What do you feel is missing from the STOCK game as far as parts goes ?

[Sanic]

Sign me up for the Gemini capsule thing, I'd love a 2 man 1.25 meter capsule that doesn't look stupid.

Also, some better power generators. Maybe nuclear reactors?

[Kevin Kyle]

Lighter than air parts all sizes
Propeller parts all sizes
More base parts land, water and space
More science parts land water and space
More satellite parts
More rover parts
Rotation and linear moving and clamping and connecting parts and ports all sizes
More lights all colors sizes and abilities
Support vehicle parts all sizes land sea and space

[Captain Vlad]

[quote name='Red Iron Crown']Carrying any significant payload. Have a look at some of the real world electric prop-powered planes, especially the solar ones.[/QUOTE]

As long as you're not defining 'payload' as 'the cockpit and wings', I see what you mean and agree that electric propellers really shouldn't be the best choice for a heavy lift aircraft...at least not in their present real-world form. For a one-or-two man Eve/Laythe/Duna excursion plane, though...I think they should be fully capable of that with decent performance (since some real-life electric planes do pretty well in that department).

There is the oft-stated secondary use for them as boat/sub props, though, and I'd want them to consider their power and lift capability for that role, too. There's nothing at all outlandish about a sub using electric propulsion, after all. Edited November 16, 2015 by Captain Vlad

[Wjolcz]

Electric props/propfans for scout drones. Nothing OP. Also inflatable base modules.

[Red Iron Crown]

[quote name='Captain Vlad']As long as you're not defining 'payload' as 'the cockpit and wings', I see what you mean and agree that electric propellers really shouldn't be the best choice for a heavy lift aircraft...at least not in their present real-world form. For a one-or-two man Eve/Laythe/Duna excursion plane, though...I think they should be fully capable of that with decent performance (since some real-life electric planes do pretty well in that department).[/quote]
The problem with that is if it can lift a small payload then it can also lift a heavy one through spamming. Then we're balancing through part count, which I also consider undesirable. Recall the old overpowered 48-7S, it was intended to be a small probe engine but its TWR and Isp were good enough to make them the best solution for almost all lifters if you could suffer the part count.

[quote]There is the oft-stated secondary use for them as boat/sub props, though, and I'd want them to consider their power and lift capability for that role, too. There's nothing at all outlandish about a sub using electric propulsion, after all.[/QUOTE]
An electric prop that worked [i]only[/i] in water would be fine by me, if a bit out of scope for what is nominally a space game.

[Captain Vlad]

[quote name='Red Iron Crown']The problem with that is if it can lift a small payload then it can also lift a heavy one through spamming. Then we're balancing through part count, which I also consider undesirable.[/quote]

You could conceivably balance less through part count and more through drag...so that adding more and more props becomes increasingly counter productive. Though returning to park count, you'd also need enough batteries to power each engine for as long as you intend it to operate as well as the propeller.

[quote]An electric prop that worked [i]only[/i] in water would be fine by me, if a bit out of scope for what is nominally a space game.[/QUOTE]

It's an exploration and building game. If the scope keeps being stretched the players and devs are doing it right.

I personally would prefer a dual-purpose propeller. Seems more efficient, unless there was a notable aesthetic difference between the atmospheric propeller and the water one...more visual options are always good. Edited November 16, 2015 by Captain Vlad

[Red Iron Crown]

[quote name='Captain Vlad']You could conceivably balance less through part count and more through drag...so that adding more and more props becomes increasingly counter productive.[/QUOTE]
How? If one prop could lift, say, the requisite wings and 100kg of payload, then 10 props could lift the larger required wings plus 1000kg, and 100 props could lift th needed wings + 10,000kg, and so on. That's leaving aside that payload drag generally increases less than linearly with payload mass. Simply put, a prop that has more drag than thrust will not be at all useful, while one that has more thrust than drag can be spammed to lift arbitrarily heavy payloads limited only by part count.

[Captain Vlad]

[quote name='Red Iron Crown']How? If one prop could lift, say, the requisite wings and 100kg of payload, then 10 props could lift the larger required wings plus 1000kg, and 100 props could lift th needed wings + 10,000kg, and so on. That's leaving aside that payload drag generally increases less than linearly with payload mass. Simply put, a prop that has more drag than thrust will not be at all useful, while one that has more thrust than drag can be spammed to lift arbitrarily heavy payloads limited only by part count.[/QUOTE]

Sure, but the drag increases as your speed increases at a more pronounced rate if it works like an actual propeller. You might end up carrying something heavy, but you're going to end up much slower than a jet carrying the same load. And if you need full throttle all the way, you might be sucking up power so fast you won't go very far unless you're spamming RTGs too. Edited November 16, 2015 by Captain Vlad

[MAFman]

I'd like to see a probe-sized short RTG, that basically looks like someone sat on the PB-NUK. I'd also like to see working, useful aeroshells like MSL/Curiosity used on its descent stage.

