Which update would make you most happy?

[Rdivine]

You've just woken up from bed, eaten breakfast and now you're lazily browsing the internet. Suddenly, you come across a new devnote.

Which update would make you most happy?

Here's my ideal update:

Quote

 

Hello everyone!

The dev team has taken some thought and planning, and decided to implement clouds! Here is a sneak peak of how it would look like.

                                                                                                                                                          (Top: First picture credited to ultimaterandombanana)

The new clouds would be volumetric and you would be able to fly through them! They also generate shadows on the land below them. Additionally, there are multiple layers of clouds ; thick, slow moving ones at 3km, fast moving moderate volume clouds at 6km, and thin wisps of clouds at 10km.

Kerbal Space Program has never looked better!

(This isn't an actual devnote)

 

 

Write about your ideal update for KSP below!

Edited December 14, 2015 by Rdivine

[Vanamonde]

Optimization. 

[mattinoz]

How about improving Kerbal's to do stuff and not just be Ballast?

Add some character to the main characters of the game.

[Sirad]

Add some Bigger Liquid Fuel Tank for those (Legendary Rare) People who like To Build Spaceships with Nuke Engines and dont want to exceed 1000 Parts Count. Well i know there are Mods for it, but i woud like to see that in stock. just a Round Rocket-A-Look Tank. Like The Orange one. (and maybe one additional Structural element like the 'Cubic Strut' ?) Just a slight proof that this Game is still Space Program and not PanAm Program.

[steve_v]

Where's the poll option for "less appallingly lousy performance"?

The update I would like: Solid 60fps on a mid-high end PC with ~250 parts, and no stutter/framedrops.

Edited December 14, 2015 by steve_v

[PT]

Optimization (less part lag!) and internal support for multiplayer, mods are still lacking in this area.

Rest of list is easily "fixable" by mods

[Rdivine]

1 hour ago, steve_v said:

Where's the poll option for "less appallingly lousy performance"?

The update I would like: Solid 60fps on a mid-high end PC with ~250 parts, and no stutter/framedrops.

Haha. You can vote under gameplay improvements. I'm seriously hoping they do improve the fps with ksp 1.1.

 

56 minutes ago, PT said:

Optimization (less part lag!) and internal support for multiplayer, mods are still lacking in this area.

Rest of list is easily "fixable" by mods

Sadly, some mods aren't updated often enough to keep up with KSP. Additionally, compatibility with other mods might be an issue.

[Kaos]

The other option is missing in the poll; besides: the "Multiplayer & Gameplay improvements" is a bit vague: It can depend on the personal opinion, what to call an improvement. And why is this strongly connected with multiplayer?

I would go with more configurable game modes and with life support.

[katateochi]

6 hours ago, Vanamonde said:

Optimization. 

This is the single most important thing now.  Pretty much all other things suggested here are available with mods and while some of them would be nice to have in stock (ie: clouds) others might be a bit polarizing with some people really wanting them and others really not, so leaving them as mods is probably best. But too many mods and there are performance issues.....annnnd we're back at needing performance optimization. 

[Hannu2]

In my opinion introducing axial tilts in the most important update. Next is working mission control tools and orbital mechanics. Reliable orbit predictions, precision maneuver nodes and UI to control them, possibility to see positions of ships and planets at future times (for example by scrolling time with mouse wheel), reliable SOI detection both in actual orbits and in prediction tools, getting rid of annoying vibrations, more precise detection of close encounters, precise prediction of atmospheric orbits (also calculated for next stage), complete orbital information windows etc. And all that also for hyperbolic orbits.

MechJeb can give node contol and information and Trajectories mod atmospheric predictions (but not after staging which would be very essential). Most of things are in core KSP and probable not moddable at all.

 

[Plusck]

7 hours ago, Vanamonde said:

Optimization. 

Yes!

My gorgeous 8-core Xeon monster is 7 years old. Each core is probably slower than a core on a more recent machine, but if KSP used half of them it would be so smooth.

Also bugs like often not being able to place manoeuvre nodes before a change in SOI / only being able to place nodes on the post-fly-by resulting orbit.

[Just Jim]

2 hours ago, katateochi said:

This is the single most important thing now.  Pretty much all other things suggested here are available with mods and while some of them would be nice to have in stock (ie: clouds) others might be a bit polarizing with some people really wanting them and others really not, so leaving them as mods is probably best. But too many mods and there are performance issues.....annnnd we're back at needing performance optimization. 

Agreed.  I'm pretty happy with the game as it is right now, but I really with I could make things bigger than 300-400 parts without my old computer starting to grumble.

[Nathair]

My top vote would be for gameplay improvements. My very bottom vote would be for mulitplayer. Your poll is problematic for me.

[panzer1b]

I just want some bloody fixes to the unbearable lagfest the game has turned into.  I mean its not unplayable, but its excruciatingly painful when part counts get above 600, and even at a low 300 pats i notice some stutter/lag, 300 parts is what id call average for a interplanetary ship that carries a dropship or 2, some ground vehicles, ect.  This also says nothing of capital ships and anything military based, when a spaceship hull is at least 150-200 parts itself, and weapons are what, at least 5 parts for a guided missile thats any use (engine, fuel, droid core, decoupler, and ofc the warheat which is needs to have 80m/s impact tolerance).  I know not very many of the community is into military, but if your ships carry like 20-40 missiles onboard (and thats assuming you are actually using teh absolutely most basic missile type), the part counts shoot through the roof and end up lagging the game to death.

