Clockwork_werewolf

I like this answer because it does actually give a stopping point. I will ask why 5 meter and not 3.75 corresponds well to Saturn's 10m? This is is not a dig I just want to see the working about delta-v, atmosphere, size compared to other sizes, ISP and suchlike. To quote myself "I do like the new parts though as a part reduction and they seem to fit well even if they do need a power or ISP reduction." It's also worth noting that you can make a 30 ton SSTO lifter with the old 2.5 meter parts. I started building a Duna craft out of 30 ton parts until I got board and 3.75 came out. Point being even with reduction I would still expect to get 60 ton SSTO launches with reduced power 3.75m parts. Pi*R^2, Pi*1.25^2=4.909 (to 3sf), Pi*1.875=11.045 (to 3sf). So I would expect at least double the 30 ton lift hence 60 ton SSTO lifter. With the 5 meter Pi*2.5^2=19.635 (3sf) you would again expect 106 ton SSTO's even with reduced engine power let alone if they were in line with the present 3.75 power.

This, all of this.The question is where does this stop? After 3.75 was launched I saw a lot of new players not understanding that they need to go sideways as well as up. Because of the new 3.75 parts they just had so much power that understanding wasn't needed like it was before. This happened because size isn't arbitrary, it is based off the smallest object you can fit one Kerbal in. If you were very good you could get a Kerbal to any planet with just the 2.5 meter parts in one launch. If you were not so good (like me) you could get a Kerbal to any planet in 2-5 launches. Right now I can launch 100 tons into orbit with a reusable SSTO launcher. If you added 5 meter parts you could launch a vehicle that could visit every planet in the solar system in one launch. Above contest entries make me think this is not a ridiculous idea and I've even seem a 15 ton EVE lander so I mean EVERY planet. In the real world we need such large rockets because of how big the earth is compared to kerbin and due to life support needs. In the Kerbal world 3.75 can already be argued to be too big. I do like the new parts though as a part reduction and they seem to fit well even if they do need a power or ISP reduction.

Yea BetterThanStartingManned droped the reaction wheels down to 1% or their stock power. I found this very annoying game wise as it became almost impossible to use them. Flower child talked about reaction wheels being used in all situations but instead in his mod RCS was used in every situation and nothing else was used. Variety should be what we aim for. I think dropping their power by somewhere between half and a tenth of their present power would be a good idea (I side more on the 10% range). Also they should have double the power usage.

Reaction wheels do not need to be heavy, its about the force of acceleration not the mass of the object. If a motor can accelerate with a force of 10 newtons then it doesn't matter if the mass is 1kg or 100kg it will produce the same torque. The only reason for a larger mass is that it reduces the RPM of the object after the same force of acceleration meaning less friction on the bearing (if there is friction) and less change of it breaking at extreme RPMs. The ISS reaction wheels weight 0.3 tons in Kerbal units by the way so it's not much heavier than the 0.2 of the Advanced S.A.S Module, don't know how many it has though.

What on earth do you NEED 5m parts for? What can you not launch into space with the new 3.75m parts? You can make an SSTO that launches 100 tons with the new 3.75 parts, how can you need more power? Unless you are Whackjob, but then at some point he will hit the Chandrasekhar limit if we keep making larger parts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrasekhar_limit

A third option could be to have a store of "used" parts. These could be refurbish for something like 10% of their value. Assume the Kerbals take it apart and replace the most damaged/used parts. They would sit in the inventory and be useless until refurbished, meaning they cost nothing till you want to reuse them In terms of a lifter it might be best to launch the first stage straight up. 2300 of Delta-V is needed to add sideways velocity and this takes you away from KSC. Launch straight up to say 70k, you have 47k up and 47k down to add 23k sideways velocity with the second stage before the first auto de-orbits. 70k straight up is much easier to achieve and you might have the fuel left to land at KSC though I would use a parachute for the last 500m if it was me. This is sort of the space-X's F9R idea but they don't have to deal with auto deletion or only being able to control one craft at a time. This would require Basic Rocketry, survivability (for a parachute) and Flight control (for a Stayputnik). Yea the Stayputnik is not ideal but this seems about minimum. I also realise that getting 23k Delta-V is still going to drain a ship at an early stage but even if you have to dump some tanks you could still save 50% of your ships cost.

