Flowz0r

Destructible buildings stand in no relation to the things you're asking about from a feature perspective, sorry.

I think this is an issue pertaining to staging logic rather than part connections themselves. Essentially, "Unity, not us".

I have a philosophical problem with modding a game that is still in development. So purely vanilla it is for me.

What if KSP ran on its very own engine that does exactly what it needs to do and nothing more? I realize that KSP probably wouldn't exist right now if Harv took the time to develop his own engine from scratch, but a man can dream.

There was once a place, a magical place, where a handful of people from Squad used to discuss things with the community rationally. Sadly this place no longer exists in its former glory, and said people from Squad have all but abandoned it thanks to misunderstandings and exaggerations, and abuse, so much abuse.

Something along the lines of "If they can't get a rocket into orbit by themselves, they're not going to enjoy setting up a mining operation or a satellite array. Let's just leave that part to the modders."

Devs not moving the game in a more challenging direction because of a bunch of whiny mech-plebs. Cutting back on ideas like semi-realistic data transmission and resource mining because they're not "fun" enough.

There won't be resource gathering, it's "not fun".

Don't you think it's a little early to prepare for .24 now? Judging by the recent patch cycle, we're months away from a stable update.

I remember ghetto-docking rockets together with landing legs and decouplers on mk 1 pods for clamps in anticipation for actual docking being added. Not being able to set something as a target in order to match your velocity was a huge pain. I ended up just putting the "station" on a geostationary orbit around Kerbin and setting the velocity display to Surface to zero velocities. It's a damn tragedy that I didn't save any pictures of it, I felt like a genius when I finally pulled it off.

Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with the notion either, I'm just here to crush your hopes and dreams.

Harvester has stated on several occasions that he doesn't like the idea of having things take a large amount of time, because people can just timewarp until what they were doing is done, completely defeating the purpose.

You're in no way required to get every last bit of science out of every planet/moon, though. Sure, if you're a completionist who isn't satisfied until he has completely exhausted every last possibility of the game, you're gonna have to deal with it. But what is completionism if not doing tons of unrewarding and pointless stuff?

Think of it this way: A science part takes a single reading, which gets you most of the information you need. Then you send another part just to double-check and maybe correct for errors that might have happened with the first run, allowing you to do some a precise reading. By the 4th or 5th measurment, you can be pretty sure you got everything right and gain nothing else from sending more probes to make the same measurments.

Yeah, while it's a little hard to tell from this angle, it seems like your docking ports are the wrong way around.