Top 5 wants:

[Pthigrivi]

Hey yall. Well now that we have aero and fairings and resources and it seems a remote-techy kind of system is on the way, what are the top 5 features you're hoping to see in the next couple of updates? Big things? Little things? I know there will be some do-not-suggests in this thread, so we can be brief, mainly I'm curious to see what people's priorities would be.

For me it would be:

1) Life support: I know a lot of people were talking about this some time ago and I think there were some really nice suggestions. Id personally like to see a single "Life-support" resource that ticks down based on the number of kerbals on board, with a few things like scrubbers and greenhouses that could extend/regenerate it. There could also be a "Happiness" resource that depletes if kerbals are locked in small spaces with very few other kerbals for long periods of time. As it depletes kerbals loose their experience abilities, and eventually the ability to go EVA. Happiness could be extended by bringing more kerbals, and also by adding habitation modules. I feel like this would be a huge step to feeling like we were doing real colonization, with built in game-play dynamics so that it wasn't just aesthetic.

2) More compelling experiments: This is a concern I know people have had for some time, that the current experiments basically amount to clicking on a thing. I'll be honest its one of the more tedious elements of the game. I think though with a few changes it could be made much more fun and challenging. Generally I think each experiment should have its own dynamic. For instance the barometer could pay out science based on how great a swath of atmosphere it passed through while activated, making it great for drop-pods. For the materials bay to work you should have to load it with actual materials, a few stock materials available at KSC, and potentially atmospheric and surface samples collected in the field. Harder to reach samples would have a higher multiplier, and more exotic locations of exposure would also have high multipliers, meaning you'd have to work and cleverly manage things to get big payouts.

3) Flesh out the Experience system: This is another big one. Right now its really skeletal. I know a lot of people have had fun ideas about different abilities for the different classes, mainly though Id like to have a clear idea through the game UI what is possible and what I have to do to achieve it so I can make smart choices about who to send where. Big ones Id like to see are TWR and Delta-V readouts from engineers, and Aerobreak and landing site projections from pilots.

4) More interesting planetary surfaces: Id really love to see things like geysers and volcanoes, ice crystals, interesting mineral formations, maybe even fossil beds? Mainly it would cool to have a real drive to make precise landings and do surface exploration that felt rewarding. Formations like these could hold both big science rewards and potentially indicate high resource locations. Mainly it would make the world feel more full, and add new reasons to explore.

5) A 2.5m Nerva: And low-dry weight LF tanks. There's a thread about the latter, and I loved some of the spherical jobbies. For the engine I think it should basically have slightly higher ISP and slightly lower thrust to weight than the LV-N but it should weigh like 10t. Id love to see a 1.25m ion engine too but I wont be too greedy about it. Point of, when mounting really big interplanetary missions it would be great to simplify the transfer stage for the mothership.

I mean there are tons of things like clouds and non-lethal water and GP2 that would be great, but these are what Im most hoping for.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Pthigrivi

[Rath]

All yes

- - - Updated - - -

WAIT!!!! Lower thrust 2.5m LV-N No Way! Just have a x4 weight and ISP

[KrazyKrl]

5) A 2.5m Nerva: And low-dry weight LF tanks. There's a thread about the latter, and I loved some of the spherical jobbies. For the engine I think it should basically have slightly higher ISP and slightly lower thrust to weight than the LV-N but it should weigh like 10t. Id love to see a 1.25m ion engine too but I wont be too greedy about it. Point of, when mounting really big interplanetary missions it would be great to simplify the transfer stage for the mothership.

I did some math on this(assuming just a larger form-factor NERV, keeping the same balance):

Assuming the Nerv is 1.25m in diameter; and has an overall length of 3.136m. The Nerv weighs 3 metric tons. For a density of 780 kg per cubic meter overall.

To get a, say, 300 kN Nerva; we would need to preserve that approximate engine density (or mess with ISP, but i'm ignoring that.)

Which would need to be a cylinder massing 15,000kg. Assuming a 2.5m diameter form factor. A 19.23 Cubic Meter engine would need to be 3.9m in height.

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/images/9/9e/X200-32_FT.png

This form factor, and mass; is met by a Rockomax X200-32 fuel tank; with 270LF/330Ox removed from it.

That's sort of insane for a 300 kN thrust engine. You're pretty much flying an 81% full Rockomax X200-32 as deadweight.

[CaptainTurbomuffin]

5) A 2.5m Nerva: And low-dry weight LF tanks. There's a thread about the latter, and I loved some of the spherical jobbies. For the engine I think it should basically have slightly higher ISP and slightly lower thrust to weight than the LV-N but it should weigh like 10t. Id love to see a 1.25m ion engine too but I wont be too greedy about it. Point of, when mounting really big interplanetary missions it would be great to simplify the transfer stage for the mothership.

• Somehow, using 1m parts with the same rocket is better than 2m parts... I don't know, why, but if that's the situation, a 2m NERVA should be lower than 4 1m ones.
  
• But anyway, if you want to use them for larger motherships, the 2m nukes could be better at long-term, and the 1m ones on shorter-term. But the 2m one should definitely not be a tweakscaked-up version of the 1m nuke. Diversity is essential.
  
