What do you HATE about KSP?

[Tw1]

Just now, Lo Var Lachland said:

Yeah. I wish we had engine failure or program alarms. 

I meant computer crashes.

We do have parts that can overheat, if you do something crazy.  Part stress could be a thing, but I would not like anything to be set by random chance in this game. 

[Vermil]

Changes that temporarily affect my vessels and what I do negatively.  Right now I'm sort of dubious to exploding and sliding landing struts. Will I ever get my operations going again?

That's all. There really isn't anything that annoys me otherwise.

 

[Kerbinchaser]

3 hours ago, Tw1 said:

I meant computer crashes.

We do have parts that can overheat, if you do something crazy.  Part stress could be a thing, but I would not like anything to be set by random chance in this game. 

Oh, ha ha! Whoops!! 

[NSEP]

That nuclear and ion engines are cool and all, but you need to do a 40 minute burn to get to jool! Thats why i never use them.

[The Raging Sandwich]

It really salts my apples when a plane I build (about 90% of them) stalls flips over and stalls for no reason even if the center of lift and center of mass match exactly.

[Iamsodarncool]

1 minute ago, The Raging Sandwich said:

It really salts my apples when a plane I build (about 90% of them) stalls flips over and stalls for no reason even if the center of lift and center of mass match exactly.

The CoL should be just behind the CoM

[Skystorm]

@The Raging Sandwich Your center of mass and center of lift shouldn't be exactly in the same place.  Try moving your center of lift about a meter behind your center of mass.  That should make your aircraft more stable.

Mmm.  Salty apples.

[Rocket In My Pocket]

4 minutes ago, Iamsodarncool said:

The CoL should be just behind the CoM

What he said^

You want to be "gently pushing the COM from behind."

Also I highly recommend this mod:

Not only does it correct the stock COL indicator, (Which is constantly wrong.) But it also provides a handy tool that tells you if your craft is stable wet as well as dry. (Full vs Empty fuel tanks.)

Edited July 18, 2016 by Rocket In My Pocket

[Ahmed Kerman]

i hate it when i cant add a maneuver node, its something that shouldve been fixed a long time ago 

[The Raging Sandwich]

1 hour ago, Iamsodarncool said:

The CoL should be just behind the CoM

 

1 hour ago, Skystorm said:

@The Raging Sandwich Your center of mass and center of lift shouldn't be exactly in the same place.  Try moving your center of lift about a meter behind your center of mass.  That should make your aircraft more stable.

Mmm.  Salty apples.

I'll make sure I do that next time! When I first started playing the game about two years ago that's just how it was. 

[Kerbinchaser]

15 hours ago, NSEP said:

That nuclear and ion engines are cool and all, but you need to do a 40 minute burn to get to jool! Thats why i never use them.

Yeah. I haven't used them yet, but I'm planning a nuclear mission to Eeloo. 

[NSEP]

1 hour ago, Lo Var Lachland said:

Yeah. I haven't used them yet, but I'm planning a nuclear mission to Eeloo. 

Im not 100% shure if it is 40 minutes, but takes a long time to burn and requires some planning, just saying!

[Dr.K Kerbal]

I don't know if this relates to KSP, but I was really disappointed when the  'Kerbal Stuff' mod website shut down.

R...r...

Rage.

I'm also really dissappint d in the fact how weak the ion engines and nuclear engines are. If they were 29 kn more powerful, I would probably use them more often...

Their fuel type is so light, and they are really fuel efficient.

PLEASE SQUAD!!!!! LISTEN TO THIS POST SQUAD!!!! DO YOU HEAR ME!!!???!?

 

Edited July 20, 2016 by Dr.K Kerbal
Add ons

[Blaarkies]

1 hour ago, Dr.K Kerbal said:

I don't know if this relates to KSP, but I was really disappointed when the  'Kerbal Stuff' mod website shut down.

R...r...

Rage.

I'm also really dissappint d in the fact how weak the ion engines and nuclear engines are. If they were 29 kn more powerful, I would probably use them more often...

Their fuel type is so light, and they are really fuel efficient.

PLEASE SQUAD!!!!! LISTEN TO THIS POST SQUAD!!!! DO YOU HEAR ME!!!???!?

