My thoughts

[ZooNamedGames]

I've held back on my suggestions for a while... but today, for some reason, I feel like posting my suggestions for what should be added. Please note, if there is voodoo suggestions, I don't know them. So I apologize in advance.

Settings access from all menus- you should be able to access the settings (i.e, volume control) from all settings, such as the VAB, SPH, MC, TS, and so on. It bugs me I need to mute ALL sounds on my computer just to mute KSP... or go to the toolbar and mute KSP completely. Sometimes I'll have music on myself and I want to just hear the rumbling of the engines.

Larger Mk3 wings- The Mk3 wings are nice, but they're pitiful in size in comparison to the main body. When using the shuttle style wings, I have to make the body shorter to accommodate and in doing so it ends up looking like a Buran and not an American Space Shuttle. Plus, more creativity! We have like 7 new wings for the mk3 parts. There are like 30 for the mk2... its almost a 3:1, 4:1 (whatever) ratio of parts. Open it up!

Engine fairing toggle- I would like the ability to toggle engine fairings on and off. I have a Saturn V replica which is 100% perfect aside from a minor fairing issue where the SPS engine will stick to the docking port of the LM... it's annoying. Moreover, in a more normal problem, the fairing can attach to any docking port. If you have an unmanned (uncontrolled) spacecraft attached via docking port or decoupler, you end up with this fairing in your face. It doesn't prevent docking, but it does stick to the craft... Annoying.

Inline 1m/2m monopropellant engine- I would like a 1m and 2m inline monopropellant engine since the radial ones are nice, but I find very little use for them (efficiency is something that keeps me off, but that's a personal factor). I would like it if I could manage them more inline, it makes it easier to angle and position them when I do use them. The 2m variant is based off the SPS, especially the stock KW version which burns monopropellant. It makes it more realistic and also opens the use of monopropellant engines as a whole. Since it would be nice to have my fuel source and my maneuvering/docking propellant all being the same. Part reduction.

Inflatable Heatshields- I would like a set of inflatable heatshields (such as the NASA LDSD). I would like one which can inflate to 2m, 5m, and 10m. Since if you have a station in transit moving towards Jool, and you need to slow down so you can put it into orbit around (for example) Laythe, if the station is massive, you will need a larger heatshield, and moreover, it will be a challenge to put the 5m heatshield into space since even with a fairing, its a giant block... not very aerodynamic.

Control surface responses reverse toggle- It occasionally becomes an issue when making an aircraft when you try to test launch it and 1 (or all) of your control surfaces respond in reverse, now admittly you can't program for EVERY possible placement and use of the winglets, so, I suggest that you make it possible to toggle reverse response. Meaning, it reverses the control's response.

Airbrakes on the larger control surfaces- I would like it if you added airbrakes on the larger control surfaces (such as the large mk3 control surface, aeroplane tail fin, and space shuttle tail fin. I would reduce part count and be more realistic, as well as effective.

Stronger LES- As it stands, with my basic design for a LES blast cover, chutes, docking port and capsule, the LES cannot sufficiently work. Either it doesn't burn long enough, or it's too weak. Since it carries the forementioned stack 25ms(ish) from the rocket... not 100m, or anything close to what a real LES could do in reality.

New IVA for the mk2 cockpits- As it stands, the cockpits for the mk2 parts are identical... I have read the description and I say it isn't a sufficient excuse for it. It deserves to be different. People experiment, they make monsters just to see EVERY cockpit... and it IS a disappointment to them to find out that the mk2 parts are identical.

