Search the Community

ksp 2 has magnetic boots, but ksp 1 doesnt, is there a problem in ksp 1 that magnetic boots cant be implemented into the game?

I want to get into career mode modding and am looking for some mods. The types of mods I want are: Better plane parts (Mk1, Mk2, Mk3) Better SSTO and rocket engines Better ion and nuclear engines New fuel types New career mission types New science tools Better colony and space station parts Better optimization (for a potato PC) Better tech tree I don't want any visual mods. Should I use TURD or Lazy Paint for coloring? Can you guys help? I'm new to modding.

I would like a plugin which basically provides a UI for all the ModuleResourceConvertors on a vessel. So you would be able to see each convertor, input resources, output resources, and maybe a efficiency option. You would be able to toggle each convertor on and off, as well as see the total resources going into convertors and total resources leaving convertors. Would also be cool if it supported some of the more popular mods, such as USI & Pathfinder. If it did support these mods, it would be useful to have a dropdown or something for their respective switchable convertors. I think such a mod could significantly improve gameplay in heavily modded installs. It would probably have to update every frame or ship update rather than scene change, because lots of mods switch convertors in-flight.

Well, its worth a shot at least, with the most recent news I have been thinking of actual realistic ways microtransactions could be implemented without directly harming the game with some suggested prices to go along with it.. Also aswell even if they say "no microtransactions" it seems that they need if it if there is rumors that the game is going to be cut, or we will lose developers... As of right now we don't know the situation for ksp 2 and the team.. "unethical" or not if stuff is "cheap" some people will find a use of some things useful while others don't if there was a unethical way to monetize it instead of just being free QOL the game might be better for income.. (problem is t2 launched the game in EA when it was a YEAR away from being anything useful, pretty much destroying the reputation of the game).. Custom Kerbal Creator / Custom Director Kerbal - 5-10$ USD This is a highly requested feature for ksp 2, being able to create customer kerbals, i think if the feature was free it would allow a certain amount of cosmetics but the paid would allow all cosmetics in ksp 2. Custom Director Kerbal, could be a pfp a kerbal that is "the director (which is you btw)" that would be able to interact more "kerbal friendly" compared to just the characters talking to the "screen", this could also be used as PfP for saves or in multiplayer settings you could use your custom director to be the pfp instead of either a custom photo or your steam pfp. This could be a little high, but i think the amount of work that is required to get it running and then making sure it works on multiplayer/ (if) there is more cosmetics it would allow "People to create kerbals of there own imagine" Custom Flag Implementation - 3-5$ USD Quite a few people request this to be a main in-game FEATURE, there is a mod that does this however the mod misbehaves a lot and does the stock flag instead of the custom one, They can be extremely high detailed flags I think they could make it a microtransaction that is cheap enough that almost anyone could buy it but it would not affect the users if they didn't have it, A Few CC's and a lot users could want such a thing in game. I think this shouldn't controlled in the sense of company censoring what photos are and are not allowed. In multiplayer it should be the owner of the server or local server that should be able to "remove" the offending flags and have an outright option to ban users from uploading and using Custom Flags.. Users can have as many as they want and can be limited on multiplayer if the owner so chooses. This will also include adding "parts" to add large flags that wrap around crafts in many sizes, or just straight huge flags that could be lit up by lights, and stock ksp 2 flags can use this for free. Hex Color Editor - 3-5$ USD Cheap easy mod that adds Hex color fine control to the game (Unethical) in my mind and should be free, however using Spicats Suggestion if all UI updates was approved i don't see why this couldn't be a paid feature its cheap at relative cost and would make users VERY happy, while also not breaking the bank, Supporter Pack #1 - 15-25$ USD This would include a "Music Bouns" of 1 additional song for each situation, planet, and ambient noise, The music is one of the key notes that i have found and have seen many others saying its "very good" for the game. This would include a "Banner Around PfP" or Color Change or A Speical Title.. saying that you purchased the supporter pack.. Would include a special flag(s). Be able to put custom crafts in the menu screen(s) We do not know if multiplayer would even have pfp or titles however, i think it would be a cool thing to add. yes this is pretty much try convince to keep intercept games with ALL of there developers with a job, is absolutely silly to think that we will sit down with people getting fired, and only getting corporate talk. These could be microtransactions that keep small amount of income coming to the game to show people might be interested besides the absolute devestion of trust when the game got forced to be released. (perhaps don't launch a game a year to early and then try to can the developers when we are getting remotely close to an actual game cause of your mistakes cause you are down a few million dollars..)

