Search the Community

Don't you think it would be cool if you could repair your space station in first person? I really want to see first person while EVA'd.

Here's what's wrong with the Thud: Its Isp is good for atmospheric, trash for vacuum (so it's an atmospheric engine) It has higher drag than a radially-mounted hammer with an aerodynamic cap, so it causes a lot of drag in atmosphere It's 0.9t...but you need at least 2, so it's more like 1.8t with double the thrust. That's as heavy as a Poodle, and much heavier than 1.25m engine options. With the Making History DLC, it is massively outclassed by the Cub (especially for landers), an engine with 5x lower mass, but only 3x lower thrust, and +5/+5 Isp, with the only downside of only one axis of gimbal. While you effectively need 4x Cub minimum...that's still less mass than 1 Thud (of which you need 2). Because of 1, and being radially-mounted, one of its niches is to be an early TWR booster...but the Spark outclasses it at this, and 2 means that it's probably better on drag to have radially-mounted tanks with caps and clustered Sparks on the bottom than to use Thuds. It's obvious intended asthetics, and one niche where its radial mounting and gimbaling should make it great, is as a shuttle OMS. The terrible vacuum Isp holds it back, however, and this clashes with its other main use being atmospheric. That drag needs to be fixed. Beyond that, I don't think it needs touching (and shouldn't be buffed much overall lest it become OP) for atmospheric use, since nobody really asked for that to begin with and not everyone even plays Career. The Cub also makes more asthetic/historical sense anyways. As for vacuum, I think the obvious thing to fix would be the OMS use case, to make it actually do what it looks like it should do. The two problems here are its mass and vacuum Isp. I think both should be about in line with 2 Thuds being only a bit worse than a Terrier. It also should be slightly worse than the Skiff, as that engine's pretty good and there should be a slight penalty for radial-mounting. Thus, the stats change I recommend is: 0.9t, 275/305s Isp -> 0.6t, 270/325s Isp.

Hi, we all know music is one of the worst features of the game. In fact, many players (including me sometimes) play without any music neither sound. But more flavor would be added to the game if each celestial body had its own music,..

Hi! I've been on this forum for a long time, and I've recently found it annoying how whenever I type in : ) (I've put a space in there so it doesn't change), it automatically changes to . This is really annoying, as some times I just wanna express with the text, and not with the forum emojis. Maybe an option could be implemented like 'Automatically turn text to emojis' enable/disable or on/off. Have a happy holidays, TCIS : )

I had an idea and want to suggest it: a DLC similar to Making History, but instead of the past of spaceflight, the future of spaceflight. It would have parts themed after upcoming rockets in the future, and would add parts that also are in use today, such as proper landing legs for rockets.

In my Kerbal Space Program game on Xbox, I am having an awesome time! But there is one big issue. After that I had played for a while, and made and saved a lot of ships, I went into the VAB and built a ship. I saved it and then launched it, and it got my payload into orbit. I wanted to make a few changes to the design and do a new mission with the old ship, but when I went to open the ship, it stopped loading the ships. I could not move down or up or press on any ship, so I exited out of the menu. I tried again and it did't work. I frustratingly rebuilt the old ship completely. There is no way I can delete old ships to get it to load faster because I can't do anything in the menu. I was wondering if there is a way to fix this, and if not, I would like to suggest that it would be patched. Also, there should be a way to select multiple quicksaves at a time and delete them all at once. It is quite frustrating to delete one, and it reloads, and delete another one, and it reloads. I love this game and if this was patched it would be even better.

Considering creating a new KSP channel and would like suggestions for a first mission Thanks!