Rover Mount- As it stands, rovers are a serious, serious, serious pain to work with. Great science collectors, and a fantastic way to complete contracts, but if you play ironman mode, then theyre too risky to use since they require constant testing and work (and that's just to get them to drive). Lastly, you have to find a way to get them on the surface, which your two best options are either a skycrane, parachutes or a landing pad (basically the rover on top of a LM descent stage). A skycrane is hard to make, especially since you have to fit the rover under the skycrane (and balance the CoM/CoT), and it's one of the safest options, IF you land safely. If you come in too fast, your wheels are doomed and the mission is lost. You could go with parachutes, easiest option, but on Duna, they are not enough and you will surely smash into the surface at 300m/s+. You could lastly make a landing pad, which is the easiest to make work, but you have to balance the CoM and CoT, and that isn't the biggest issue. The bigger issue is that it cannot be underneath any other spacecraft, meaning if you want to launch a massive interplanetary mission, the rover has to come up on it's own and not with the rest of the crafts, even if the launcher could manage it.

Impact Craters- It would be cool to have craters form wherever and whenever you crash into a surface at say +100m/s. It could just be a randomly generated crater image (like normal ground scatter) which is physics less. It could be deloaded when you leave the scene or loading area like ground scatter. It would just be cool.

2m/5m SRBs, SRB segments- KSP lacks 2m/5m SRBs... which is not only an issue, but also lacking. It makes SRBs that much less desirable (noting that they provide no benefit except on a launch stage, which is already limited). The biggest issue with even the large NASA ARM SRB ( oohh the acronyms!) it isn't strong enough for the larger launchers. I would be tempted to MAKE my single stage, single engine launchers to be SRBs as it would reduce part count and also make it simpler. If Squad worries they are not realistic, then they should consider the Titan IIIC's SRBs which are of equal size to the core LFO tank. Also, the game should have SRBs segments, or SRB fuel tanks. They can also open up the use of SRBs since some are what you need, but they burn out way too early. Again, for realism, I point to NASA's shuttle SRB which has been converted into a 5..6(?) segment boaster. Case and point, the boaster has been lengthened. This should be achievable in stock KSP as well.

mk3 probe core- I would like a mk3 probe core since its the only part size without one. Moreover, the UAV used by the USAF, is unmanned and probe controlled (hence UAV).

Inflatable wings- I would like to see a set of wings that could expand. This is a desirable feature so that A, you can recover boasters (hence

video) and B, create gliders for other atmospheric bodies without having to make a fairing and boaster design that looks ridiculous.

Radial attachment to the ISRU converter- I don't know why, but as it stands, the ISRU converter cannot have anything attached. I don't know why this is, but considering the size of the converter I would think it should be possible. Maybe this is unintended... still.

Editor page scrolling- I would like to see it possible to scroll through the part pages in the editor by scrolling... it is much easier than clicking. I think the developers would agree.

Buggy Airbrakes/Airbrakes acting like control surfaces- The airbrakes need to be fixed. The toggling option for action groups don't work and for some odd reason when decoupled they refuse to operate. Moreover, the airbrakes should not be working as control surfaces. I commend the developers for making it a possibility, but it should be left by default with all controls disabled.

Starting with EVA seats, manned- The game should always have the external command seats mannable at start. The fact they can't be a is a SERIOUS deterrent.

Mods that I feel should become stock:

ValVisor- It should be stock since it should've been stock. A tiny edit for something that oddly should've been there.

QuickScroll- As mentioned above

Quickmute- AS mentioned above

PortraitStats- I makes for knowing your Kerbals easier and better. I can tell at a glance whos a pilot and whos an engineer. If I am about to drive a rover across Duna, I want an engineer, which amongst a crew of 12, can be troubling. Same for pilots, if I want to launch a rocket back into orbit above Duna, I don't want the scientist flying.

Kerbal Joint Reinforcement (KJR)- This makes parts stronger and more realistic which with larger wings (to accommodate the mk3 parts and their lacking mk3 wing sizes) and rocket fairings, everything wobbles and breaks under normal loads. KJR not only removes the physics load crush, but also makes things realistically stronger. Which is needed.

EditorTime- Maybe just me, but I find it a cool idea that time actually passes in the VAB/SPH. Gives more meaning to your build times, gives you a realistic deadline. However, a pause feature might be needed (maybe in conjunction with a settings menu?)

