The Completely Agreed Addition Thread

[Wjolcz]

Make that propeller on the list electric and fofoldable.

[quasarrgames]

Hello! sorry for not updating this in a while. it's updated now.

[Wjolcz]

How about the new resource worth recovering?

[rcp27]

If we're setting the bar high as "completely agreed" then that sets quite a high bar.

• tweakable thrust curves for SRBs
  

I don't know how you could make thrust curves for SRBs ​tweakable in a way that is both reasonably realistic and accessible to a non-expert player. In the linked thread, there is the following comment:

The biggest problem I've encountered in setting up custom thrust curves is that it's hard to know exactly how much thrust you need when, particularly for complicated rocket setups (A total vessel TWR/time graph would be amazing...and amazingly annoying to make, I reckon). But a few very simple automatic profiles are really quite comprehensive. Constant thrust for duration; constant excess thrust (aka, how much net thrust is the booster contributing to the stack); and a few others are quite useful. The problem is that visualizing how the rocket will perform is a bit tricky if you're adding together boosters and LFEs etc.

I don't object to the idea of the behaviour of SRBs being altered from the way they are now, but I don't think making it tweakable would make the game a better experience to a regular player.

• simple life support system (to be decided in another discussion)
  

I definitely disagree with this. There are plenty of good options for both simple and complex life support systems from a number of modders. There have been tons of threads about the idea of life support, and the idea is definitely very controversial, and has no place on a "Completely Agreed" list. I have made clear my personal feelings on this subject in another thread, so I won't repeat them here.

• better engine gimbal
  

What does this actual involve? What's lacking in the current model?

A feature I would like to see: fuel cells. A part that consumes liquid fuel and oxidiser and converts it to electrical power. Fuel cells have been parts of real world space missions since at least Apollo, and would give a useful alternative to solar panels or RTGs.

[panzer1b]

Does "cruiser" imply water craft?

I'm in favor of Squad-developed water craft parts

Isnt a cruiser a mid-range capital ship? Or maybee i just make too much sci-fi crap.

3: Life Support. (single resource life support, measured in "mission days")

Im STRONGLY against any life support systems for two reasons.

1: its a tedious mechanic that forces you to micro-manage every single ship, check on it periodically, and resupply it continuously regardless of what its doing. I already need to resupply almost all of my ships with fuel here and there, but i know that if i leave a ship at whatever spot (assuming stable orbit), itll stay there and not fly off not space until i go to it and tell it to fly somewhere. Id have to leave a ship (or even forget i left a ship somewhere) and then come back to it seeing all the kerbals gone and an uncontrollable useless ship. Not exactly my definition of fun. All it does is add one more thing to worry about, and i feel it will become more and more of a bother the more ships you have in orbit/space. Might be a cool mechanic initially, but i feel it will get boring very quickly when you realize that you need to spend more time sendiong resupply ships then actually enjoying the game and exploring (or as i prefer, full out fleet on fleet combat). I enjoy having to rsupply and repair ships damaged in combat, but im not forced to do this unless ive actually done something withsaid ships, the life support will force me to constantly worry abouit every bloody ship and most likely switch to 100% drones.

As a side note, this is actually similar in concept to a RTS i play, where infantry is notorious for eating through lucridious ammunition supplies when left alone and is kinda annoying to have to bring resupply trucks to them every few minutes. Realistic, yes, but bloody annoying, and forces me to basically stock up every single infantry/tank that i dont want to actually micro-manage with enough ammo its inventory is capable of holding.

2: it has no realism basis, as we are dealing with KERBALS, not humans. While im not going to say kerbals do not need to eat, there is also no evidence saying they do need to eat. Essentially why bother implenting this at all when it isnt a clear cut benefit to teh game?

if this EVER becomes implemented without a way to disable it (or mod it out), im simply not going to update until its gone (or optional) or mod removable.

Edited April 16, 2015 by panzer1b

[Vector-5]

I find something very lacking in spaceplane design: flaps and airbrakes. The latter was mentioned on page 2, I think, but nobody has mentioned flaps so far. I believe there are 2 ways to go about this. The first option would be to create specialized parts which only work as flaps. The other option would be to add a toggleable feature to the existing control surfaces. Right now, it looks like control surfaces have about 20 degrees of movement in one direction. If this were implemented, we could have much more than that (60 degrees max is my suggestion). There would be a toggleable function in the right click menu, where there could be the option to go to no flaps (20 dg), half flaps (40 dg), and full flaps (60 dg). This could increase lift at slow speeds of around 100 m/s. Of course, 100 m/s is fast, but relatively slow to other speeds. This would make it somewhat easier to land spaceplanes which are a heavy and need a little boost to their lift at landing.

-Vec

[Pthigrivi]

Panzer I think many of your concerns are the reason LS hasn't been integrated already. Its a tough thing to make this challenging without becoming frustrating, but I and a lot of others think a thoughtful, simple system could add a whole new dimension to the game for experienced players. Having access to greenhouses and habitation modules would give a real sense of life to kerbals and make late-game colonization projects possible. Either way, I can guarantee you any life support system would be toggleable so as not to daunt new players.

- - - Updated - - -

Id also like to chime in that kerbal operated science experiments would be great, but really all of the experiments could use some work to make science less clicky and more rewarding.

I made some suggestions along these lines some time ago here.

[panzer1b]

Panzer I think many of your concerns are the reason LS hasn't been integrated already. Its a tough thing to make this challenging without becoming frustrating, but I and a lot of others think a thoughtful, simple system could add a whole new dimension to the game for experienced players. Having access to greenhouses and habitation modules would give a real sense of life to kerbals and make late-game colonization projects possible. Either way, I can guarantee you any life support system would be toggleable so as not to daunt new players.