I would also like legit MP support, but i can live without that for the near future (as you can always use buggy but functional DMP, or stick to good old fashioned save game sharing for turn based combat).  Stock MP will be alot of work, so i dont expect it soon, but id love to have some relatively unbuggy multiplayer that allows people to actually interact in real time, build together, or more likely blow each other's ships out of the skies (err space).  Cant wait to go full out pirate and attack people at random, ofc assuming the server allows free-for-all.

Anyways, as for other features, 2 things id like would be some procedural parts like wings and panels (if only as a bandaid fix to the lag), and KAS style system that at a bare minimum lets kerbals deploy struts in the field by perhaps using ore supply and directly converting ore into the mass of a strut.  Id also like the ability to make minor repairs in the field, like say a wheel is completely broken off and is physically separated from the craft.  Why not allow highly skilled engys to like weld it back on to the ship somehow.  I know both of these are wishful thinking, but especially KAS would make the game so much better, and well, procedural parts would at least act as a method to cut down on part count and thus current lagfest, not to mention they'd unclutter the bloody part lists.  Do we seriously need that many bloody wings?  You's need 1 basic wing thats can take the shape of any of the current wings, then 1 basic tailfin, and a procedural control surface that can also create any of the stock surfaces.  i know here are mods for this, and i know the devs absolutely hate the concept of procedural pats and prefer their lego approach, but this would go a long way in both increasing freedom in our designs, and lowering the insanely high part count requirements for both aesthetically pleasing designs and anything that is plain and simply large.

Edited December 14, 2015 by panzer1b

[Torgo]

Wish I could vote for game play improvements without the multi-player. 

I get that there are people who really want it, and that's cool, but it's just not my bag.

Using the memory viewer mod, I can predict with 95% accuracy when the game will crash out on me. and when I'm wrong, it's going to crash the next scene change guaranteed. 

 

[razark]

Bug fixes, performance improvements, and "We've decided to drop the whole 'craptastic' aesthetic that we never should have had in the first place".

[rcp27]

Stage dV and TWR in the engineer's report in the VAB/SPH.  I'm not too bothered about not being able to tell once I'm in space, but I want to be able to design a launcher with a bit more precision.  I find it easier to fly a reliable launch profile if I can set things up to have the right TWR during the ascent, and it's nice to be able to plan the split between the main lifter stage and orbital insertion stage so that the main lifter will get me nearly but not quite to orbit so that I can stage it off and avoid orbital debris, and to avoid the problem I had last night of Jeb's Mun lander not having enough dV to break orbit of Mun to bring him home (though I go the world's firsts for rendezvous in orbit of Mun and crew transfer in orbit of Mun with the rescue mission, so not all wasted).

[absprouse]

I would like to have KW Rocketry and EVE Added to the stock game. Kerbin Side would be nice.

[Mister Dilsby]

Here's mine:

Quote

Hello everyone!

@RoverDude has updated his amazing USI Kolonization and Life Support mods to be even simpler to use and 100% bug-free, so we've made them stock! Now your Kerbals will have lots to do whenever they visit a planet--setting up habitation and science facilities, gathering resources and expanding your space program's footprint around the solar system. Of course you'll be able to tweak everything so that you can have loads of fun without doing any more bookkeeping than you really want to. 

[Pthigrivi]

Though I don't think we need more experiments, I will say the ones we have could use some love. Clicky experiments are probably the biggest thing holding career back at the moment. 

It also seems to me that people who aren't running tons of mods aren't seeing serious performance issues, so instead of asking for game optimization people aught to be asking for the features they're modding in to become stock (after 64b that is).

Edited December 14, 2015 by Pthigrivi

[Wallygator]

The option missing I'd rather "better parts".

Fixing or refining the parts already in game to be more real or having their capabilities adjusted.

just a thought, not a requirement.

[Arugela]

On 12/13/2015, 11:16:01, Vanamonde said:

Optimization. 

Anything and everything that optimizes the game and creates a proper bed for the rest. This needs to be done more than anything. It needs to be done to literally do the other things correctly.

I would vote but I can't completely tell if any of those really refer to optimizations. And I would not vote for anything else before or until that is done.

after that I'm with whatever makes the game more interesting like life support. And whatever gives us the ability to have it and things like it properly.

Edited December 15, 2015 by Arugela

[cantab]

"Have a look at this space station. 1000 parts in orbit. And it holds a steady 30 fps in KSP 1.1"

OK, I can dream.

After optimizations, I'd like to see the science system overhauled, made richer and more realistic. And bring DMagic's parts into stock.

[Matt77]

I want gameplay improvements - a more meaningful career, a reason to do science after the tech tree is finished, and a step away from this thing where they don't want time to matter.  Time is one of the MOST important factors in space programs.

But I don't care one bit about multiplayer, so I voted for aesthetics - the stock games graphics are shockingly poor.

[mattinoz]

On 16/12/2015, 6:39:45, Matt77 said:

I want gameplay improvements - a more meaningful career, a reason to do science after the tech tree is finished, and a step away from this thing where they don't want time to matter.  Time is one of the MOST important factors in space programs.

But I don't care one bit about multiplayer, so I voted for aesthetics - the stock games graphics are shockingly poor.

I voted for Multi-player because I want those things and can't see how they could do multi-player without:-

A) Optimizing the system in every way possible.

Multi-threading every way possible.

C) Making time matter in every way possible, after all how else do you balance multi-player if time is irrelevant as it is in current KSP. 

D) Improve game play in every way possible

E) Take 3 or 4 mini releases to get there each one concentrating on aspects of the above. Each release containing cool parts from RoverDude and PorkJet. Not mention parts overhauls.

In short Multi-player is a catch all project that can drive the game up to the next level of polish.

 

(edit: Although I still want Kerbal's to matter, but I think MP lends itself to that aim as well)

Edited December 17, 2015 by mattinoz
added