If you are using stock then with only one intake it may be impossible it get a reasonable load into space. Most SSTO use between 2 and 15 intakes per engine and 2 is considered a very small number. Although it might be possible to get into space with only one intake per engine the cargo to thrust ratio may mean you need 2000 parts or more to be able to do it. Two to four intakes per engine are possible without stuffing the intakes inside of each other so I would suggest upping the intakes if you can. If you try making a craft with 15 intakes per engine mashed and clipped into each other then you will see why doing it with one is very hard. It's also worth noting that although rapiers are less efficient than ramjets and rockets their flameout for air intake is also much lower than jets and more evenly distributed so you are less likely to spin out of control at low air pressure.

With 4gb of ram with extra to spare for other processes and the operating system that has been maxed until unity 5 (we hope). 4.2 ghz cpu with more than one core (the second to run operation system) is almost as good as you can get though the above postings about liquid cooling may up that a little. It is worth noting that although the GPU is not the most important part of a system for KSP it can make a difference. I was running a Geforce 9800 (released February 21, 2008) and upgraded to a geforce 760 ti. This almost doubled the parts I could use and still be at 60fps. This is a fairly extreme upgrade but it may be worth noting. My Cpu is a quad core i7 at 2.67 ghz and I have 6 Gb of ram just to put the GPU upgrade into context.

Although the total of 56 (at time of posting) is small it isn't within the 20's. I suspect a poll question like this is seen as more of an innocent question than the delta-V readout. Those who do not use one are happy to say as this is mostly curiosity. The delta-V poll was a leading question used to argue a change in the game. I knew when I posted in the delta-V poll that if I replied it would lead to a LOT of posts about how I was wrong. If I wanted an easy life I would have never even looked at that poll. I suspect a lot of people on the forums just want an easy life and a fun game so do not post.

OK here is a question, why do people desire a feature already available in mods when they could be asking for the Devs to make planets customizable. At present the only way to add planets is to illegally decomplite the game. I know that the hard coding of the planets may help with game speed but I expect many people (not all though) have the spare computing power to have customizable planets. Customizable planets would let mods add that second gas giant lots of people want. It would let people make mercury oceaned hot planets. They could make gas planets with a tiny core. They could make an accurate human solar system. They could make closest approximations of exo planets found by Kepler. They could make rock planets with 10 moons. They could make Endor. This is a feature we can NOT have in any way, where as delta-V is a feature you can have at any time. Real question: Time is limited, what makes already existing mod features more important for the Devs to work on?

If I build a ship for Duna and return, I have designed it for that mission. I did not calculate its Delta-V in anyway. It was a success though by the skin of its teeth. Heh no they are large organizations achieving a goal not a single person playing a game. And we reach an important point, I wouldn't have a problem with it being stock if the game started with it disabled and took no effort on the part of the programers (which it will not). Is it inconvenient to use? Does the extra effort of reinstalling outweigh the Dev time taken up? Is the percentage of players who want this great enough to justify the time taken up? Is it a good design decision? Are we the ones to decide this or should it be left to the Devs?