[Tristonwilson12]

id like to see a test facility for rovers and stuff

[Guest]

[quote name='Tristonwilson12']id like to see a test facility for rovers and stuff[/QUOTE]
Agreed. I might put a mod together for this...

[Tristonwilson12]

[quote name='CliftonM']Agreed. I might put a mod together for this...[/QUOTE]

I already have one. I just want it to be stock

[dziki0022]

1. scope (small shovel) for rovers with can take surface sample and send data from other planet apart risc (again) Jebba life. XD
2. bigger role for satellites now they are pretty much useless apart set them on orbit
3. bigger ability to build in space using kerbals (like KIS) astronauts can do something in space add parts this cool stuf when you got station and unlock new parts you may add them just screw them to station

[Jimbodiah]

Functions like:

- Kerbal alarm clock
- MechJeb (at least basic accend/rendevouz/dock/land functions)
- Reinforced joints (or fix the Kraken issues!!!)
- ScanSat, some kind of resource mapping tool
- LightsOut to view ships and lighting in the dark
- EVE-like texture improvements, clouds at least
- Integration of resources like Interstellar or RealFuels
- Some way to see electrical production and loads in a balance list or something


Parts:
- Rover cabins
- Better/more wheels (that don't blow up just looking at them)
- KIS/KAS, seriously this is basically a necessity with EVA, why else have Kerbals? ;)
- Resource containers othe than LFO/MP.

[Capt Snuggler]

[quote name='Red Iron Crown']How? If one prop could lift, say, the requisite wings and 100kg of payload, then 10 props could lift the larger required wings plus 1000kg, and 100 props could lift th needed wings + 10,000kg, and so on. That's leaving aside that payload drag generally increases less than linearly with payload mass. Simply put, a prop that has more drag than thrust will not be at all useful, while one that has more thrust than drag can be spammed to lift arbitrarily heavy payloads limited only by part count.[/QUOTE]

props in real life have a fairly low flight ceiling so their use would be limited by this first of all.
Also electric props generate large amounts of heat when running at full throttle so they could have a "burnt out" damage state similar to electric wheels. they have a fairly low max speed as well.
spamming the engines also stacks the power requirements.

I'm sure they could be balanced fairly easily.

[Nansuchao]

IMHO what KSP miss other than suggested, are some modern technologies. In stock, the most advanced engine is NERVA, a '50 project.

[Red Iron Crown]

[quote name='Capt Snuggler']props in real life have a fairly low flight ceiling so their use would be limited by this first of all.
Also electric props generate large amounts of heat when running at full throttle so they could have a "burnt out" damage state similar to electric wheels. they have a fairly low max speed as well.
spamming the engines also stacks the power requirements.

I'm sure they could be balanced fairly easily.[/QUOTE]
None of that addresses the spamming issue. You really can't make a KSP part that works well for small payloads but not for larger ones (aside from part count considerations). Would be simpler, IMO, to just make it dual mode instead of electric (LF+IntakeAir for Kerbin/Laythe and LF+O for the other atmospheric bodies).

[Chris_2]

Tweakable fuel tanks (!!) - Change amount of Fuel / oxidizer
1.875m rocket parts
Landing gear size inbetween of the small and medium
Hinges / Robotic arm parts


I don't was this (only big and ugly parts...):
- 2.5m LV-N
- 5m rockets
- 2.5m RAPIER engine
- Bigger Ions
- Bigger RTG
- a Nuclear Reactor

[Kerbart]

As mentioned before. Hinges. Maybe rotors. Not the entire Infernal Robotics mod, but most satellites "unfurl" in space (not just solar/radiation panels, but antenna booms, sensor arms, folded up rovers, etc) and that's just not possible with KSP.

[Weedlepickles]

There are a few upgrades to the game that I have missed for a while now.

1. Electric Propeller Engines - As suggested by many others, allows for flight on planets with atmosphere but without oxygen.

2. Fuel Hose - Module mounted on the side of a ship that allows a kerbal to pull out a hose that can be connected to other ships to refuel them. This would allow us to refuel ships on the ground which is vitually impossible right now.

