2 mod that need to be added at Default game

[Kerbal101]

On 1/25/2016 at 2:42 PM, Kuansenhama said:

Let's not forget Waypoint Manager. Remember the frustration of flying around on EVA trying to find that pinpoint location you need that surface sample from...

Yes, adding and tracking own waypoints is simply must have.

[Kerbal101]

On 1/22/2016 at 11:11 AM, AlamoVampire said:

Ker? Naw, mechjeb is better, it brings all the data of ker but it also has AUTOPILOT. Automation shall set you free!! 

Make a game play itself. VAB construct itself. Bases build themselves. Mining do itself. Like really.

[Evanitis]

Mehh, MJ is like the F12 menu. Some functions of it feels downright OP, others make some processes more convenient, and there are a few you can't live without once you tried. The MJ I use feels like KER+a better PreciseNode.

[razark]

Kerbal Alarm Clock
Chatterer
RCS Sounds
Docking Sounds
Final Frontier
Whatever that one is that adds the action groups back

[Kerbal101]

30 minutes ago, Evanitis said:

Mehh, MJ is like the F12 menu. Some functions of it feels downright OP, others make some processes more convenient, and there are a few you can't live without once you tried. The MJ I use feels like KER+a better PreciseNode.

IMHO:

Spoiler

 

Edited January 26, 2016 by Kerbal101

[Blaarkies]

45 minutes ago, Skylar' said:

oh yes, Kerbal Alarm System too... sometemes i even forgot that it's mod  I've noticed too, the bug abuot nodes changing after time warp in interplanetary transfer. it's possible to avoid this with manual time warping.  

I always set KAC to slow down time warp at -1 seconds SOI transition...and it always catches the transition at most a few seconds before(makes me so happy when time warping a Jool transfer and KAC slows things down halfway there because i forgot about my other missions). Everytime I see that, I wonder why is it not stock yet?(like SQUAD should just leave it in the gamedata/squad folder as-is if they dont find time to get around to implementing it)

[Warzouz]

On 22/1/2016 at 11:11 AM, AlamoVampire said:

Ker? Naw, mechjeb is better, it brings all the data of ker but it also has AUTOPILOT. Automation shall set you free!! 

I use MJ quite a lot, BUT I don't feel it should be part of the game.

• Some (many) features of KER should be stock
• Some feature of KAC should be stock
• Most of sound improvement mods should be stock
• Most of graphical improvement should be stock (until reasonable stress on display)

[AlamoVampire]

@Kerbal101 Hey if you enjoy the tedium of babysitting long long burns, flying the SAME launch, the SAME rendezvous, the SAME docking time and time and time again good for you. I DONT. Real world space agencies use automation, scott manley uses mechjeb and so shall i. Do not assume things i did not say. I never said the game should play it self or the vab to build itself. What i did say is covered above.

@Warzouz I still say mj needs to be stock, but to each their own.

Edited January 26, 2016 by AlamoVampire

[Kerbal101]

13 hours ago, AlamoVampire said:

@Kerbal101 Hey if you enjoy the tedium of babysitting long long burns, flying the SAME launch, the SAME rendezvous, the SAME docking time and time and time again good for you. I DONT. Real world space agencies use automation, scott manley uses mechjeb and so shall i. Do not assume things i did not say. I never said the game should play it self or the vab to build itself. What i did say is covered above.

I do enjoy same same same, because they are never same - rockets have different payload which may influence behavior, stuff may go out of control, if it doesn't - I click on "Warp to next maneuver(challenge)".

This is what vanilla KSP is about, IMHO. Example: Crash-landing on the Mun because of incorrect probe balance, out of fuel, stranded, with no food (USI SP) - rescue mission brings supplies, crashes also - finally a probe with two capsules arrives to save - atmosphere reentry from 3,000,000m orbit, five aerobreaking loops through 50 km.

I do use probes for most of the flights, probes inside single-stage re-usable rockets filled with Kerbonite from my miners. I refill them in EVA manually, using KAS/KIS.

But bots don't replace me, so I have to switch into departed empty rocket to ensure it doesn't overheat on reentry. Parachutes may overheat, 25k lost, what gives.

 

But if you prefer to hate tactical challenges, go on, use autopilot. Its pretty complex piece of software and addictive, I know why. Easy(er) mode on, less stress, more pleasure, I have no problem with that - its your game, your way. = ]

Edited January 27, 2016 by KasperVld
Removed a small amount of content that goes against the community rules.