I can't seem to determine if there is any specific rhyme or reason behind the way parts are organized in the research nodes on the tech tree. It's not alphabetical, by size, by mass, or by part type. At least not consistently across all nodes. For instance here's a few nodes that directly follow each other in Tier 3, [Part name (Size - Part Type)]: Enlarged Power Systems: SP-XL "Gigantor" (MD - Solar Panel), FC-01 (XS - Converter), Z-1K (S - Battery) Long-Range Generation: PB-NUK (XS - Generator), Z-4K (M - Battery), RA-100 (S - Transmitter), Communotron 88-88 (S - Transmitter), FCA-06 (S - Converter) Nuclear Power: Z-375 (L - Battery), SP-XXL "Colossus" (L - Solar Panel), KR4-P3 (S - Converter) They're all over the place! In some nodes there's fuel tanks followed by an engine and others an engine followed by fuel tanks. Generally similar parts are grouped sensibly in individual nodes, although there are exceptions to even that. Medium Orbital Rockets has two pods, three other parts, a pod again, and one last other part. If there's any formula to this I can't tell what it is. I wouldn't call this a bug because technically there isn't anything wrong, I don't know what the correct order would even be, it's just a weird quirk to the layout of parts in the nodes. It would be nice to see some cohesion in the parts list for the nodes just for the heck of it, but I recognize this is about as pedantic as a suggestion gets.

You know Tim C Kerman, a memorial to the KSP2 dev who sadly passed away. What if instead of a pilot he was an engineer? It would be slightly cooler because he was a software developer in real life, and that's sort of kind of like an engineer. Also, we already have two pilots, so why not give Bill some company in the engineer's room of the astronaut complex? Rest in peace Tim Cox

A lot of people have been frustrated with the way the game handles craft files, there is a lot of confusion around the differences between workspace save names and vehicle save names. The developers have talked about this and are not satisfied with the way it is coming across to players. From what I have gathered from interviews and such is that the original idea was that vehicle name is the name you want it to be called, but workspace name is for you to be able to save versions of the same vehicle. So you can have different workspace saves for V1.0, V2.0, V3.0 ect... having a name for each can allow you to recognize what was added each time or what was changed. Anyways it was made to have a separate save for each time you need to improve your design. This is how the craft file saves work currently: As you can see if I had many more versions of this ship (I just made this craft to explain this post) the screen gets very cramped and seems wasteful. Also it isn't shown in the save but I named the vehicle name "My Ship" for all of these but it just shows the workspace name. Another thing to point out, It puts them all in alphabetical order instead of order they were created, you can see the "design process" throughout but they are placed randomly in the craft file folder. This could be done so much better. Now I think the idea behind the system is great but the implementation is lacking as stated by a lot of the community. My idea to improve this system is to instead of making a new save space for each implementation, it would be a drop down with the vehicle name as the base name and then the drop down will show each workspace. It would look something like this: I don't know how to make something legitimate so please use your imagination. It would pretty much be something that looks like a single craft file above that would have the vehicle name and image/date/time of the most recent (or selected default version) and then you could click a drop down on it to reveal all the workspace names/ versions of the craft in the drop down you could also set which workspace you want to be your default load. The idea would be if you click the large image vehicle name then it loads your default workspace. I think this would be the best way to go about organizing all the craft files while keeping the functionality of getting to save multiple versions of a craft without changing its vehicle name It should also let you rename your vehicle names and workspace names

Can we make the camera speed be separate from the scroll to zoom speed? I like to move the camera fast but I like for my zoom to be smooth. Within the game I have to choose one or the other, I would like a setting to control zoom speed separately. My camera jumps each time I scroll and its jarring and takes away from the cinematics of the game. Thanks

KSP1 In KSP 1 the UI clearly gave feedback to the player about precision control or docking mode being enabled. This is done with colour (blue pointer instead of orange), and an entire new tab for docking that displays information about your craft relative to your target. Normal: Precision control Docking mode Docking & Precision KSP2 KSP 2 has no feedback other than this small pop-up when enabling docking mode: For the rest, the flight UI gives no indication that the flight controls are behaving differently than normal. The UI always looks like this: UI for docking mode: Suggestion I want to suggest something like the following. Note this is just a suggestion, the devs will be able to do this 100x better. Precision mode: Docking mode:

