Will version 1.0 bring changes to how science is obtained?

[mattinoz]

Magnetometer. It's more orbital science, but there is already too much science anyway… what USE an item should have in game should be what drives most "science" IMO. The whole science=tech thing is a problem because we run out of tech to buy so very quickly.

I think the tech tree will be significantly deeper, longer and more about making the right choices for your next mission in the release compared to pre release.

During testing you want to people to play thru quickly so a shallow tree makes sense for testing, for the game release you want long play and replay ability. To do that they need us to choose our own adventure which leaves us wanting to come back and make different choices.

[tater]

Deepening the tree is not a good idea, either. Most all the current KSP tech fits the late 1950s to mid 1960s. Making it "deeper" makes little sense, IMHO. We can have more "deep" choices like land on a distant world so we can unlock… a ladder.

[Moonfrog]

Ok, If science was not just about parts, putting parts to one side. What could science do? would having an investment in engine efficiency, or fuel tank alloys for more fuel. Or heat resistant alloys, bit like improvements to existing parts, would that work as something to dump science into? solar panel efficeny, storage battery capacity. Crumple zones, increase impact tolerance. better motors for wheels on rovers.

[Tw1]

Ok, If science was not just about parts, putting parts to one side. What could science do? would having an investment in engine efficiency, or fuel tank alloys for more fuel. Or heat resistant alloys, bit like improvements to existing parts, would that work as something to dump science into? solar panel efficeny, storage battery capacity. Crumple zones, increase impact tolerance. better motors for wheels on rovers.

Some have suggested using science points to buy one of, slightly better versions of parts.

Personally, I think there needs to be more layers to science, so we can move away from the dead end of science as currency.

[tater]

Yeah, first and for most it should be useful.

[Scoundrel]

I'm mostly in agreement with people on most points. IMHO, comms should be about signal vs noise rather than transfer speed, and while I could write a whole thing on how we could go from analog to digital and the % of science we could get from that, I think I'll save the energy and just wait and see what 1.0 holds.