal breathe for a few hours (like a scuba tank) for suborbital, or brief orbital flights but not enough to get to another planet or moon. In summary, I'd like to see career mode progress to where it preserves the open nature of the game, but offers the player new and interesting challenges that encourage the player to explore all of the aspects of their space program. Ideally the player should still choose the challenges. There's a balance to be struck between gameplay, realism and breadth, and also between having goals and preserving the players free choice. I hope that the devs have a vision similar to mine and are heading towards taking career mode in this direction by expanding the science and tech in the ways I've outlined or that they have better ideas that achieve the same goals. I've been blown away but the depth and breadth of what they've produced so far and already feel that I've got more than my money's worth, so the future is just gravy. Not only am I having fun I'm learning a lot. :-)