3. Fuel Port - Small exhaust module mounted on the side of a craft. Allows you to jettison fuel.

4. Dynamic Fuel Tanks - Give us the ability to choose the fuel that a fuel tank holds in the VAB or SPH. The amount of specialized fuel tanks keeps increasing, even tough they have the same dimensions. Allow us to choose a dimension and then choose the contents. This will make the development of fuel tanks much easier for SQUAD since there will be no need for 3 different fuel tanks when a new dimension or fitting is introduced. The system could easily be expanded to allow internal fitting of batteries and other odd bits into a fuel tank.

5. Rearranged Tech Tree - The tech tree can be further improved. Many crucial items, like the ladder, is considered high-tech and isn't available early on.

6. Expanded Tech Tree - The tech tree is a very entertaining part of the game. I suggest expanding the tree with more nodes and fewer parts in each node. This allows the player to further customize their space program.

7. Improved Missions - The 1.0.5 addition to missions is a great start but there is still much work to be done on the missions available. There needs to be more diversity in the missions, especially the ones done on kerbin. The new improved aircraft parts are not properly utilized. A few suggestions would be: Pick up a kerbal on a deserted island, fly through checkpoints, pick up a package and drop it off at a certain place.

8. Redo the Part Constraints - The allowed part count of 30 in the beginning of the game is a little too much to pose a problem for the early rockes but causes too much problem just after the beginning of the game. I suggest another upgrade to the VAB and SPH that solves this problem. Starting with 20 pieces in the very beginning and allowing 45 afterwards before the 255 part upgrade would improve the gameplay without removing the interesting problem that it poses. The part constraint could also be an upgrade in the tech tree, which makes more sense and is more fun than spending money on a VAB upgrade.

9. Multiplayer - As more and more of my friends pick up KSP I really want to build rockets together with them. We want to build the WhiteKnightTwo and SpaceShipTwo and we can't fly it without being two people!

These are the things I miss the most in KSP!

[Jansn]

98 % of all that Mods out there should stay as Mods. Weapons, Ships, Submarines for example.

What KSP really need is a stable, powerful, congruent, standarized, well documented and maybe
easy to learn Data-I/O-Interface, a Modding-Interface.

And yes: MULTIPLAYER!

KSP is Minecraft in Space. Squad also should earn such besos.. pesos.

[Majorjim!]

[quote name='Capt Snuggler']props in real life have a fairly low flight ceiling so their use would be limited by this first of all.
Also electric props generate large amounts of heat when running at full throttle so they could have a "burnt out" damage state similar to electric wheels. they have a fairly low max speed as well.
spamming the engines also stacks the power requirements.

I'm sure they could be balanced fairly easily.[/QUOTE]

This. Why squad are avoiding creating prop parts is puzzling. I only see positives, they would be really good fun, something this game should be adding more of.

[Francois424]

[quote name='Majorjim']This. Why squad are avoiding creating prop parts is puzzling. I only see positives, they would be really good fun, something this game should be adding more of.[/QUOTE]

Especially since they implemented reverse thrust in last update... so you could have pusher props or puller props.
I feel electric props with speeds between 75-150m/s is enough... Back when I was toying with FireSpitter to mod myself a proper electric prop, I was shooting for 100m/s as my target, and on Kerbin I was capped to around 6km altitude.
Flying rockets to quickly go from point A to point B was still far more preferable (so where jets back then, I mean 1600m/s@20k was entirely possible without blowing up). But as a means of exploration, the prop was the best thing.
Nowadays I guess you can build a jumping rocket with ISRU, and it can be as big as you want. But if someone wants to take their time (and not to much time with wheeled rovers/boats) the electric prop light plane is the best thing.

Everything in my suggestion's list can be obtained from mods... one part here, another part there... But I felt these where the most missing ones for stock.

[Gilph]

I'm voting for 2.5m 4 and 6 sided port part. Only having 1.25m is silly

[Capt Snuggler]

[quote name='Red Iron Crown']None of that addresses the spamming issue. You really can't make a KSP part that works well for small payloads but not for larger ones (aside from part count considerations). Would be simpler, IMO, to just make it dual mode instead of electric (LF+IntakeAir for Kerbin/Laythe and LF+O for the other atmospheric bodies).[/QUOTE]

surely scaling the electrical requirement would discourage spamming. How would making it LF+O dependent prevent spamming and more than its electrical consumption? Edited November 17, 2015 by Capt Snuggler