Lights Out- It has been day light in the VAB since day 1. It needs to show what's really going on outside. So the VAB should show darkness in the background when it's night instead of instantly become daylight. The VAB should have lights which turn on after a set time of day. So the rockets look the same but the background changes.

MenuStabilizer- I love the new camera wobble, but chasing the menu sucks and can ruin your mission fast.

AsteroidDay- Do I honestly need to explain why this needs to be added?.. Yes? Well it should be added since it has several features would be nice to have stock. It's made by the developers themselves, and lastly the new solar panels, telescope and probe body are awesome. The solar panels have been needed for a long time. This mod is just a must have, and it should be stock.

AtomicAge- This mod adds several engines which should become stock. Namely the .5m nuclear engine and the 2m nuclear engine. The air breathing nuclear engine is awesome, but admittly overpowered. So I suggest adding it as well, but it burns some radioactive element to keep the engine alight. This element should also be in the RTGs, and it slowly decays overtime reducing the overpoweredness of the RTG.

EVAEnchancement- This needs to be added since I'm tired of having my Kerbals perpendicular to their spacecraft when I'm trying to return them to their ship.

KAS/KIS- This is a cool feature which adds an awesome game feature. As the game is, rovers as is are very impractical. This mod lets you build rovers and such! Which is awesome. This can also be expanded to allow for more EVA activities since as it is, you can only perform an EVA report, soil sample and plant a flag. Otherwise it's pointless to perform an EVA. (pretty much only for posterity).

KerbalMechanics, Dangit, Entropy (etc)- This adds a greater level of realism as parts fail (like in reality). KM breaks stuff but makes it repairable (pushing the EVA front even further). It also makes it more of an engineering challenge. If you make the failure rate set to 0% (i.e disable it) then it could be a legitimate feature which I would enjoy and it would be awesome to actually have a use for the LES.

KSPTips- A useful mod which new players would greatly appreciate and (in my opinion) is done in a very Kerbal fashion . I like it.

Serious Kerbal Buisness/Stratagem (SKB)- This adds new strategies to the admin building which is somewhat lacking. I feel it just completes the admin building.

Thermometer- It should be a stock feature that when you right click on something that it tells you its temperature. It's always useful info.

ContractPacks- These add several contract packs which make the game far more interesting and diverse.

[ZooNamedGames]

So any thoughts?

[CaptainTurbomuffin]

setting access from all menus -- agreed

larger wings -- I disagree. even more parts? Don't we have enough wings? I think the best choice would be something like procedural wings. Why not, if we had procedural fairings?

fairing toggle -- I have never encountered a such problem, when I did, I could jettison it before launch (yeah, nukes)

more RCS engines -- I greatly disagree. In real life, they are needed, as LOX engines are more effective, but can't provide a constant, reliable thrust, and precise monopropellant engines are needed for orbital manouvering. Either leave KSP monopropellant as an RCS fuel (and replace the vernor with a heavy-duty RCS engine), or have the whole orbital propulsion replaced, renewed. I would prefer the first version.

those heatshields -- I never heard of them, but even if such a technology exists, wouldn't it be too overpowered in KSP? Also, note that current fairings are rather light (and dirt cheap!!)

control surface reserve toggle -- I would find that really confusing. There might be a better solution

IVA -- in my opinion, most EVAs should be completely redone, so that you will have an excellent sight from inside, while the instruments are still visible, as they should be closer to each other.

rovers -- luckily in 1.1, driving system will be redone. After all, I had no problem with CoM and CoT balances at all.

impact craters -- once something like that was planned, as I remember.

SRBs -- maybe a size2 SRB is necessary, as I keep seeing people using clusters of kickback boosters. But in my opinion, their cost effectiveness is enourmus, and the lack of a REALLY big SRB prevents them from being OP. Currently, they can ONLY be used as first-stage boosters. However, a very-large SRB could be used for the entire launch of normal spacecrafts, rendering spaceplanes useless. And for big launches... I have never seen a launch as big, that it can't be solved using size2 parts only. I never had a need for a big SRB, I don't even use the kickback, because 1:I don't need it 2:I don't need it's tech branch either

3m probe core -- I don't find it necessary. I don't even have to use 3m parts. When I do, I either never use them in my orbital stage, or when it's a refueling station, I use crewed modules. Because it's a station.