• For the tanks, I tought about plane tanks having a lower dry mass,and better heat resistance, and crash tolerance, but on the other hand, higher cost. So if you can fully recover your craft, use plane tanks because they're op. If you're staging a rocket, and the decoupled tanks are lost, conventional rocket tanks are far more cost effective.
  

Nothing to reply on the others.

---

Personally, I have already suggested what I'd like to see. The items are in my signature, plus this, and a 3m poodle/terrier analog, low profile, stack-attached cluster engine.

[Pthigrivi]

Yeah I guess my thinking was that if you're tempted to use more than 4 LV-Ns to push something because its really that big (as payloads may become if there are things like greenhouses and habitation modules to lug around) there should be a simpler, more efficient option. It should be big, but it doesn't necessarily have to adhere to the same density as the LV-N. I tend to think many of these things would be tech-tree enders, and give completionists a big prize at the end that pointed toward building really cool offworld bases and stations. The important thing though is that even these would be balanced, and integrated into real gameplay and not just rpg set pieces.

[passinglurker]

Life support = death. Leads to a lot of problems because you can accidentally time warp through them depleting resources and dieing

Life support = no skills. Has similar problems but at the same time the mechanic becomes meaningless because you can lock the food cabinet and fly by probe until you need the kerbals with no repercussion because they won't die

The way I see doing life support is not to make it steadily tick down but to instead make it a resource that is needed for kerbals to get up and do specific things like repair wheels or reset science experiments and is then consumed in fixed amounts as they do those things.

[Alshain]

1. Better Visuals (clouds, lighting, launch effects, etc.)

2. More Intuitive User Interface. (see signature)

3. Configurable Controls (fully remappable)

4. Scalable Structural Parts

5. Remodeled rocket parts.

What I don't want: Life Support, in any form. It would just be a ridiculous feature that adds tedium and unnecessary limits to time warp.

[CoriW]

I think life support should be something that is stock but can be disabled via the difficulty settings. Also being as stock is typically less intensive for gameplay reasons, I would imagine the life support being less like TAC LS and more like USI LS.

[Alshain]

I think life support should be something that is stock but can be disabled via the difficulty settings. Also being as stock is typically less intensive for gameplay reasons, I would imagine the life support being less like TAC LS and more like USI LS.

Unfortunately difficulty settings don't stop parts from being loaded into RAM.

[CoriW]

Unfortunately difficulty settings don't stop parts from being loaded into RAM.

Oh right, RAM. (I use Linux for KSP) But I suppose 1.1 is supposed to have 64-bit for Windows correct? I mean it'd still be loaded into RAM but it wouldn't be as detrimental if you can use a lot more RAM.

[Alshain]

Oh right, RAM. (I use Linux for KSP) But I suppose 1.1 is supposed to have 64-bit for Windows correct? I mean it'd still be loaded into RAM but it wouldn't be as detrimental if you can use a lot more RAM.

That assumes you have more RAM to use. 1.1 isn't going to solve that. Now, if Squad added a way to exclude stock parts from loading (other than deleting them because Steam just puts them back), then I wouldn't care. In fact I'd prefer that,then I could get rid of those crappy ISRU parts too.

[Higgs]

1. No no no no. Keep it as a mod honestly. 2. Yes 3. I think you mean flesh it out and i agree 4. Idk i dont even use the ground clutter toggle so its eh to me 5. I think the nukes from novapunch are 2.5 meter and are good enough for me.

i think since 1.1 is unity 5 and U5 supports 64 bit it may solve the ram issue if you have the ram to burn

[CoriW]

That assumes you have more RAM to use. 1.1 isn't going to solve that. Now, if Squad added a way to exclude stock parts from loading (other than deleting them because Steam just puts them back), then I wouldn't care. In fact I'd prefer that,then I could get rid of those crappy ISRU parts too.

Ah that's very true, I have 8GB of RAM so it's not really an issue for me but I can see that being potentially problematic for those with less. I do agree though that there should be a way to exclude specific parts from loading, I would wonder what the interface for that would look like as I would assume it would just list all parts and let you pick which ones to disable, which could get very cumbersome for people who use a lot of part packs.

[steve_v]

1: Better performance.

2: Fewer bugs.

3: Better memory management / on-demand texture loading.

4: Non-stupid contract / science system / meaningful career progression.

5: See #1

[Pthigrivi]

Wow I'm surprised by all of the angst about life support. Id have imagined all of the realism junkies would be all over it. My general opinion is that life support is basically essential to making a real-feeling space exploration sim, it just has to be done in a way that is simple to understand, easy to use, but hard to master. I'm also in full agreement that any life support, like re-entry heat, would obviously be scalable in the difficulty settings. My thinking has been that its pretty easy make it so when depleted kerbals don't die, they simply lose experience abilities and eventually 'hibernate' and can no longer eva. They would still be rescuable in this state.

Im also sensitive to people's worries about RAM, and a while back hashed out a scheme for life support that only added 12 parts. You can find that here if you're interested. The main point is that it need not be just yet another thing to worry about; once there's a gameplay reason to need greenhouses and habitation modules all of sudden the project of living and colonizing other worlds becomes much more real and exciting.