I’ve seen a lot of talks about the science gathering in the For Science update. From what I can see, the discourse comes mostly from the science gathering feeling less personal than it did in KSP1. This of course is from the fact that now we only have to press one button and then all the science is done at once without us having to look at each part and feel like we are the ones doing the science and not just a robot that knows how to do this all. Many have suggested that we just go back to the way it was done in KSP1 where you have to select each individual science part to do the science. I however, feel like that is not the solution to this problem because there was obvious frustration with that system as well, and it would be foolish to say it is not convenient to have the ability to do science so simply. I would like to propose a solution to the science collection debate. I would suggest that the science button on the left side of the screen does not instantly do all of the science experiments available, but instead opens a special menu (maybe combined with the science results menu) that would have all of the science modules sorted with buttons to do each experiment. Kind of a special parts menu where you get to feel like you are the one in control. It keeps the simplicity and convenience of not having to find each and every part but also lets you feel the personal connection to the Kerbals doing the experiment. I think this change would achieve all that the audience is wanting from the gameplay of taking science while also improving on KSP1’s method. I hope I was able to explain that well, I am not good at UI design so I can’t make any photos to explain.

Apologies if this has been posted before, but it would be nice to have the ability to have our AP/PE altitudes shown in meters. Having synchronous orbits set up with only km being shown is hard to ensure they are properly aligned and won't move at different speeds over several in game years.

Science gathering in KSP1 has always felt a bit pointless to me: It was just about clicking your thermometer or whatever in the right place and left you with nothing but a funny text and some points. But you don't really get any new insights: You can see any planet/moon and its properties in the tracking station. I think that just by hiding some information from the player one could make science a much more meaningful part of the game: For example, the "physical characteristics" tab in the tracking station could be filled only after according measurements. Also, what if celestial bodies were blurred out in map view and the tracking center, as if you would see them through a telescope on Kerbin? And only became detailed once you got a spaceship into their SOI? Things like that would add a component of discovery that would make science/career mode so much more exciting!

On some bodies altitude/terrain details can be quite difficult to make out from orbit. Like, orbiting Vall I passed from Lowlands to Mountains and couldn't even see the mountain how ever carefully I looked... It's all a grey blur. Which is probably perfectly realistic, it's just not super helpful when trying to spot a good landing site. So I'm thinking some kind of map overlay where different altitudes show up as different colours/shades would help?

Launch Clamps should be a special part that forces the ship to be X meters off the ground at launch. Perhaps it could snap to whatever X is (5 meters, 1 meter, whatever) and then allow the player to type in a number if they want for some specific purpose. Also, Launch Clamps should auto-recover after launch. Now, if you don't recover them manually they fill up all launch pads and the game ends up launching from the boat dock - which is confusing the first time you encounter it for sure.

I'm kind of stunned that an artifact of the original game's game engine limitations were carried over to the sequel. Wobbly rockets were always a bug. The KSP1 devs spent years trying to minimize the problem, even bringing on new members to work on the issue. Most people don't like them, and they introduce an un-intuitive stumbling block for new players or people that want to learn space. eg. Rocket veers off course on launch. Why? The control part wobbles away from the heading, resulting in SAS shenanigans and off COM thrust. Furthermore, everyone gets rid of wobble to the best of their ability by adding struts, resulting in a higher part count. So you have a feature, that only produces greater part counts. Why? To keep the destructive effect, just define stress tolerances for parts at which they explode, disconnect, crumble or shear. Also, real rockets don't wobble. Scott talking to KSP1 devs about the wobbly rocket bug. They go off on tangents but almost the entire rest of the interview is on the topic. KSP1 dev describes his next gen parts physics sim in which wobbliness is not a feature. --- If you're new to KSP, wobble is that wet noodle, jello rocket thing. Please get rid of wobble all together. Thank you. Development on the issue:

KSP2 is still in active development and there are several engines and fuel types yet to be added to the game. However, the methalox department seems to be pretty complete and appears to be largely the same as it was in KSP1. I’ve been comparing the engine specifications for KSP 2 and sadly found that they are just as imbalanced as before, if not worse. I think there are a couple of possible fixes, which I would like to discuss in this topic. In Developer Insights #17, Nertea wrote a neat article about engine design, in which the new approach to engine archetypes was explained: Deep Space for optimal fuel efficiency, when thrust is not that important; Orbital when you need sufficient thrust for some maneuvering. Sustainer for optimal atmospheric performance with good thrust. Launcher when you need maximum thrust. I think this is a great setup, which already provides a much better guideline for choosing the right engine. The same article also stated 3 design principles: Don't deviate from KSP1 for the sake of it. A methalox rocket in KSP2 should perform similarly to a similar looking Liquid Fuel/Oxidizer rocket from KSP1. Engines of an archetype have similar characteristics. Engines within a fuel type exist in a similar band of power, so newer or larger engines should not make older engines obsolete. Because these principles are not always compatible with each other, some choices have to be made. For example, the Rhino had way too much thrust for an orbital engine and it looks more like a sustainer anyway, so its Isp stats were changed to fit the sustainer role. For the orbital role, the Labradoodle was introduced. This makes for better gameplay and therefore the deviation is justified. In most other cases though, engines have been kept pretty much the same as in KSP1, even where change is definitely in order. In my opinion, the methalox category should just consist of a simple, balanced set of 12 basic engines. One per archetype of each size and nothing more . This is already true for the LG and MD sizes, but not so much for the SM and XS sizes: First of all: the Reliant is terrible. While the Mammoth II and the Mainsail put out about 2.5x the thrust of their sustainer counterparts, the Reliant only provides 20% more thrust than the Swivel. It also still lacks any thrust vectoring, which already was enough reason to never use it in KSP1. However, like with all launchers, its sea level Isp has now also been nerfed to below that of the Swivel, making it utterly useless. The second design principle states that the Reliant should be proportional to other launchers, which means that it needs thrust vectoring and its maximum thrust should be increased dramatically to about 550 kN. While the TWRs of orbital engines are consistent across all size categories, the Swivel and Reliant TWRs are a bit low compared to their larger cousins. Their masses should be adjusted to about 1100 kg for the Swivel and 2100 kg for the 550 kN Reliant. It’s unclear to me what the roles of the Thud, Twitch and Spider are. Being radial engines, it’s easy to attach a lot of them to a rocket , providing plenty of thrust. However, their TWRs are too low and their sea-level Isps too high to be considered proper launchers., while their vacuum Isps are too low to be considered good sustainers. I think instead of having dedicated radial engines, radial engine plates would provide a lot more versatility. In the XS size there are no launcher or orbital engines. One option would be to refit the radial engines: the Twitch could easily be repurposed as a launcher by nerfing its sea-level Isp to 255 and increasing its TWR to around 25. With 3- or 4-symmetry it already provides sufficient thrust, so its mass would be lowered to about 65 kg. Changing the Spider into an orbital engine requires a bigger overhaul: Isp needs to be 330/165 and TWR about 12. Assuming 8-symmetry (because Spider), its thrust should be cut down to 0.75 kN and its mass to 6.5 kg. As a deep space engine, the Ant's Isp should be adjusted to 365/55 and its TWR lowered to under 8. To keep engine ratios similar to larger sizes, its thrust should be doubled to 4 kN and its mass increased to 55 kg. Last but not least: the Vector is spectacularly overpowered. It outperforms the Swivel, the Reliant and even the larger Skipper in both thrust and atmospheric efficiency, effectively making all of them obsolete. Even though it’s unlocked somewhat later in the tech tree, it brutally violates the third design principle and therefore has no business in the methalox category. Advanced and specialized engines such as the Vector and the Dart need a different fuel and since hydrogen is already an existing fuel type, a hydrolox category would be an excellent solution. This would also be realistic considering the real-world analogs of the Vector and the Dart.

Having built a number of SSTO Spaceplane style craft of various size categories, all designed to dock in orbit to other craft, my main gripe is that the Clamp-O-Tron Shielded cannot survive ascent heating, it explodes around ~750m/s @ ~6km altitude, given that there is no integrated docking port for the Mk3 Spaceplane parts, I would assume that this docking port is what fills that part's niche but given it's current temperature rating, or the game's current heat tuning it fails to fulfill the requirements for that. To me, lower atmosphere heating seems correctly tuned, and the upper atmosphere is what needs work, so my suggestion is to raise the Clamp-O-Tron Shielded's temperature rating from 1200K to 1500K to match the Mk3 "Condor" Spaceplane cockpit it seems this docking port was designed for.