Inflatable wings??! I don't think ever something just even close to that will be added. Also, how could you recover it? we need a system for that, first.

Radial ISRU attachment -- it's a powerful part. maybe it's part of the nerf? anyway, radially attached stuffs would be attached to nothing, as the ISRU has no real surface, just stuffs inside it.

Scrolling -- yes, also, a searc option, please

airbrakes -- they SHOULD be able to be used as control surfaces. Like in a Starwars fighter. You can disable the controls.

manned seat -- it's really annoying, but if you could start with a kerbal in it, that would be INCREDIBLY OVERPOWERED. The seat IS op currenly , if you use it with your rockets.

Making mods stock: I won't list that, but I DISAGREE with most of that. Of course, there a few must-have both in your list, and some not included in your list.

Edited August 29, 2015 by CaptainTurbomuffin

[ZooNamedGames]

setting access from all menus -- agreed

larger wings -- I disagree. even more parts? Don't we have enough wings? I think the best choice would be something like procedural wings. Why not, if we had procedural fairings?

fairing toggle -- I have never encountered a such problem, when I did, I could jettison it before launch (yeah, nukes)

more RCS engines -- I greatly disagree. In real life, they are needed, as LOX engines are more effective, but can't provide a constant, reliable thrust, and precise monopropellant engines are needed for orbital manouvering. Either leave KSP monopropellant as an RCS fuel (and replace the vernor with a heavy-duty RCS engine), or have the whole orbital propulsion replaced, renewed. I would prefer the first version.

those heatshields -- I never heard of them, but even if such a technology exists, wouldn't it be too overpowered in KSP? Also, note that current fairings are rather light (and dirt cheap!!)

control surface reserve toggle -- I would find that really confusing. There might be a better solution

IVA -- in my opinion, most EVAs should be completely redone, so that you will have an excellent sight from inside, while the instruments are still visible, as they should be closer to each other.

rovers -- luckily in 1.1, driving system will be redone. After all, I had no problem with CoM and CoT balances at all.

impact craters -- once something like that was planned, as I remember.

SRBs -- maybe a size2 SRB is necessary, as I keep seeing people using clusters of kickback boosters. But in my opinion, their cost effectiveness is enourmus, and the lack of a REALLY big SRB prevents them from being OP. Currently, they can ONLY be used as first-stage boosters. However, a very-large SRB could be used for the entire launch of normal spacecrafts, rendering spaceplanes useless. And for big launches... I have never seen a launch as big, that it can't be solved using size2 parts only. I never had a need for a big SRB, I don't even use the kickback, because 1:I don't need it 2:I don't need it's tech branch either

3m probe core -- I don't find it necessary. I don't even have to use 3m parts. When I do, I either never use them in my orbital stage, or when it's a refueling station, I use crewed modules. Because it's a station.

Inflatable wings??! I don't think ever something just even close to that will be added. Also, how could you recover it? we need a system for that, first.

Radial ISRU attachment -- it's a powerful part. maybe it's part of the nerf? anyway, radially attached stuffs would be attached to nothing, as the ISRU has no real surface, just stuffs inside it.

Scrolling -- yes, also, a searc option, please

airbrakes -- they SHOULD be able to be used as control surfaces. Like in a Starwars fighter. You can disable the controls.

manned seat -- it's really annoying, but if you could start with a kerbal in it, that would be INCREDIBLY OVERPOWERED. The seat IS op currenly , if you use it with your rockets.

Making mods stock: I won't list that, but I DISAGREE with most of that. Of course, there a few must-have both in your list, and some not included in your list.