I'm sure this has been said quite a few times, but I just wanted to share some features I think would greatly improve fairings and their use-cases in the game. I've listed all the changes I'd like for them to make. 1. The most obvious one. Reduce the size of the part and make it look better. Right now it just looks ugly and out of place on pretty much every rocket. A much better look would be something like a decoupler only taller and without the markings. Another feature would be to make it hollow, like the structural tubes. That way there's way more flexibility with them. 2. Change the colours of the variants. I find that the variants look quite ugly because of the very repetitive and textureless surface. 3. Make fairings be solid so other parts can be attached to them. This would add a toggle in the VAB/SPH that would make the fairing solid. You can then attach the parts you like. If you then make it see-through again the attached parts become part of the fairing itself and will remain with it even after being deployed. 4. This is the most complicated one. Make it so fairings can be split up into multiple parts than can be deployed seperatly or not at all. This would work while making the fairing. An extra option would make the rest of what's build independent from the bottom of the fairing. Each section can then be staged seperatly or be disabled from staging. To visualize this just think of the fairing seperation on an Atlas V, where the top part of the fairing deployes while the bottom half stays attached. This feature would vastly improve the usability of fairings to beyond just protection from the air and streamlining. Thoughts or suggestion?

Hello, I haven't been playing ksp for long, but I've noticed a distinct lack of any cameras in the game (I mean as parts, obviously there is "the camera"). This seems a little strange, seeing as space travel in real life often involves cameras in some form. Whether on rovers, attached to rockets or in telescopes, they're everywhere, but the only "camera" in ksp is a huge infrared telescope. As well as adding realism, cameras could be used as a science tool, and potentially even be used to boost popularity and funds like photos do in actual space programs. Maybe camera views could be switched between by using "C" to change which camera you're seeing through, and "photos" from the cameras could be saved like screenshots. Here are a few ideas for different camera types, any of which I think would be a great addition to the game: A rocket-side camera- Maybe a gopro sized thing which you could stick on the side of rockets to film as they launch A moveable mastcam or camera system- Would be great for rovers, like the ones on opportunity or curiosity A tiny, hull-mounted camera for probes or rovers- like the navigation cameras on on Curiosity, could maybe make lower quality photos A large fixed camera- maybe for higher quality photos A space telescope part- yes, there's the SENTINEL, but it would be nice if there was something else, maybe to look at stars or very distant planets and take photos, like the Hubble space telescope.

It annoys that a "simple" part upgrade needs a part config that refers to a model which refers to a texture to have an icon inside R&D for a tech unlock (like a Module)...

it would be nice if the DLC Actually added the Descent module from the Soyuz because am annoyed that there is no soyuz style descent module

Hello fellow kerbals. Let's talk about science mode ! I - The Issue I might be some kind of a masochistic player but I can't help to think that even with a 10 % science rewards settings, unlocking the tech tree feels wrong. In my experience, for a 10 % setting, it's : 1) Unnecessarily grindy at the very beginning 2) Somewhat normal around moon and minmus if you travel a bit through biomes with like 2 moon missions and 2 minmus missions 3) Still way to fast to unlock once you can get into other planets orbits 4) Rendered completely pointless by science lab, which stays OP even at 10 %. I mean, even if I just put science stations here and there and don't speed up time directly, any trip to Jool while they are running in the background will speed up that time anyway and grind hard. I won't say much about career mode as I feel it's quite the same issue, science and money feeling like two separates things even with strategies running, plus I tend to prefer science mode at the moment. My computer lags with too much pieces, so I actually build low-price rockets anyway :$ II - The Idea As I came across a simple achievement mod found on CKAN (this one, here) I thought "hey, it would be pretty cool if instead of science, tech tree was unlocked through objectives / missions / achievements of some kind !" It could look like this for instance : Launch a Vessel --> Land a Vessel / Splash-land a Vessel --> Get Over Kerbin Atmosphere --> Land at North / South Pole --> Get to Orbit --> SOI Moon or Minmus --> Orbit M or Mm --> SOI Sun --> Land M or Mm --> SOI Duna or Eve --> etc... That would require some kind of thinking as for the order, but it would be fun to play in my opinion. Plus, as tech tree columns grow in size, your possibilities tends to inscrease as well : orbiting Duna or Jool makes little difference, so the same mission in multiple planets could fill up tech branches (same for Moon or Minmus actually). As science parts would be rendered useless, some missions could call for them, i.e. "do an atmospheric scan landed of EVE" or something. What do you think, is that cool and doable as a mod ? (Or does it exist already, making me look very dumb ?) I know that one could challenge himself and not rely on a game mechanic, but I feel like a progressive mode like science is pointless if you have to moderate yourself playing it. I mean, you might as well go for the sandbox mode if you have to make your own challenges anyway. It would also be newbie-freindly I think, as it would give the player objectives that are assured to be doable, which is very good for motivation and understanding (i.e. seeing Minmus before Moon or at the same level could bring some kind of questions, leading to an illumination when player understands why / do the mission).