fuel flow is more rough than delta-v, without it you would not know if you had 90% or 5%, perhaps the numbers should be more vague but that's how it is. Thrust is to tell the difference between engine sizes, efficiency and power. Thrust can't tell you where you can get only what that one part does. Temperature is show to know when an engine will explode, maybe this too should be more rough but temperature is a simpler thing to understand than Delta-V. Why do maneuver nodes show delta-v, probably because the only other option would be no numbers or just time for the burn. Again it could be interesting with only a rough 100% burn time on the readout. The game already has a lot of information in it, the ships delta-v is just about the only thing not handed to us on a plate. Delta-V, ship design and flying are the only things left to estimate. You could in fact use others ships downloads and Mechjeb to never need to learn how to play at all. This is all we have left to do. This is a VERY good point. When money is introduced efficiency will matter and delta-V becomes a lot more important, will this make delta-V be required? not really but since it is already available in more than one mod trying to get it in stock still seems unimportant. Which brings up an important point, this is a decision already made by the Devs, people may not be voting "No" because they do not feel this is an issue that they need to vote on, people voting yes though have a vested interest in voting. Those not on the forums also do not have a say. It is difficult to say if this is a fair representation of KSP players. For me yes, or more accurately a job that takes more effort and design is worth more than one that is easy. But to me they have, one mission to Duna got back with an aero break at ridiculously high speeds with 8 fuel left, this was very fun and very memorable. Another mission slammed into the mun due to fuel loss, I felt emotion, I learned things like have plenty of fuel on a space-plane when trying to land on a gas less object (yea it was a bad move). I have never said it doesn't serve the style of the game but for me it doesn't serve the game-play mechanics. There seems to be an idea that turning off an option is the same as adding an option. This is the same problem as assuming that everyone is male until they specify they are female. This is not a logic fallacy but it creates the idea that male is normal and female is abnormal. The human mind is changed by what is defined as normal. Many people play with delta-V readouts and so do not see the problem with making it stock, the problem is it is impossible to see how a new player would find this situation. As stated earlier we all could play with f2 disabling our fuel reserve but we don't because it is normal and we make the game harder in other ways. Normal is defined by stock, if you change stock you are not giving new options (as you can always mod) you are in fact restricting the games style. This is a good question and it is why I wrote the original map question. The idea was not to make a iron clad statement but to get people thinking about whether an idea is always good or whether it depends on the situation. In my opionion KSP has all the data readouts we need and everyone is free to get more though mods, but the standard game should stay without. Killing Floor is one of my favorite games because it does not have a cross hair (when hip shooting) this makes the difference between new players and veterans much greater. "subjective decision based on personal preference" So keep it personal preference like it is now. Is anyone stopping people useing delta-V readout? But why does the majority get to control the minority? When they are already free to do what they want? Right lets have a statement that opting out is the same as opting in, first one gets a prize (not really).

This is the point, KSP is a game not a true simulation. You could make an FPS that was totally realistic, but it would probably not be fun. This is my point and not at all a straw man argument. I am using FPS's because non of us can see unbiasedly when it come to KSP. The point boils down to what is too much information and what is fun. Delta-v is part of real life rocketry, the world where you have to wait two years in real time till 2016 for a probe to reach mars. A world where you only control one tiny aspect of the program, where you do not get to fly a rocket if you designed it, or design it if you write the auto pilot to fly it. What is fun is not always what is real.

You also wouldn't have a cross hair in your eyes, wouldn't have a hud with a map (even without any people on it), you can't take 100 bullets, in the real world you bleed out not get healthier afterwards, explosions can make you permanently deaf, shrapnel can kill from meters way, people don't have health bars, guns jam, people need time to pick up ammo they can't just magnetically absorb it, armies are not constrained to a tiny box of terrain, wind affects bullet trajectory and people do not re-spawn. I am referring to a FPS game not real life because we are talking about games. So the argument stands, why is this not in FPS games when so many other VERY MUCH non realistic things exist? What is the difference in a single player FPS between a map and a map that shows all enemys, there direction and how hard they are? The extra map is more information and should therefore make the game better so why do we not have it?

I've never actually seen anyone say this, it just seems to be a feeling non stock people feel. Well it will not stop because its not something they are doing but something you are feeling. Also as always which mods are we talking about? There isn't the ram for all the mods to e implemented so by adding as many mods as you can you are A: Stopping anyone with less than 4 GB of ram from even playing the game. B: Stopping anyone from choosing the mods they can have. What is the difference in a single player FPS between a map and a map that shows all enemys, there direction and how hard they are? The extra map is more information and should therefore make the game better so why do we not have it? All of north America makes up just 5% of the world population, by your logic this means the world can safely ignore all Americans because they are just a vocal minority. "Only 20 percent of Americans surveyed believe in Big Bang" http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/only-20-percent-of-americans-surveyed-believe-in-the-big-bang/ . Being in the majority does not automatically make you right. It also doesn't make you automatically wrong either. I do think there should be a total mass readout in the VAB/SPH but that is as far as it should go. Note I have not said if I use mods or not, or which mods I use, any argument that says I'm a stock purist would be very inaccurate. I can defend stock purists without being one. Now I'm off to do real world things so will probably not reply to any counter arguments. Also