[Evanitis]

Many people has no problem -not- using the functions meant to do stuff they prefer to do manually, just as they don't use the stock debug menu to have infinite fuel or no gravity. But indeed, MJ's landing autopilot is downright op, the rendezvous one is silly a bit, while the docking automation wastes a ton of monoprop. But these things are -fun- to do manually.

But doing a 10+ minute burn is boring as hell, and if I don't pay attention, I can overshoot by a few million kilometers. Nudging the stock manuver node for minutes to set a precise node is also unfun. Just as calculating your dV on paper. I can't let those functions go.

Edited January 26, 2016 by Evanitis

[Skylar']

7 hours ago, Blaarkies said:

I always set KAC to slow down time warp at -1 seconds SOI transition...and it always catches the transition at most a few seconds before(makes me so happy when time warping a Jool transfer and KAC slows things down halfway there because i forgot about my other missions). Everytime I see that, I wonder why is it not stock yet?(like SQUAD should just leave it in the gamedata/squad folder as-is if they dont find time to get around to implementing it)

indeed  depending on this

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Planned_features

something like that will be

"MessageSystem"

[AlamoVampire]

@Kerbal101 Allow me to be absolutely blunt here. This is not an addiction of any kind as you so blithely put it. This is a matter of treating my space program as if it was working along side the likes of NASA, JAXA, ESA or ROSCOSMOS. With only a SINGLE exception in ALL of space flight manned or otherwise everything we the human species has put into orbit and beyond has been computer controlled. The single exception? Neil Armstrong, Apollo 11 AFTER a 1201 & 1202 alarm nearly had the computer set them down in a boulder field. Neil Armstrong took manual control after it was clear that he had no option left. 

I find that having mechjeb not only allows me the luxury of telemetry but affords me the capability AND privilege to let the computer fly my vessels during times when tedium would outright kill ksp for me, but ALSO have the honor of feeling as if I am flying alongside Neil Armstrong, Edwin E. "Buzz" Aldrin Jr and every other hero to fly to space. 

It is a matter of being more true to real space programs for me and honoring every single sacrifice made in the name of furthering scientific understanding. 

I could go on, but, I feel that my point is sufficiently made. I do wish you well and many happy journeys.

 

[Beowolf]

On 1/20/2016 at 10:05 AM, Just Jim said:

Myself, I like playing stock..... I like the challenge of building something and having no idea if it will work or not until I launch it.  For me, Mods that give you dV and all that stuff just make it too easy. 

It's astonishing to me that you and I can enjoy the same game when we're such opposites! I honestly would have given up on KSP the first night and never gone back had KER/MJ not been available. The notion of building a spacecraft without knowing TWR and having a dV budget actually offended and angered me. I went looking for such a mod after literally my very first KSP launch.

Really says a lot about Squad that they manage to keep both of us reasonably happy!

[Just Jim]

13 minutes ago, Beowolf said:

It's astonishing to me that you and I can enjoy the same game when we're such opposites! I honestly would have given up on KSP the first night and never gone back had KER/MJ not been available. The notion of building a spacecraft without knowing TWR and having a dV budget actually offended and angered me. I went looking for such a mod after literally my very first KSP launch.

Really says a lot about Squad that they manage to keep both of us reasonably happy!

Wow... polar opposites!  And yet we can talk like civilized people..... yeah, KSP is great!  

I understand the appeal of KER and MJ, and some days I really think I should break down and download them. 
But I just also enjoy not knowing if something is going to work, or blow up horribly, or run out of fuel in orbit. 
I suppose it's the Kerbal in me, not knowing if it's going to work or end in a loud Kaboom....

[Alshain]

On 1/27/2016 at 3:01 AM, AlamoVampire said:

@Kerbal101 Allow me to be absolutely blunt here. This is not an addiction of any kind as you so blithely put it. This is a matter of treating my space program as if it was working along side the likes of NASA, JAXA, ESA or ROSCOSMOS. With only a SINGLE exception in ALL of space flight manned or otherwise everything we the human species has put into orbit and beyond has been computer controlled. The single exception? Neil Armstrong, Apollo 11 AFTER a 1201 & 1202 alarm nearly had the computer set them down in a boulder field. Neil Armstrong took manual control after it was clear that he had no option left. 