Larger Wings- Im not neutral to the idea of procedural wings. Nevertheless, it is a constant compliant that the mk3 wings are too small and too few. For a serious 747 replica, you have to fuse like 12 of the big wings together just to make one wing (and another set of wings on the end of it!).

Fairing Toggle- its annoying. It's been a constant issue, dating back to .18 and before.

Monopropellant engines- It's still an additional feature. Something to add more depth. Besides, aside from docking I never use monopropellant since as a maneuvering fuel its inefficient and weak compared to the SAS. It's easier and light in part count to add 3 SAS units rather than adding fuel and thrusters.

LDSD Heatshield- It's been tested and its a real concept. In fact NASA is planning on a inflatable heatshield as they're heatshield for the manned landing on Mars. In KSP, it isn't all that OP. And moreover, I'd like to see you make a rocket which uses the largest heatshield and make it effective for large space stations which are re-entering bodies at 5+km/s. We need bigger and we cant put it in a fairing.... hence why NASA has elected to use an inflatable heatshield.

Reverse control surface- its a simple right click option "Reverse Control Reponse Enable/Disable". Nothing complex, and it solves a lot of people's problems.

IVAs- Yeah I agree... the mk1-2 pod needs to be more Apollo styled. Instead of a 2 top,1 bottom style thing it should be a horizontal couch with all the Kerbonauts next to each other.

Rovers- Hope so. Since they are a pain. Replicating Apollo 15-17 are impossible atm without the rover, and it takes a LOT of work to get it balanced on the side of the LM in one piece (whereas the real rover was folded up inside the descent stage).

Impact craters- I just felt it was a cool idea which would add another layer to the game. Isn't a dire feature.

SRBs- Exactly my thoughts. They're only used as a first stage kickstart or a retro motor, basically everything but a boaster! If they made bigger or segmented boasters they'd have greater application.

mk3 core- it isn't because its needed, its just because its missing. I almost never use the mk2 probe core, but I'm not complaining about it. I'm glad its there so if I do ever need to use it, I can.

Inflatable Wings- I would like something like that since launching even my ArchAngel looks ridiculous and is unstable on top of a rocket. However if it were to be like a normal 1m stage on top, it would be more stable and still work as a glider once the wings unfold. Also you could recover it by landing... did you not see the video? It could fire a parachute at the last minute to make it land at a safe velocity or it could have wheels/landing skids so it could again be recovered. In game? This is a lacking area, but such thing as this can open it up. Make it more realistic. It isn't unheard of to use wings and engines to recover boasters, the Saturn 1 boaster used it (hence the video) and the Adaline project also considered something along those lines.

Radial ISRU attachment- I don't think so. I think its a bug. I'd like it resolved though. Moreover, recessed parts has never been a deterrent for KSP. I can attach parts to the top of a cargo bay door and then open it so it's hanging in mid air. I can attach the claw to so much regardless. Doesn't make since in KSP. Does in reality.

Airbrakes- Star Wars Fighter? None of them use deployed panels to achieve control. (also I've got Scott Manley who also has said it several times that he doesn't like the airbrakes acting as control surfaces). The only craft in Star Wars that uses any moving panel is a Pod racer! The X-Wing has moving wings- but that's different as it a WING. Not an AIRBRAKE.

Manned Seat- as OP as it may seem, its still a needed feature. Unless its a separately landed rover, you have not reason to use them since it requires a Kerbal(s) nearby just to use the craft... its easier just to slap a probe core on there. Ruining the point of the seat.

Stock Mods- That was just my thought. I provided valid points to each of them.

[CaptainTurbomuffin]

Monopropellant engines- It's still an additional feature. Something to add more depth. Besides, aside from docking I never use monopropellant since as a maneuvering fuel its inefficient and weak compared to the SAS. It's easier and light in part count to add 3 SAS units rather than adding fuel and thrusters.

It's something that should be rebalanced.