Sometimes, mostly when service bays are in horizontal possition, the ship does a big jump because all the doors opening, but I only need to open the upper doors Am I the only one?

We need jet engines to have suction force, for example, if a kerbal comes within 5m of the center of a Goliath engine facing fowards, they will get sucked in and be killed if the engine is on idle. If the engine is full power, suction force starts 15m away from the center of the engine and increases the closer you get, until a kerbal gets within 7m of the center of the engine, which is when they will get sucked in. If parts are light enough they will get sucked in as well. I think that parts 0.25 tons or lighter should get sucked in or be pulled towards the engine. I think this should only apply to single-part turbofans. If the part sucked in has fuel or is too large, the engine will get damaged and it should get a new, damaged-looking model and start trailing black smoke instead of the normal white exhaust, and if it's not shut off, it will "catch fire" by which I mean it will start trailing yellow smoke that gradually turns orange, then red, then black, to simulate fire. If it still isn't shut off, it can explode, causing the tank it's attached to to leak fuel. And it should leave behind a damaged, bent pylon. There should be an option to disable engine damage, too, as well as an option to disable suction. I feel this should be included in the game to make people stop trying to throw their kerbals in jet engines. If suction effects are too hard or take too long, at least do the second option, with the damage simulation.

Idea(not mine):

I really like the idea of havin a red circel on the map with a radius of 250km arround the KSC. Outside that circle the "Recover Vessel" option (both in flight and trackingstation) is disabled. The circle marks the 0% funds for recovery mark and the ksc is 100% with a let's say 20km radius as a bonus to compensate the lack of recovery outside of 250km. Would make the game interresting at least and stil be fair because of the better payment close to the KSC. Just an idea I had. Cheers.

As I understand it, the new Mission Builder in Making History allows for making missions that require mods. I suggest making a sub-forum to the Making History Missions forum dedicated to missions that require mods. This way it would be easier to find missions suited for a vanilla game or a modded game to suit your install. https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/forum/98-making-history-missions/

When you are plotting manuever nodes, the readout on the side of the navball shows how much D/V the burn shall take, and how much you have done. This works fine when you have one node active, but if you have multiple, it only shows the closest, which can be annoying when you’re planning a transit to Jool, but you can’t see how much D/V you’ll need to capture because you have a correction burn of 2m/s active as well. I suggest a way to cycle through which manuever node is active on the navball.

I was thinking with all of the PC versions and the outdated advice associated with the older versions that may not be accurate for console version 1.00 there should be a sub-forum just for console Q&A. I search for info about some topics and all I can find are threads that are years old from several major versions previous to what the console edition is based on. Console players wouldn't have to wonder if the advice they're receiving is current or not.