Edited October 3, 2015 by Pthigrivi

[Red Iron Crown]

I'd definitely like to see some sort of life support added. It is one of the core challenges of crewed spaceflight and deserves representation. Plus it adds some consequences to messing up, you couldn't just timewarp until the orbits are favorable again.

Ideally it would be abstracted to a single supply resource and a single waste resource, with storage containers in various sizes along with recyclers and ISRU (last could be added to the existing drill/ISRU system).

The consequences of running out of life support should be lethal. I don't understand squeamishness about this, we have no trouble blowing up kerbals all the time.

[Alshain]

Ah that's very true, I have 8GB of RAM so it's not really an issue for me but I can see that being potentially problematic for those with less. I do agree though that there should be a way to exclude specific parts from loading, I would wonder what the interface for that would look like as I would assume it would just list all parts and let you pick which ones to disable, which could get very cumbersome for people who use a lot of part packs.

I would say the interface would be a text file. It doesn't have to be easier than editing the configs of a part. Let me give a list of part names in the form of a text file, and when the game gets to a part that is on that list, skip loading it.

[Vashts]

1. welded assemblies

2. welded assemblies

3. welded assemblies

4. welded assemblies

5. welded assemblies

[Wjolcz]

On the LS topic: There's no need for new parts if life support would be included the right way. Store the food in the parts with crew. Just like IRL. The only thing is needed for LS to work is a greenhouse part that can produce/regenerate food. I will actually be very dissapointed if it doesn't work like that once we get it in stock.

To OP: Was expecting KIS/KAS, electric propellers and the refreshment of rocket parts.

EDIT: And don't forget about that simple fuel tweakable that hasn't been implemented yet.

Edited October 3, 2015 by Veeltch

[Feradose]

1: Better performance

2: Planet content

3: WACK-ier contracts

4: Bigger and smaller parts

5: Welding

[Pthigrivi]

Yeah veeltch some kas would be a great late teir engineer ability, I'd love to see some basic robotics as well. I was just curious what most people were hoping to see.

[passinglurker]

Unfortunately difficulty settings don't stop parts from being loaded into RAM.

Snacks lifesupport had a good system that didn't need any extra parts. Unfortunately a chuck of the users never understood this and hounded the author for a dedicated snack storage tank instead of just using regular crew cans as directed.

[John FX]

1, expanded parts (2.5m liquid tank anyone?)

2, more compelling science

3, aero that alows aerobraking at Jool

4, on demand loading, parts and textures

5, better visuals - clouds, better shader, control over ambient light

[Darnok]

1. Life support - when all resources are consumed Kerbals can become uncontrollable. They can also disable all remote access turning off all probe cores on vehicle, so you would be forced to send more "food". You can rent NPC space agency to resupply your Kerbals, to make game less repetitive and it would be good late game feature.

2. Make mini games during experiments?

3. This one is interesting, but it is not all. Right now we have "science points" and you can develop news wings parts while making non-atmospheric mission that is main problem.

We should have few types of science points, different type for Mun (no atmo) and different type for Duna/Eve/Laythe (atmo). During carrier mode we should be able to buy wings only for points gathered in atmospheric missions.

Next types could be points for manned and unmanned missions, with those 4 types you can do many interesting things. Players wouldn't be able to grind science points on Kerbin or Mun and buy whatever they want to and possibly we wouldn't have to grind at all, because things could be cheaper, just would require us to go in many different locations.

With probe core you wouldn't be able to improve your capsules or landers cans and opposite with manned mission you wouldn't improve probe cores

4. Yes please.

5. The more engines and parts the better for me Devs should add some low and high tech parts for carrier mode, I know in sandbox low tech parts probably wouldn't be used much, but in carrier mode people have to make path for better tech. Also would be nice to have few futuristic parts, since KSP is game where we should get much farther then Mun!

[Capt Snuggler]

1) Life support: a "single resource" life support system. "LS" is consumed and converted to "refuse" at a set rate per kerbal. LS is displayed and measured in "mission days". adding kerbals increases the rate of consumption. adding an LS processor decreases the rate of consumption at the cost of mass and electric charge. all command pods have a set number of mission days LS built in but more can be added. refuse can be dumped to save mass. more advanced LS modules can slowly convert refuse in to LS at the cost of electric charge.

2) More compelling experiments: this is needed but I have no ideas on how to go about it.

3) Flesh out the Experience system: instead of kerbals coming to you with pre defined classes, you should be able to train them in what ever field you want. jeb, val, bill, and bob should be pretty well trained to an intermediate level from beginning. white suits come with a random level of skill and you must train them by performing tasks. EG: solo flight, tandem flight, EVAs, soil samples, part repairs, science experiments, high G forces and safe landings.

4) More interesting planetary surfaces: agree absolutely 100%. currently the surfaces look very dull. kerbin could get some forests. forest canopies could be large lumpy green masses that break apart if you cash in to them (like buildings).

also clouds, shifting weather, sand storms, lightning etc would be great.

5) A 2.5m Nerva: don't really have an opinion on this one.