LDSD Heatshield- It's been tested and its a real concept. In fact NASA is planning on a inflatable heatshield as they're heatshield for the manned landing on Mars. In KSP, it isn't all that OP. And moreover, I'd like to see you make a rocket which uses the largest heatshield and make it effective for large space stations which are re-entering bodies at 5+km/s. We need bigger and we cant put it in a fairing.... hence why NASA has elected to use an inflatable heatshield.

Folding heatshields, maybe.

Reverse control surface- its a simple right click option "Reverse Control Reponse Enable/Disable". Nothing complex, and it solves a lot of people's problems.

I know, but I'm sure that it will mess up a lot of people (You froget to reserve, you don't know wether you are in reserve, you don't know wether activating with reserve off will pull it up or down, ect.) Of course, it should have an action group

IVAs- Yeah I agree... the mk1-2 pod needs to be more Apollo styled. Instead of a 2 top,1 bottom style thing it should be a horizontal couch with all the Kerbonauts next to each other.

I don't agree with that. I said nothing about being apollo-like, but about having a good view from inside. I haven't travelled in an apollo-capsule, but I have seen blueprints of it. As I saw there, there isn't a great vision from inside. But that might be false... I know that the devs are using american space-stuffs as templates, but I wouldn't like all stuffs in KSP to be replicas of the US space program. I hate america. Back to the view, there was a mod with a gemini capsule. It was quite similar to the Mk.1 pod, but it had as good view from it as the Mk.1 cockpit. Also, you could see all the instruments, while seeing large areas trough a small window.

SRBs- Exactly my thoughts. They're only used as a first stage kickstart or a retro motor, basically everything but a boaster! If they made bigger or segmented boasters they'd have greater application.

Please no more applications than a booster! Wouldn't that be insanely overpowered?

Inflatable Wings- I would like something like that since launching even my ArchAngel looks ridiculous and is unstable on top of a rocket. However if it were to be like a normal 1m stage on top, it would be more stable and still work as a glider once the wings unfold. Also you could recover it by landing... did you not see the video? It could fire a parachute at the last minute to make it land at a safe velocity or it could have wheels/landing skids so it could again be recovered. In game? This is a lacking area, but such thing as this can open it up. Make it more realistic. It isn't unheard of to use wings and engines to recover boasters, the Saturn 1 boaster used it (hence the video) and the Adaline project also considered something along those lines.

When making space boats, I use folding wings. (IR) But inflatable? For aerobraking? ridiculous

Radial ISRU attachment- I don't think so. I think its a bug. I'd like it resolved though. Moreover, recessed parts has never been a deterrent for KSP. I can attach parts to the top of a cargo bay door and then open it so it's hanging in mid air. I can attach the claw to so much regardless. Doesn't make since in KSP. Does in reality.

It's definitely not a bug. It's the attachment rule of the converter. It has similar attachment rules to an engine: no radial attachment.

Airbrakes- Star Wars Fighter? None of them use deployed panels to achieve control. (also I've got Scott Manley who also has said it several times that he doesn't like the airbrakes acting as control surfaces). The only craft in Star Wars that uses any moving panel is a Pod racer! The X-Wing has moving wings- but that's different as it a WING. Not an AIRBRAKE.

In Ep.5, the rebel interceptors on planet Hoth, that were fighting the imperial walkers. Nearly in each scene, you can see that they yaw by deploying airbrakes on the correct side of the wing. But anyway, you can use elevons for this purpose, you don't need exactly the airbrakes. But elevons are incredibly low at it. I have tried. Works best with airbrakes.

Manned Seat- as OP as it may seem, its still a needed feature. Unless its a separately landed rover, you have not reason to use them since it requires a Kerbal(s) nearby just to use the craft... its easier just to slap a probe core on there. Ruining the point of the seat.

As I have mentioned, I was not talking about rovers, but rockets. When visiting a planet for the second time, you only need reports and samples from different biomes. You need a kerbal, but not a pod. Using the seat there is saving a lot of mass. Or if you're going to a harder planet, Tylo for example, low payload (pod or seat) mass is essential.