 

Why not just add half an extra nuke engine every time? 
All jokes aside, it is important to be able to do orbital burns at less than 0.5 TWR. The more TWR you have, the more engine mass is coming with, which in turn needs more fuel. Nukes fit a fine niche, where you just have to keep adding more of them until you have 0.5TWR
...Ions on the other hand have an engine TWR of 0.8. That means, no matter what you do, you will never have a Ion craft with more than 0.8 TWR(no matter how many engines you add). Realistically, do not expect more than 0.2 TWR from Ion craft(more than that is a lot of engine mass you have to carry around)

Remember, "Their fuel type is so light" is irrelevant, it is all about how it is packaged(wet to dry mass ratio of fuel tanks). LF(nuke fuel) is packaged the same as for the rest of the rocket engines(nukes have less sizes and shapes though)...but Xenon(Ion fuel) is horribly packaged, many times worse than the LF-OX

[Dr.K Kerbal]

46 minutes ago, Blaarkies said:

Why not just add half an extra nuke engine every time? 
All jokes aside, it is important to be able to do orbital burns at less than 0.5 TWR. The more TWR you have, the more engine mass is coming with, which in turn needs more fuel. Nukes fit a fine niche, where you just have to keep adding more of them until you have 0.5TWR
...Ions on the other hand have an engine TWR of 0.8. That means, no matter what you do, you will never have a Ion craft with more than 0.8 TWR(no matter how many engines you add). Realistically, do not expect more than 0.2 TWR from Ion craft(more than that is a lot of engine mass you have to carry around)

Remember, "Their fuel type is so light" is irrelevant, it is all about how it is packaged(wet to dry mass ratio of fuel tanks). LF(nuke fuel) is packaged the same as for the rest of the rocket engines(nukes have less sizes and shapes though)...but Xenon(Ion fuel) is horribly packaged, many times worse than the LF-OX

Cool

[Kerbinchaser]

On July 19, 2016 at 10:17 AM, NSEP said:

Im not 100% shure if it is 40 minutes, but takes a long time to burn and requires some planning, just saying!

Yup. 

[Aladran]

On 2015-06-27 at 11:40 AM, zekes said:

Crashes. other than that it's great.

Yep, for me to it's the worst, random crashes.

 

For me they tend to happen after long mission return (by long I mean few days), once I hit Recover vessel the game crashes some times.

 

Or it happen after exiting time warping, when physics gets applied again.

 

Beside that, the game is flawless. Would love to have some stock Eva activities like KAS mod gives.

[OrbitalBuzzsaw]

Wheel Blocked : Yes.

[Kraken1]

I play around with mods. Only 1 has parts in it (KAS/KIS) but crashes are a really big issue. Wish the game was slightly more stable in 64bit. Of course though, KAS is a pretty heavy duty mod when you start building things in orbit (Space Stations) but it's better than having the aerodynamics on all of the parts you wanted up there. Really reduces the delta V when you do that.

[Fictitious1267]

When I get a predicted SOI change and I can no longer place a maneuver node, which makes any mid-course corrections impossible. I'm still not sure why it happens, but it just makes me want to turn the game off after all the work I did to get a good trajectory.

[W. Kerman]

The devs never finished the easter egg plot, I love the game, but I would love it more if it was there!

[Blaarkies]

1 hour ago, Fictitious1267 said:

When I get a predicted SOI change and I can no longer place a maneuver node, which makes any mid-course corrections impossible. I'm still not sure why it happens, but it just makes me want to turn the game off after all the work I did to get a good trajectory.

FLICKERING INTERCEPTS! Sorry, not at you 
But i keep getting them, even on short trips like Kerbin->Eve...then halfway(ETA 50 days to encounter) I would like to adjust my orbit slightly, just to match the Gilly orbital plane for my Eve Pe. Anyway it feels like playing on a 1901 film projector with all the flickering going on, with no way to keep a maneuvre node open for more than 78ms

[theend3r]

1. The fact that BahamutoD has left
2. The wheels
3. No new planets for nearly 4 years and nothing to do on planets (I stopped playing because of this, then started playing with BDArmory, now stopped again)

4. 1 hour ago, W. Kerman said:

   The devs never finished the easter egg plot, I love the game, but I would love it more if it was there!

[storm_soldier2377]

3 hours ago, Fictitious1267 said:

When I get a predicted SOI change and I can no longer place a maneuver node, which makes any mid-course corrections impossible. I'm still not sure why it happens, but it just makes me want to turn the game off after all the work I did to get a good trajectory.

You can get around this by creating a maneuver node wherever the game allows you to, then move it across to the orbit where you want to create the maneuver node on. It's still annoying though.

Personally what bugs me most is the intercept marker flashing around or straight up disappearing. It got especially bad with 1.1.

[Blaarkies]

16 minutes ago, theend3r said:

1. The fact that BahamutoD has left
2. The wheels
3. No new planets for nearly 4 years and nothing to do on planets (I stopped playing because of this, then started playing with BDArmory, now stopped again)
4.  

To be fair, how many games do we play for more than 4 years? Nostalgia aside, those will never die...but somehow after a lifetime of gaming, KSP has managed to get into the nostalgia list, despite its shortcomings.

When Skyrim was still popular 4 years after release, it was considered an awesome success...but no dev team can ever keep pumping out new updates to keep the veterans busy.
I mean to say, a game with 200 hours of unique gameplay is truly fantastic...KSP definitely beats that. Adding new planets every few years is like a game called "KSP Infinite"