- - - Updated - - -

Id also like to chime in that kerbal operated science experiments would be great, but really all of the experiments could use some work to make science less clicky and more rewarding.

I made some suggestions along these lines some time ago here.

I would welcome it IF and ONLY IF it is toggleable on/off. I just dont want to be forced to micromanage stuff in this game. Luckily i tend to build alot of drones and unmanned stuff, so even if it was forced i wouldnt be completely screwed over, but i still dont think there is any way to make life support that isnt either tedious and micromanaging annoyance, or is to the point that you can stock up on a single tank of food/whatever and be all set for 50 years. Its either going to be so quickly draining that its annoying to no end, or its going to be so slow draining that for all intents and purposes we can just ignore the whole system and play the game as we always did (in this case there is no reason to even implent it).

That said, i would love more base building options and actual reasons for bases to even exist outside of for fun or role playing stuff. It looks like resource mining will be the 1st reason to make any persistent colonies, so im looking forward to this. And yeah, any extra interaction and immersion when it comes to kerbals is neat, id love animations (and perhaps a few seconds to do the job) of repairing a wheel or something.

[Pthigrivi]

Totally. Not just for people who'd like to keep things simple for their playstyle, but for beginners as well. I mean the game is pretty complicated already, and even a really simple LS system will inevitably add to it. I agree its a fine balance, but you're right, in the end its what gives real life and purpose to off-world colonization.

You can find the crack I took at it here if you're interested.

[panzer1b]

Totally. Not just for people who'd like to keep things simple for their playstyle, but for beginners as well. I mean the game is pretty complicated already, and even a really simple LS system will inevitably add to it. I agree its a fine balance, but you're right, in the end its what gives real life and purpose to off-world colonization.

You can find the crack I took at it here if you're interested.

Your idea in that thread are actually pretty nice, but id say there should be options to (provided you can power them long enough), have infinite life support via food machine or something. Heck, even the primitive humans in star-trek series has energy->matter converters, and well, with enough energy (we also need ZPE generators, ect) they should be able to materialize food out of thin air .

Anyways, jokes aside, id like to at a MINIMUM see more uses for base building, life support or not, i think squad needs to look into what bases are used for and somehow make them beneficial. My personal favorite would be off-world ship launching. Basically make it so that i can build a factory for fighters/bombers/capital ships, and have it able to spawn one in given enough ore in the tanks (id assume convert ore into mass in some logical ratio). A second option would be as you reccomend, life support systems, maybee a greenhouse or whatnot (larger greenhouses is powered should provide infinite LS, and allow a base to supply crap in orbit too).

After thinking a bit more im not as anti-LS as i was initially, but i still feel it HAS to have a toggle on/off in the options (i MIGHT enable it in a career/realistic game, but in sandbox/pure fun games hell no!). Really at this point it all boils down to priorities, itd be nice to have it as an option in teh game, but is it worth squad taking time away from MUCH more pressing concerns. Id rather have optimization, bug fixes, new parts, (procedural wings woul dbe my dream come true but it seems squad insists on lego block 500+ part ships when we dont even have the game optimized to handle the physics on such massive ships) instead of life support, but id welcome it anyways (if it comes with off switch somewhere).

[Pthigrivi]

Basically make it so that i can build a factory for fighters/bombers/capital ships, and have it able to spawn one in given enough ore in the tanks...

Oh yeah thats the idea^. Greenhouses replenish life support and can support kerbals indefinitely.

[Pthigrivi]

So what do people think is the bare minimum for robotic parts?

Im thinking:

3 axial rotators in .625m, 1.25m and 2.5m variants

3 hinges in small, medium and large

2 telescoping rails in small and large

With possible robotic arm and winch?

Edited April 25, 2015 by Pthigrivi

[Rocketfeline]

Tethers and a kerbal complex science tree.

[GusTurbo]

Everyone agrees that fairings should be highly customizable.

[scy]

Strongly agree with the environmental enhancements and electric props. Also needed are simple vessel illumination lights and better controls for planes (swap roll and yaw buttons and axes, simple autopilot for wing-levelling and pitch-holding (independently)) as well as fixing the current heading-hold for rockets to actually work!

I'm not so sure about adding the hinges/servos at the moment though. Other than folding wheels for rovers they're not needed for most missions, and are quite a big thing to add.

[Kegereneku]

I think we can agree for a long 0,625 long SRB.

[notcomplex]

The Mun terrain is passable these days but the other planets look like lumpy quilts. Higher res terrain (most likely needing an overhaul of their chunked LOD system) would add a lot more immersion for me.

Hobbyist programmers on youtube create way better planets (this one is a bit same-y but is still a huge improvement over what KSP has)

https://youtu.be/rL8zDgTlXso

[quasarrgames]

Huh. For a moment there i thought this thread was dead. No matter. Its been updated again.

[panzer1b]

So what do people think is the bare minimum for robotic parts?

Im thinking:

3 axial rotators in .625m, 1.25m and 2.5m variants

3 hinges in small, medium and large

2 telescoping rails in small and large

With possible robotic arm and winch?

Id say rotator is teh absolutely bare minimum (given you can make makeshift hinges with rotators (ive been doing this with the robotics mod as certain cannons work and or look better with side mounter rotators instead of hinges.

Anyways, id love to see stock robot parts, at a minimum rotators but also hinges and or sliders would be neat too. Would make turret bearings a little less part intensive and no need to separate the turret into a separate ship when making turreted tanks/boats.