We got the sad news that the Ingenuity Mars Helicopter has flown its last flight today. After performing no less than 72 flights out of the planned 5 (!), being airborne for over 2 hours, and traversing no less than 17 kilometers, the Ingenuity helicopter (also known as Ginny) sustained damage to its rotor after losing communications with the Perseverance rover during the landing phase. It was the first powered aircraft to ever take flight on another planet, far exceeded expectations and paved the way for future robotic helicopters on other planets. I think it would be a great idea to honor its incredible achievements by rewarding it with its very own Discoverable in the game. KSP1 had similar easter eggs for the Opportunity/Spirit and Curiosity Mars rovers (see spoiler below). Having Ingenuity in the game would not only keep its legacy alive for years to come, but would also be a great way of getting people who aren't familiar to learn about this fantastic mission when they stumble upon it. Fly High, Ginny o7

One small gripe I currently have is the lack of MK2 to small diameter adapter for methane-only fuel tank when building airplanes. There's a decent selection of methalox adapters so really just having methane and structural (e.g. no fuel) versions of those adapters would be nice, as currently the only option is to use a methalox with no oxidizer. Fairly minor but also seems like it could be pretty easy to add. Edit: also I realize tubes do offer a good "procedural" adapter solution for structural only. So definitely those are nice.

*disclaimer*: this is going to be a very long post concerning the science gameplay, my experience of it and the things that I think would make it even better. I might cover subjects already talked about in other topics, but everything being somewhat tied together, I feel the need to draw the big picture of what science could become. Before the main piece, let me say that "For Science!" was really what I was waiting for (in terms of features, progression, challenge and fixes / improvements) before going back to the game after early access release. The team did a amazing job and made KSP fun again for me despite the remaining issues and all the work still needed. So much so, that I've officially beaten my KSP1 playtime and gone way further into the game! A - Science should be more educative I feel there is a missed opportunity here. A big part of KSP is learning interesting stuff and getting a grasp of how things really work (in a delicate balance between a realistic enough simulation so that you get the concepts but fun enough that it doesn't feel like a real rocket scientist job nor qualify you for it ). For context, in KSP1, I personally hated the mystery goo because it felt to me like the "unrealistic" / "sci-fi" experiment. So, while I get the idea that having a science part for each kind of sensors (thermometer, barometer, anemometer, ...) might be too much, I would really like to have some "real" (in the game world context) data show up. So yeah... you can tell me the "Science Junior" is a bundled weather station that does several type of experiments at once and give me a fun and yet interesting text reports attached to the overall experiment, but please: Give me real sensors and instruments (seismograph, spectrograph, radars, lidars, ...) and give me the numbers / data that goes with them because I would love to learn the range of temperature on the Mun, how big the earthquakes are on Pols on the Richter Scale, or how hard the wind blows on Eve... or Jool! Make me learn what kind of other interesting experiments and data real world scientists are after! B - Science could be more immersive I think it would be more immersive, more interesting and more challenging if science was better tied to gameplay in addition to being a currency. Let's say at the beginning of the game we have only sparse and imprecise data on the planets and moons (less than we have now in the tracking station) : First we could launch and run the first experiments in Kerbin low orbit and we would learn the Kerbin inclination (about that... it would be nice to able to see the inclination of planets in the map with a line going through the planet, the equator line, and our current angle relative to one of them), then do the same in high Kerbin orbit and learn if a Geostationary orbit is possible and what the Altitude and Speed needed are, and those informations would be permanently added to the map (or to "The Science Diary", see below). A bit latter down the line and I want to go to Eve. Now, I could go blind, or I could send a probe with the proper experiments to learn what the temperature and pressure are to select the most appropriate parts for my next mission, and to see if my Kerbals would survive the trip. Time to go to Jool? Maybe running that radioactivity experiment would be wise before sending that big ship (if we had environmental hazards for sensitive electronic or needed to shield Kerbals from high levels or radiations *wink wink*). Wanna go on Eeloo? Oh, did we forgot to tell you? We only have a rough estimate of it's gravity, it's in the range [0.05-0.2], maybe you should send a probe with an accelerometer to measure it before trying to land Kerbals on it! This kind of mechanics would have the added bonus to bring the opportunity for more missions both to guide the player in what experiments serve what purpose and also in its overall exploration of space. C - I need the "Keri Diary of Science"! Ok, all those experiments are greats! But there is a lot of different types, lots of biomes and lot of bodies (the astrophysical kind, not the Kerbal kind... although... ). I'm tier 3 and I'm starting to get lost on what I did and what I didn't do. Doing a mission in KSP takes time, and there is a lot you can do, so doing a mission to realize half way through it that you've already done that experiment in that very place is a real bummer (and one reason to get bored out of the game). So, what we need is a journal to track our progress, plan our missions and re-read those reports we forgot to read because we where so happy and eager to clic on that "send" button! It could be a panel that can be deployed in the tracking station when checking a body characteristics. It would contain a section for each kind of "place" (high orbit, low orbit, atmosphere, surface, undewater), an entry for each kind of biomes, and sub-entries for each type of experiments. Some of them would be grayed out or invisible so we don't get any spoiler beyond the obvious ones (high and low orbit would always be presents, atmosphere would be visible for the obvious one like Duna or Eve, experiments would not be visible until you've unlocked the corresponding parts, biomes would not be visible until you have encountered / entered them once). They could also contain a picture (so you know how to visually identify the biome once you've unlocked it). And of course, once the experiment has been collected back to KSC, it would display the report/results. It would also have the added benefit to motivate the completionists into even more missions and game time \o/ (though I suspect the hardcore ones are already tracking all that by hand ). And it would do so, even if the science points where not useful anymore to their progression because everything is unlocked. It would be also nice to have the ability to map the biomes like what the "Orbital Survey" mod do (and maybe map other things like "illumination" to find those places in semi-permanent shadow or light for our future colonies, now that we have axis tilt!). Also, surface waypoints/markers please! *pleading* D - Various things in unspecific order: I think the "robotic arm sample" and the "Kerbal sample" shouldn't have the same value to have an incentive to send Kerbals (think a vial of dust vs a bag full of rocks). Overall I haven't really felt the need to send any Kerbal in space over robotic missions (aside from when a mission asked me too and between tier 3 and 4 with the 1st version of orbital lab) . I'm sure some will make the argument that it is realistic, but I feel like sending Kerbals in dangerous situation is part of the fun, and the approach "robotic" first as pathfinders and "manned" next as more thorough exploration feels better. Now, I suspect this might be addressed with colonies and then later with resources. In the same spirit, I think there shouldn't always be a robotic version of the experiments (like the diving bell), or there should be a big tradeoff (like with the robotic version of the orbital lab) either in resources (electricity, number of science points, ...) or weight or volume (maybe the automated version should sometimes be bigger). Also, the robotic arm needs to be smarter (or configurable) in the way it can deploys to do the sampling so we can give him vertical orientation for example. The orbital science lab should at the very least have a separate "deploy" option, so it can stay deployed and resume experiment immediately when triggered. Ideally, I think the orbital science lab (especially the habited one) should be able to buffer more than one experiment at a time and automatically resume progress when switching biomes. Otherwise I don't see how you could ever do the Kerbin's "beach biome" for example. I get the idea to unlock science parts progressively (incentive to make more missions instead of only one big "mother of all experiments") and to scale science points given by experiments according to difficulty/reachability. But the tier of first unlock should also play a role in the points given. Having 16 points for the radioactivity experiment on Kerbin when at that point in the tree any unlock is in the 1.5k range feels utterly useless. At least something in the 80-160 range would make you feel like it would help you gather the points your are missing for the next unlock. Kerbol (the star, not the sytem) needs some love guys! I was really disappointed to have my cheap (can't get too close without radiators *wink wink*) "Parker Solar Probe" not being able to gather any science, even in low orbit, with the "Science Junior". Also, I'll say it there: with it's static surface and lack of solar filaments, Kerbol is visually... underwhelming, compared to what many other games can achieve regarding stars. Having the atmospheric science part makes me hope for either Inflatables Parts (for balloons and airships) and Rotors/Propellers (like "Ingenuity" on Mars). I like the automatic transfert / cloning of science experiments & samples, but I personally fix the limit at "while I can imagine the manned capsule having inside storage, those probe core sure does feel like they have internal memory for reports but doesn't feel like they have a container for the physical samples". Thus I would advocate for "Sample Container" Part that would be needed unless you have a capsule / cockpit. Also, regarding transfert. I know it happens through port docking, but let's say I'm flying a tiny drone in Duna atmosphere to gather the atmospheric samples, then flying it back near my return rocket with Bob waiting there. I could "eject" the probe core and have it being "parachuted" down near Bob (instead of having to dock a mini airplane onto a lander which is... much harder). I didn't see any option that would allow Bob to retrieve the experiments from the probe on the ground. Did I miss something ? E - Prospective: Science complexity & balance Ok... this is probably going to be the more controversial subject, and probably something that should only come in the distant future or in a mod (if ever). And don't forget that many of the arguments (around balancing some aspects of the game) that I will make here, might be addressed through colonies and resource gathering further down the line. I think it would be interesting to add complexity that could be tied to specific Parts / Experiments in the mid to late game in terms of experiment timeframes and coverages. In term of timeframe we could have: Short term experiments like what we have right now, Surveys like monitoring temperatures over a full day / night cycle or a full orbital revolution. It would bring specific challenges like being able to power something up for a full Mun day/night cycle or having to keep a permanent CommNet connection with Eeloo for nearly 20 years (assuming survey reports are too big to be stored in the vehicle and need to be streamed back continuously). In term of coverage we could have: Single "on the spot" sample like what we have right now Multiple outspread samples with minimal distance between them like putting 3 seismograph running at the same time in the same biome with a minimal separation distance of say 100km to do some kind of triangulation or having to collect 10 samples in a concentric circle around your first one in order to have reliable data and validate the experiment. It would incite players to be creative with rovers or efficient lander designs you can send in batches, etc... Full (or close to it) surface mapping of bodies or areas (ex: 80% of a specific biome) like a lidar survey that would require players to have a satellite in polar orbit or a specific orbit like the equatorial ridge of Dres. Of course you could match timeframes and coverages for even more challenges! That's all folks! If you read this, thank you very much for taking the time, you are one brave soul ! TL:DR : Science is great but could be even better! More educative / instructive, better tied to gameplay and engineering challenges, with proper tracking and planning, and finally maybe a bit more challenging.

