List of suggestions for updates

[Columbia]

Hello, forums!

I wanted to suggest a few things as features for KSP, just as suggestions. I don't want this to be taken as offensive, I'm not gonna lie; I love the game, but I'd suggest:

1. First and foremost, I'd suggest implementing a size that's between 1.25m and 2.5m. For me, the gap between the two sizes is too large, and I wish something would fill that, sort of like the size difference with the 2.5 size and 3.75.

2. While I think the 0.90 overhaul of MK3 Parts is amazing, I wish that it wasn't so heavy to the point that it would need about six jet engines to get sufficient speed for flight.

3. Some sort of probe "camera" that can be part of satellites and gain science when pictures are "taken" by it. Just a suggestion to make satellites useful.

4. Speaking about satellites, I'd suggest that experiments returned to Kerbin can be transferred to stations too, something like the European ATV which carries experiments - along with supplies - to the ISS.

5. An option to start flights from the water, to make boats more convenient to use. If this were ever to happen, I'd also suggest to make this feature use up funds, to compensate.

6. Speaking of water, I ultimately want to suggest that water be more life-like; More tolerant with parts, and with less buoyancy. Instead of it's force being stronger than hitting on land, I think it would be better to make it so that it's actually less strong (much like Earth water).

Post your opinions on my suggestions if you want. Please remember that this is just what I feel, and it doesn't remove the fact that I still love playing the game, and is appreciative of Squad's put effort into KSP.

[Capt Snuggler]

1. First and foremost, I'd suggest implementing a size that's between 1.25m and 2.5m. For me, the gap between the two sizes is too large, and I wish something would fill that, sort of like the size difference with the 2.5 size and 3.75.

I was going to suggest something similar. I'm not asking for a whole part set.

I'd suggest:

1.75m heavy SRB for lifting orange tanks. like this

1.75m 2 man pod.

1.75m short RCS tank. (the main reason for this is to fit things inside a 2.5 fairing) like this

1.75m short LFO tank.

1.75to1.25 adapter.

1.75to2.5 adapter.

2. While I think the 0.90 overhaul of MK3 Parts is amazing, I wish that it wasn't so heavy to the point that it would need about six jet engines to get sufficient speed for flight.

this is a tricky one. maybe a larger jet engine? or a 2.5m turbo prop intake/cowling that boosts the thrust of standard 1.25m jet? this

3. Some sort of probe "camera" that can be part of satellites and gain science when pictures are "taken" by it. Just a suggestion to make satellites useful.

a radial camera module would be great. each camera could have an "IVA view" to switch to and control 1st person and take snap shots.

4. Speaking about satellites, I'd suggest that experiments returned to Kerbin can be transferred to stations too, something like the European ATV which carries experiments - along with supplies - to the ISS.

I would suggest some kind of science package delivery contract. you are given a science package module that you must transfer to an off world lab (or polar or what ever). once there, run the experiment and return or transmit the data for a science profit.

5. An option to start flights from the water, to make boats more convenient to use. If this were ever to happen, I'd also suggest to make this feature use up funds, to compensate.

not sure how I feel about this. maybe if the water were fixed it would be worth the effort to support boat construction/deployment. (I totally support boat construction but without a water physics overhaul its not worth it yet)

6. Speaking of water, I ultimately want to suggest that water be more life-like; More tolerant with parts, and with less buoyancy. Instead of it's force being stronger than hitting on land, I think it would be better to make it so that it's actually less strong (much like Earth water).

ah... see above.

[Frozen_Heart]

First and foremost, I'd suggest implementing a size that's between 1.25m and 2.5m. For me, the gap between the two sizes is too large, and I wish something would fill that, sort of like the size difference with the 2.5 size and 3.75.

1.875m would be the next increment. Though I've always disagreed with this, I'm beginning to think that it may be a good idea. This size would be good for things such as Soyuz, Falcon 9, and the Shuttle boosters. However the probe and 3.75m parts need some love as they have barely any parts (any poorly balanced ones at that. Also 64 bit would be useful here as it would add even more parts.

While I think the 0.90 overhaul of MK3 Parts is amazing, I wish that it wasn't so heavy to the point that it would need about six jet engines to get sufficient speed for flight.

I agree here as well. I loved the previous Mark 3 size despite its ugliness. It should have been made symmetrical like the Mk-2 and given a proper part lineup. Could be called the Mk-2.5?

Also 1.875m jet engines would provide the more powerful atmospheric engines you're looking for.

Some sort of probe "camera" that can be part of satellites and gain science when pictures are "taken" by it. Just a suggestion to make satellites useful.

I like this idea. Would provide a lot of immersion and give probes more use.

Speaking about satellites, I'd suggest that experiments returned to Kerbin can be transferred to stations too, something like the European ATV which carries experiments - along with supplies - to the ISS.

You can already carry science results to a lab to give a science boost.

An option to start flights from the water, to make boats more convenient to use. If this were ever to happen, I'd also suggest to make this feature use up funds, to compensate.

Yes!

Speaking of water, I ultimately want to suggest that water be more life-like; More tolerant with parts, and with less buoyancy. Instead of it's force being stronger than hitting on land, I think it would be better to make it so that it's actually less strong (much like Earth water).