[ZooNamedGames]

It's something that should be rebalanced.

Folding heatshields, maybe.

I know, but I'm sure that it will mess up a lot of people (You froget to reserve, you don't know wether you are in reserve, you don't know wether activating with reserve off will pull it up or down, ect.) Of course, it should have an action group

I don't agree with that. I said nothing about being apollo-like, but about having a good view from inside. I haven't travelled in an apollo-capsule, but I have seen blueprints of it. As I saw there, there isn't a great vision from inside. But that might be false... I know that the devs are using american space-stuffs as templates, but I wouldn't like all stuffs in KSP to be replicas of the US space program. I hate america. Back to the view, there was a mod with a gemini capsule. It was quite similar to the Mk.1 pod, but it had as good view from it as the Mk.1 cockpit. Also, you could see all the instruments, while seeing large areas trough a small window.

Please no more applications than a booster! Wouldn't that be insanely overpowered?

When making space boats, I use folding wings. (IR) But inflatable? For aerobraking? ridiculous

It's definitely not a bug. It's the attachment rule of the converter. It has similar attachment rules to an engine: no radial attachment.

In Ep.5, the rebel interceptors on planet Hoth, that were fighting the imperial walkers. Nearly in each scene, you can see that they yaw by deploying airbrakes on the correct side of the wing. But anyway, you can use elevons for this purpose, you don't need exactly the airbrakes. But elevons are incredibly low at it. I have tried. Works best with airbrakes.

As I have mentioned, I was not talking about rovers, but rockets. When visiting a planet for the second time, you only need reports and samples from different biomes. You need a kerbal, but not a pod. Using the seat there is saving a lot of mass. Or if you're going to a harder planet, Tylo for example, low payload (pod or seat) mass is essential.

Yeah. The RCS could use some work (like removing the unneeded monopropellant in every capsule... which is useless since they never implemented the EVA fuel draining from the capsule's monopropellant source when they EVA).

Folding Heatshield? That is an interesting concept! I might want to see if such exists in reality!

Well ofc there would be an action group and it would tell you when you click it. It would say "Reverse" then when you click it it says "Normal". Pretty straight forward on the reversing of the control surfaces.

You dislike American designs but you like the Gemini capsule IVA design even though its American made? What?! Anyway it's just a personal thing. Even the new Orion capsule, CST-100 and Dragon V2 are designed with the crew in rows. Not in a triangular pattern. So it's lacking realism.

Exactly. You shouldn't be using the boasters as sepotrons. There's a part for that!! Segmented boasters wouldn't be overpowered since the efficiency curves. It would allow for more creativity however they couldn't be abused since their so inefficient. The tyranny of the rocket equation becomes really apparent here. Even with the best 1st stage single boaster it couldn't do as much as a LFO boaster... doesn't negate the fact it would help a lot... and its a significant missing feature.

IR is a bit tedious though... hence why I just prefer a toggle. Moreover, the idea of inflatable or deployable wings is not a new idea! There was a concept for a Gemini capsule Paraglider! The Saturn I boaster recovery wings! The ESA's Adeline Project! It's a very possible idea. There not overpowered, since they take extra work to use since they don't start deployed... granted it could be an option.

Well it should have radial attachment. An engine is curved with VERY apparent recesses. The ISRU has less gaps and spaces. It's a gameplay aspect. Moreover an engine gets VERY hot so whatever was attached would burn off, the ISRU doesn't make heat (that we know of, or at least not enough to create a problem) so again it should be an option.

Ok fair enough. The fact remains, it should be disabled by default. It's just an annoying factor.

Could it be OP? Sure. But then again the ISRU on Kerbin is OP since I can create a rocket for 350,000 but reduce the cost to 300,000 since its without fuel, then I can get it from the ground and move it to the launch pad and gain free fuel. Its almost cheating but its possible in game. It's less OP than that. So it should be a thing. Besides the Take Command mod and dozens of requests speak for themselves.