After several hours of gameplay on sandbox and testing my creativity, I decided to get more serious and start a new career mode. As an airplane lover I really felt a lack of utility on creating atmospheric aircrafts despite being useful on running short distances to gather surface samples on the very beggining of your career. I really saw no need on building those gigantic and awesome airplanes. It would be even more awesome building those on career mode, where you would to plan and desing a even more efficient and better airplane then your casual "sandbox jumbo". As a simple solution, I came up with the following idea: Main idea: Add "Airports" around the surface of Kerbin capable of picking up or delivering Kerbals. It doesnt have to be too complex, just a runway and a "terminal".Beyond the missons you receive form the Space center, you would have some "passanger kerbals"(as a new type of kerbal, like the Pilots, Engineers and Scientists, and now, Passanger) on standby. Each kerbal would have a unique destination, and taking him to the "airport" that he wants to go, would reward you with money. Further away the airport, more money you get. Purpouse: That would encourage the player to build a better, saffer, more efficient airplane and as a whole, creating an extra purpouse for atmospheric aircrafts. Canon(?): To make the Kerbal passanger transport make sense as a whole, it would be a cool thing if we added something more beyond taking those random kerbals around Kerbin. It would make more sense if those airport were added next to a cluster of KerbNet Antennas in order to, in theory, keep the maintaince of those antennas. Also, there would have some bigger airports, which those, would be larger and contain a science only building in it, so having more kerbals in it, would increase the income of science. Taking scientists to an airport, would increase the amount of science income, and taking engineers, would increase the efficiency of the antennas. Conclusion to "Canon(?)": Beyond transporting Kerbal passangers that would give you money for that, you would have the option to take Scientists and Engineers too. Taking scientists to an airport, would increase the amount of science income, and taking engineers, would increase the efficiency of the antennas near that airport.

Holy sciencey title Batman! Basically what I'm suggesting is for SAS to be a module on command pods/probe cores that's automatically assigned to the SAS action group but can be removed and set on other action groups, just like the brakes on wheels and lights in lights and crew parts. What this would do is open up an entirely new action group with new properties. I know you can already set things to the SAS action group, but it's basically suicide to disable SAS mid-flight, especially in some aircraft. As for the "new properties" I mentioned a sentence or two ago, the SAS action group can be on or off, and can have the state temporarily reversed by holding the F key. This would be useful for things such as Space X-style booster landings or SSTO re-entries where briefly deploying all your airbrakes or retracting them to keep them from blowing up from the re-entry heat or to fine-tune your trajectory would be extremely useful. TL;DR - Make SAS an action group like brakes or lights to free it up for other things where temporarily inverting the state of a part would be required/useful.