This would probably be quite a large overhaul but I agree. I'd much rather crash into the ground than water atm which is just counterintuitive.

- - - Updated - - -

I was going to suggest something similar. I'm not asking for a whole part set.

I'd suggest:

1.75m heavy SRB for lifting orange tanks. like this

1.75m 2 man pod.

1.75m short RCS tank. (the main reason for this is to fit things inside a 2.5 fairing) like this

1.75m short LFO tank.

1.75to1.25 adapter.

1.75to2.5 adapter.

1.875 is actually the correct size between 1.25 and 2.5.

[OhioBob]

1.875 is actually the correct size between 1.25 and 2.5.

I actually think 1.75 m makes a little more sense. With 1.75 m we have,

1.25 > 1.75 m = +40%

1.75 > 2.5 = +43%

2.5 > 3.75 = +50%

and with 1.875 m we have,

1.25 > 1.875 m = +50%

1.875 > 2.5 = +33%

2.5 > 3.75 = +50%

And if we do it by cross-sectional area, with 1.75 m we have,

1.25² > 1.75² m = +96%

1.75² > 2.5² = +104%

2.5² > 3.75² = +125%

and with 1.875 m we have,

1.25² > 1.875² m = +125%

1.875² > 2.5² = +78%

2.5² > 3.75² = +125%.

Edited March 4, 2015 by OhioBob

[Hcube]

I don't agree with a new size for parts since it would add a lot of parts to the game that aren't really needed: i mean, a fuel tank is a fuel tank, if squad is going to add more parts i want those to be stuff like the new drill, resource stuff, fairings... Not a new size that will have only 2 tanks, 1 engine and 1 SRB...

I also don't think a water revamp is in order now. Water certainly sucks, but it does allow you to splash harder than on land without crashing, it is fine for capsule landings ! And above all, KSP is not a sailing game, its about rockets and space ! Seriously, who cares about the water ? (Its just that damn blue thing empty boosters fall into, isnt it ? )

I LOVE the camera idea ! i would love my satellites to be somehow useful, a polar orbit satellite with a camera would certainly be great for taking pictures of surface, and maybe show where the different biomes are ? (I still struggle to find the badlands )

About the mk3 parts, dont worry : the new aero system will make wings way more effective an realistic : every part will have WAY more lift (lift will be based on v^2 and not v) so you wont need to go to 250m/s in order to get off the runway i like the new mk3 parts right now, and the new landing gear will make them even better

[Capt Snuggler]

I also don't think a water revamp is in order now. Water certainly sucks, but it does allow you to splash harder than on land without crashing, it is fine for capsule landings ! And above all, KSP is not a sailing game, its about rockets and space ! Seriously, who cares about the water ? (Its just that damn blue thing empty boosters fall into, isnt it ? )

Well I think KSP is an interplanetary exploration game. There is water on planets. Seems odd we can literally go anywhere else in the solar system except the water.

Aquatic exploration has its place in realms space travel and exploration.

http://space.io9.com/spacex-will-try-landing-on-barge-after-fridays-cargo-fl-1672098313

http://www.space.com/28589-titan-submarine-robotic-saturn-ship.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3548139.stm

All life observed so far requires liquid water. if your exploring the universe would you not want to check oceans for life? would that not be the most significant discovery in the history of space exploration?

Edited March 4, 2015 by Capt Snuggler

[Majorjim!]

Well I think KSP is an interplanetary exploration game. There is water on planets. Seems odd we can literally go anywhere else in the solar system except the water.

Aquatic exploration has its place in realms space travel and exploration.

http://space.io9.com/spacex-will-try-landing-on-barge-after-fridays-cargo-fl-1672098313

http://www.space.com/28589-titan-submarine-robotic-saturn-ship.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3548139.stm

I totally agree Snuggler. How can you be interested in planet discovery and exploration and not be fascinated by planetary oceans?

If it's there we should be able to explore it, or at least take advantage of it somehow.

[Capt Snuggler]

also

If squad is going to add more parts i want those to be stuff like the new drill, resource stuff, fairings

We are already getting those things in KSP 1.0

The reason for 1.75m parts is to fit in side a 2.5m fairing while still having enough room for radially attached parts such as solar panels or science parts.

The larger SRB would be for lifting shuttle external tanks as the current SRBs are not powerful enough and a 2.5m SRB would be too large and also does not exist.

[Sampa]

what about if they made the Raster Prop monitor mod stock? and allow us, in the VAB/SPH, to select whether or not we want to use the screens or not in IVA?

[Wahgineer]

I actually think 1.75 m makes a little more sense. With 1.75 m we have,

1.25 > 1.75 m = +40%

1.75 > 2.5 = +43%

2.5 > 3.75 = +50%

and with 1.875 m we have,

1.25 > 1.875 m = +50%

1.875 > 2.5 = +33%

2.5 > 3.75 = +50%

And if we do it by cross-sectional area, with 1.75 m we have,

1.25² > 1.75² m = +96%

1.75² > 2.5² = +104%

2.5² > 3.75² = +125%

and with 1.875 m we have,

1.25² > 1.875² m = +125%

1.875² > 2.5² = +78%

2.5² > 3.75² = +125%.