I know that the "have it but have the option to turn it off" option sounds like a nice idea but that is not how people work or game-play feels when this is implemented. Why do FPS games not all use aimbots? There would still be positioning, weapon choice, team play, reloading, objectives, cover, and special powers (if there are any). This would make it easier for new players to join and learn. Even in single player all the points apart from team play are still true. The players could then turn it off if the game was too easy. If this seems to off point then... Why don't they instead show all the enemy's on the map at all times, this is just information after all and would help the new players in the game. In single player it would show all the enemy's on the map and make planing for the player easier. After they get good they could then switch this off and turn on fog of war. This would make all shooters easier to get into. These are of course silly idea's but the comparison is apt. If it is in stock 99% for people would use it. If you have to change the game though settings then you are not playing the standard game even if you are playing the stock game. This greatly changes the game-play in general. Expect to see a lot of "I have 200,000 Delta-V is that enough to get to the Mun because I keep missing it when I burn straight towards it" Posts.

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Shokk_Attack_Gun

Genius is not the same as accuracy and fastidiousness, a mark 1 design can use parts, physics and designs never heard of before. It can be half the weight and twice as efficient as the old engine, it can also have a 10% of blowing up. The Kerbal way is to use it before the blowing up problem is totally fixed. They are very good engineers they just don't quite care so much about safety records. This is for SCIENCE after all. The Orks from said verse are the only race to have devised stable wormhole tunnels. They may just use them to send snotlings inside someone else's Armour while also sending them mad from the visions they see in the warp but this is the DESIRED result. The Orks can invent things impossible to humanity, eldar and tau. They also like things blowing up. Kerbals are not Orks but only because they are much less violent and generally much nicer people.

Yes sounds like fun, though really it should be over engineered, that is the Kerbal way. 2? 5? 20? A job that can be done on the first try is no kind of achievement and therefore not much of a rush to complete successfully.

Hi and welcome

Heh Cool, didn't look into the specifics much but I guess they put more time into the better chips. I didn't mean to look like I was arguing, people often find it easier to take in something if it is written in a few different ways Wow that not good. I've only got 6GB of RAM running windows 8.1, but then I don't use any mods most of the time, so I haven't run out of ram yet. Might have to keep an eye on that. My computer is 4-5 years old now so it's actually doing quite well.

CPU: you want a fast core rather than lots of cores. KSP only uses one core really but a double core will allow the other to take the strain off for the operation system and other programs you may be running. Graphics card: many people say this doesn't matter but it can actually make a difference (not as much as the CPU though). I was running with a Geforce 9800, and now have a Geforce 760Ti, I can have about 40%-100% more parts in my ship before losing frame rate now and this is with improved graphics settings. Cpu is still the most important part but a bad GPU will slow down a good CPU. RAM: 5GB is all KSP really needs. 4 GB for the game and 1 for the operation system (to be on the safe side). In reality this means 6 or 8 GB systems. I'm not certain of this but laptop CPU's could be inferior to desktop CPU's because they usually try and reduce clock speeds to save on power. This is only a theory though so if anyone knows better please say so. It would be helpful for you to tell us what system you are using and we could tell you what the most important part to upgrade is if money is tight.

Launching an SSTO plane with a few claw-rockets for debris removal. Wasn't really possile before if your debris didn't have a docking port. You could try and make a device with landing legs and stuff but it was always so hit and miss I never bothered. Very curious to find out the mass of "THE CLAWWW"

I don't use Machjeb or other readouts so I'm never quite sure of things like this. Present info would be helpful. The landing gear is still very hard to use in a large plane even if they are overpowered (if massless) on a small plane.

Considering the heavy landing legs weights 0.1 and the landing gear weights 0.5 I don't think the landing gear is OP. On a small craft (2 wings, 3 canards, 2 flaps, 1 turbo jet, 1 fuel tank and 3 landing gear) the landing gear adds about a 3rd to a quarter of the total weight. These massive landing gears (in comparison to the size and weight of the craft) should be able to take a good amount of the force of a landing. On a large SSTO (say 100 tons) no matter what the configuration, most commonly only 2 of the wheels would hit the runway at the same time. This means each wheel needs to take 50 tons of force on landing without much room of elastic compression like the landing legs. Quite often at a 5 m/s vertical and 30 m/s horizontal landing this impact has caused a wheel to break off resulting in... well... problems. I would love to see a smaller say 0.2-0.3 tons landing gear with less impact tolerance and a larger maybe 1 ton but twice or more impact tolerance landing gear just to deal with the HUGE difference in aircraft sizes. Yes I know this can be found in mods but I think this is about stock landing gear.