[First time I've made a thread so please let me know if I need to do anything differently or post somewhere else ] So here's a suggestion - functional simulated Space Elevators and Skyhooks not as vessels but as KSC pseudo-Structures that can be upgraded like any other. I don't know if I'll ever get around to making this myself so I want to put the concept out there for feedback and for anyone with more modding experience than me. I'll start with Space Elevators since they're simpler to use and implement. Using one would go something like clicking on the structure in the KSC, seeing the same menu you get when you click on the Launchpad and Runway, selecting a vessel to "launch", and then loading to a floating "structure" in geostationary orbit above the KSC. We basically render the station at the top of the space elevator, not the elevator itself, so it just floats there acting as a launchpad. There could be multiple such structures at different altitudes up the length of the elevator, from LKO up to GEO, although you'd only find yourself in a circular orbit if you set off from the GEO point since you wouldn't be starting with enough orbital velocity. From your chosen launch point you detach and off you go. You can use this method to put entire spaceships (subject to mass limits determined by structure upgrade level) into orbit, or put individual modules of a ship or station into orbit one at a time and then dock them. You could even bring canisters of material kits or rocket parts up if you're using Extraplanetary Launchpads, up to a waiting shipyard, enabling you to construct HUGE ships very easily for some seriously cool late-game stuff. This is my reason for wanting this mod, I'm tired of launching from the KSC or from EL bases on the moon and I want ways to streamline the process while remaining grounded in realistic futurism. For balance we can use the stock building upgrade system to incrementally increase how much mass the elevator can accommodate in one "launch" - you'd start with a few tons, and work your way up to tens or maybe hundreds. I don't think it should ever be unlimited as with the fully upgraded Launchpad and Runway. That would be too easy, you may as well just use Hyperedit at that point. For optimal functionality with EL, we'd need some way to have at least one vessel "docked" to the orbital launch point, otherwise we'd have to manually ferry cargo to a nearby station every time we brought it up, largely negating the whole point of the mod. I'm not sure how achievable this is in KSP. If it can be done, I'd like any vessel docked to the elevator to be able to receive unlimited resources from the surface, for a price of Resource Amount * Resource Cost * Operating Cost per Unit of Mass. If we can't dock with the structure in any traditional way, perhaps we can treat the shipyard as being in an unlaunched state on one of several staging points. Ideally that would mean there's a main "Launchpad" from which vessels brought up by the elevator are deployed, surrounded by one or more dummy launchpads where vessels can be placed, used and recovered but are unable to launch. This could get buggy though. Still trying to think of an ideal solution. Finally, if we wanted to make this REALLY awesome, it would be pretty great to place such pseudo-structures on any body in the Kerbin System and beyond. This could be used with out EL but it would be much more useful if you were using it as part of some serious extraplanetary shipbuilding or resource-moving infrastructure. This would entail a special part which, in the case of the Space Elevator, acts as a sort of "setup kit" which can be deployed on, say, the Mun to create a Space Elevator endpoint. It would need to be placed at the equator of a body to work and would take time and resources to complete setup. Upgrades to the new elevator would be managed through the right click part menu, but I think the best solution would be a dedicated menu at the KSC and Tracking Station where we can manage all our launch structures throughout the system in one list, without having to load in and visit them. We could also create skyhooks in the same way. The idea with skyhooks is they're cheaper to operate and in many ways simpler to build than space elevators. These would require you to fly a spaceplane to a specific speed and altitude eastwards over the equator. A toolbar menu would then enable you to "attach" to the skyhook, which would teleport the craft to a specific orbit depending on the skyhook.It would be fun to make even more narrow criteria and try and intercept the skyhook at exactly the right time and place, but it wouldn't be much use if you wanted to use the thing regularly. It would be nice to attach only the cargo somehow, but I don't know how realistic that is or how we'd achieve that in the mod since KSP only sees one craft irrespective of what's considered "cargo". Conceivably this would work offworld as well. Alright, that's it. I think what I've outlined here would be quite achievable, if I or anyone else gets around to making such a thing, and it would be tremendously useful and immersive for builds like mine where I'm spending most of my time in the late game playing with mods like Interstellar Extended and USI Colonization. I'd love to hear what the rest of you guys think

A few days ago I built a glider in KSP. Pretty awesome at fist, but it got boring after 3 flights or so because there was no way of staying in the air without descending. So I started thinking: "What if weather, wind, turbulences and thermics was added into the game?" This is basically what this suggestion is. Weather, wind and thermics. This would give gliders a sence and make the game more chalenging, for example when you want to land on Duna or Eve, but there's a storm underneath you or if you want to launch a rocket. Would you like to see a feature like this in the game? (And yes, I know that there is a mod that adds wind, but it's pretty Basic.)

This is a summary of the previous exchange between @KSK, @Bottle Rocketeer 500, and myself. KSK origionally said To which I replied BR500's reply... My Reply KSK's Reply Again BR500 replied My sadly reasonable response KSK responded And besides my last response that is what we come up to. What do you think?

Hi, this is my first post here, so please tell me kindly, if I should do anything in any other way. I would like to post a suggestion: prevent draining of probe's core (okto, hecs) battery by any other module. Situation: some other module is draining all the juice but I cannot switch it off, because okto/heces does not have enough power to do so. No power for core to disable what is disabling it. Dead core, even with solar panels and sun shine, that just happen to not provide enough charge for whatever is draining the power. Alternative: enable switching off anything even if the core does not have power (including hibernation). Alternative 2: Is there a mod capable of doing so? Thx. P.S.: I am a programmer and could possibly create such mod, but I am afraind that the rules do not permit this, because I am not allowed to use ILSpy to examine those DLL's in KSP_Data/KSP_x64_Data althogh they are clearly marked as DATA and should therefore not be considered SOFTWARE to apply the ridiculous EULA, but I saw a post about "Legal Boundary", which I do not want to cross.