Yeah, but the reason why 1.875m is the next step is because:

there are mods that already use it (HGR, for example)

and it fits with in stock sizes (1.875 = 0.625 + 1.25, the latter two already exist)

[Woopert]

I agree with all of you. I've been wishing for a set between 1.25 and 2.5 meters for a while now and as awsumindyman pointed out, 1.875 meters is the logical size. Some examples that show this is necessary are with building SLS replicas, the boosters are much too narrow and short when using 1.25 meter boosters on 3.75 meter tanks; building Ares I replicas or any rocket that uses a first stage that is narrower than its above upper stage; and for building radial boosters on 2.5 meter tanks  1.25 meter boosters look a bit silly on these. I can't believe they made 0.23.5 without adding larger boosters, especially with the SLS theme, because you can't even build an SLS with the standard booster (you can with clipped parts but you shouldn't have to go through all that work in a polished game). What I also find ridiculous is how shortly for which the SRB's burn. There is no reason why a booster should run out before the rocket is even doing its gravity turn; i.e., unless you use clipped boosters with thrust limiter set down for longer burn times, you'll be dropping your boosters straight onto the launch pad.

Branching off from bigger tanks is my wish for segmented boosters. Adding 1.875 meter SRB's would be a wonder for constructing large SLS replicas or large STS replicas. Another thing to note is that real life SRB's are usually in segments, usually consisting of the motor segment, the nose cone with built in separator rockets, and the actual fuel segments. Usually they increase the thrust when adding more segments, like is being done with the Space Launch System. The Space Shuttle used lower thrust four segment boosters whereas the SLS will use higher thrust five segment boosters.

You can see how it all ties together and it really makes sense. The 2.5 meter parts and 3.75 meter parts blend really nicely and you can make rockets with a 2.5 meter lower stage and 3.75 meter upper stage without looking silly. When trying to apply that to 2.5 meter and 1.25 meter parts it is simply much too small. The 1.25 meter SRB's can be nice as radial boosters. Examples below.

[Columbia]

maybe if the water were fixed it would be worth the effort to support boat construction/deployment

This was what I thought too. It's probably going to be almost unused by many if it's this difficult to make boats.

(P.S Thanks for the rep!)

I agree here as well. I loved the previous Mark 3 size despite its ugliness. It should have been made symmetrical like the Mk-2 and given a proper part lineup. Could be called the Mk-2.5?

I felt exactly the same! While I have to admit it did look a bit unusual, I thought it struck a balance between small enough to be assembled easily, but big enough to support heavy payloads. I do wish the same, although it won't fit with other parts other than it's own.

I also don't think a water revamp is in order now. Water certainly sucks, but it does allow you to splash harder than on land without crashing, it is fine for capsule landings !

I do agree that capsule landings are realistic with the current system, although there are quite a few uses that would support water, and would be more feasible with an overhaul, such as being able to send boats more easily to waterborne places like Eve and Laythe.

But I get what you mean.

About the mk3 parts, dont worry : the new aero system will make wings way more effective an realistic : every part will have WAY more lift (lift will be based on v^2 and not v) so you wont need to go to 250m/s in order to get off the runway i like the new mk3 parts right now, and the new landing gear will make them even better

I certainly am excited for the new aerodynamics and parts! With it, I think I'd be into spaceplanes by much more. Oh, the hype!

If it's there we should be able to explore it, or at least take advantage of it somehow.

I too think that as well. It's a bit of a letdown to anticipate sailing around in Laythe, only to find that the water destroys your boat when it reaches around 5 m/s.

The reason for 1.75m parts is to fit in side a 2.5m fairing while still having enough room for radially attached parts such as solar panels or science parts.

The larger SRB would be for lifting shuttle external tanks as the current SRBs are not powerful enough and a 2.5m SRB would be too large and also does not exist.

Wow, those are great ideas! Especially for shuttle builders who either have to cope with clustering SRB's (A.K.A Westi's shuttle) or leave out SRBs totally (similar to what Inigma and Naito did).

It's a bit sad to see how their shuttles are amazing and have so much realism, only to see that the boosters had to be compromised a bit. (No offense, though! I love their STS replicas!)

what about if they made the Raster Prop monitor mod stock? and allow us, in the VAB/SPH, to select whether or not we want to use the screens or not in IVA?

I think so too. Screens would not only enhance the visual IVA experience, but it would be easier having flights in IVA to see what is happening beyond the window screens of your cockpit.

You can see how it all ties together and it really makes sense. The 2.5 meter parts and 3.75 meter parts blend really nicely and you can make rockets with a 2.5 meter lower stage and 3.75 meter upper stage without looking silly. When trying to apply that to 2.5 meter and 1.25 meter parts it is simply much too small. The 1.25 meter SRB's can be nice as radial boosters. Examples below.

This is exactly what I felt! The huge size gap prevented me from being able to make sufficient MK3 Aircraft engines, create Hubble replicas that could fit in the Mk3 bay, as well as replicating the Ares family of rockets.

It's a shame how a seemingly small error became so critical.