I had 2 ideas today for ksp 2 missions and I hope someone takes note of it haha: People miss having a reason for planes in the mission mode of ksp 1, and though the kerbinwide tour missions are sorta that, they don't really inscentivise planes as much as orbital-drop-podding. I propose a mission where you must fly to multiple locations around kerbin in order to reveal a mystery of what happened to the KSC from ksp 1, getting multiple fragments/parts of buildings around kerbin together, and when you complete it it adds maybe some kind of tribute to ksp 1 to the KSC or such as a cool bonus. Another thing would be to also show how kerbals live on kerbin (despite there being no cities). This would be having massive easter eggs of ventilation shafts from their underground cities, giant radar dishes and wind/solar arrays. Just to make it cooler More missions that require multiple steps. Missions that are "go to X location" then after doing so the mission updates and then says "also to Y" as a way to make things more interesting. This could also mean "bring 10 kerbals into orbit around kerbin, THEN wait 1 year without losing EC" so that people have to make more complicated designs. A bunch of other things can be done, but those are the main 2 things to expand missions greatly. Also missions to have to do with previous missions. Like put a space station in orbit, then a mission to add a new module to that space station or to make it so the space station has 5 more kerbals on it.

Allow us to have a fun little minigame to do. I know they played golf on the moon in Apollo 11 so its for realism purposes. Could be really fun for multiplayer.

Pretty short suggestion post, there's currently no (good looking) option for a twin seat Mk1 cockpit, as your options are essentially limited to either: or Neither of which are particularly pretty, a twin seat stretched variant of the Peregrine cockpit would work wonders here for plane designs, something akin to the F-14's cockpit perhaps?

For Science! Update started off with a blast and I was eager to play it upon release! Once it released, I loved it instantly considering it levels the Game up to not only a sandbox simulator but to a full-fledged game playthrough! However, despite the many awesome and fun moments I had with this update, I feel like there is a lot of work to polish the new Science & Mission Mechanic alongside the already implemented tutorial system which I really wanted to talk about for quite some time now. First, let's start off with the Tutorials, I am personally not very good with Kerbal Space Program itself; I couldn't really understand how to create a rocket properly and usually ended up having stacks of them not launching from the pad or barely making it into orbit, let alone past Kerbin. And despite the help I got from the in-game tutorials, it did not significantly help as much as online tutorials. The section about rocketry feels obviously lacking, sure it mentions how a rocket works and the types of engines and other space components, but it does not help on how to make a proper rocket or at least understand how to make one for any specific task such as landing on the Mun or Eeloo. This can also be accounted for orbital mechanics; it leaves questions in my mind such as: "How much do you need to slowly turn your rocket over the horizon?" "Does it apply to every rocket? If no, how do I know when and how?" This is normally a major obstacle for new players like me (Kind of, started in 2016 but never really got past the Mun in KSP1 and never properly learned rocket design) because it forces us back into the drawing board by watching a couple of tutorials made from the Internet, although it isn't any bad either, it reinforces the fact the in-game tutorials really need more work. In summary, using this experience of mine, I would really like more tutorials about rocketry and an improved version of how to put your rocket past the atmosphere and prepare the steps for an orbital maneuver. Secondly, let's continue with the Missions in Mission Control, The Missions itself aren't bad, I actually found it as huge upgrade its original counterpart in KSP1, but it definitely needs more polishing. The first noticeable flaw I encountered was the mission briefing themselves, they seem way too centered on a specific scenario (mission briefing specifically) and less dynamic, by example, your ship ends up in a catastrophic failure when doing a specific mission, you absolutely do not get any major consequences rather than the loss of a crew, which normally under the default game difficulty, usually just respawn and probably also a couple of science points that you might have lost. I really wish upon a system where the missions actually do not cancel themselves when failing them, but give negative consequences such as more flavour text signifying the gravity and effect of the situation but at the same time balancing and incentivizing the player to keep continuing. Secondly, if your rocket launches, completing the first mission, and immediately goes to the atmosphere, I would really like it, instead of going again back to Mission Control and then going back to the ship to complete the second mission after the first, to simply have some way or form to complete both missions when you've done both already through one rocket launch at the start. To simply brief this, Mission Debriefing should get a separate system when the player fails the mission and you should be able to complete two missions at once without needing to go back to mission control to track the second one which went available thanks to completing to the first one in one rocket launch. Next, the Science Mechanic, which is the one here with the most need of polishing, I could also say the same for this one, the new Science mechanic is a massive overhaul to its original counterpart in KSP1. However, it definitely needs more polishing and balancing to make it less of a "Simple Magic Click and Reward" button which actually loses the value of it being a "Reward" as it gets too easy. I noticed the reports did not really have any unique flavour to them compared to KSP1 where crew observations and utilization of science equipment had unique flavour text depending where you did them (Also make the flavour texts larger and readable :D), I would actually really like if they weren't all generic and had an interesting one. I also found it quite boring when all a Kerbal can do and is meant for in a mission is simply to steer a Rocket when it's out of signal with KSC, do flags, generic crew observations and surface samples. I really wanted them to play a role on organizing Science like KSP1 rather than one magic click and it's all stored. Kerbals should perhaps have the ability to take the science reports or surface samples and store them in the Command Pod or Science Juniors. Both elements, describing flavour text and the further usage of Kerbals, would really incentivize the Player to do more frequently EVAs and learn more about science itself generally through flavour text, with some funny element in it considering Kerbals are Kerbals Anyways, apart from my feedback on how Science Points are acquired and Flavour Texts, Science Points should really get some sort of balancing because unlocking technology feels way too easy and feels really less of a reward. Maybe decrease science points on more generic tasks such as crew observations and regular planet scans or any other thing those science parts can do. Alternatively, increase the cost of the technologies in R&D. In conclusion, I would really like more flavour for generic scientific tasks and further usage of Kerbals alongside balancing on the ridiculous amounts of Science Points you'd get from 1 mission. Thanks for reading my Feedback and Suggestions if you have come this far down, I really want to hear what others think too!

An issue I've seen brought up quite a few times is that changing the science/mission rewards multipliers in-game after having already spent science points potentially results in your science going negative, due to having spent more science points than earned with the new multiplier setting(s), multiple people have reported this as a bug, however dev comments seem to point to this being intended behaviour: To clear things up, it'd be nice if the game could give you a warning when changing your science rewards multiplier, to notify you if your science is going to become negative with the new multiplier.