I have no point to make about the mods but that statement is factually inaccurate.  Many manned vessels were under manual control in several scenarios throughout NASA.  I don't believe the computer has ever docked a vessel for example, I know it didn't during the Apollo era, I don't think it did during the Shuttle era, and even unmanned supply vessels are grabbed by the Canada Arm on the ISS.  Aside from docking, the astronauts often had control over RCS positioning and in Apollo 13 made a manual burn to get back on course (which was also dramatized in the film of the same name).  So while it is true the launch is always computer controlled, there are many instances in NASA alone of using manual control.

[Beowolf]

On 1/27/2016 at 4:01 AM, AlamoVampire said:

The single exception? Neil Armstrong, Apollo 11 AFTER a 1201 & 1202 alarm nearly had the computer set them down in a boulder field. Neil Armstrong took manual control after it was clear that he had no option left. 

I completely agree with your position. Respectfully though, I believe you were incorrect in that particular detail:

First, "manual mode" on the LM wasn't really manual. It was similar to flying with MechJeb's Translatron. Armstrong was manually adjusting his landing spot while the computer still kept the LM upright and managed vertical speed.

Second, Gemini 3 and 4 did completely manual maneuvering with no radar. Gemini 4 only partially accomplished its goals because of that. They burned too much RCS fuel trying to manually rendezvous with the booster's 2nd stage and had to bail on further planned experiments. All later Gemini flights had radar and a partly-analog "computer" for rendezvous and docking because we learned humans suck at judging distances in space.

And third, of course, completely manual course corrections were made during Apollo 13 while the computer was powered off and the flight controls totally screwed up (working backwards on at-least one axis), because center-of-mass was way up in the service module.

Happy flying!

[seyss]

Kerbal Engineer is the only mod that should've been made stock years ago.

[Workable Goblin]

1 hour ago, Alshain said:

I don't believe the computer has ever docked a vessel for example,

Sure it has. It just wasn't the Americans doing it, but rather the Soviets. In fact, the first Soviet docking in space, of Kosmos 186 and 188, was fully automated, and that was in 1967.

There's a couple of reasons for this, overall. At first, it was just because Soviet designers had a habit of treating cosmonauts as passengers in their spacecraft, rather than full participants as they were in the American system, so they naturally designed their spacecraft to accomplish their goals whether or not they happened to have crew in them whereas American designers treated the crew as an important control system in their own right and gave them an important role in operating the spacecraft. Later on, while NASA was preoccupied building its Space Shuttle (which, I might note, docked with absolutely nothing until 1995), the Soviets were building and operating a series of space stations for which autonomous rendezvous and docking was very useful to deliver supplies and, later, station modules (as to Salyut 6, Salyut 7, and Mir). Combined with, again, the American tendency to rely on crew members to perform important tasks and the Soviet tendency to rely on automatic systems, and the former never really bothered with developing automated docking techniques. Most of the research in that area that was performed in the United States was probably for the military, for ASAT systems, or for Mars sample return missions, where capture of a sample capsule in Mars orbit has long been critical to the most popular mission architectures.

Lately, the United States has been spending more attention on these types of techniques, but on the whole fully automated rendezvous and docking has been more of a Soviet and later Russian speciality.

Personally, I like MechJeb. It lets me focus on the part of the game I find fun--designing rockets and managing space programs--without having to be quite so bothered with the part I don't find so fun--flying the rockets.

[Kerbart]

As to be expected, a lot depends on how you like to play the game. I think there's room for a couple of mods that enhance the player experience without changing game fundamentals, like:

• Chatterer (apparently there are people who play KSP without Chatterer. I find the thought bizarre)
• Kerbal Alarm Clock. It encourages playing with less warping (as you can afford to do more things "in between") which can never be a bad thing
• EVE

One can easily argue that KER, MJ and other enhancements are a dillution of "pure" KSP playing, so I don't think they need to be included as stock (disclosure: I cannot imagine playing without KER. But I can imagine other people doing so)

The one thing I really, really miss are hinges. Having to fit stuff inside a fairing without the option to fold things out seems insane. And it's so much cooler to have a rover that unfolds itself before use. Sure, you can use Infernal Robotics. Which needs tweakscale (that I don't like) and comes with a million parts (that I don't want). Simply hinges, rotating plates and telescopic bars in two or three sizes, that's all we need and I'd love to see it stock.

[Kerbal101]

21 minutes ago, Workable Goblin said:

Sure it has. It just wasn't the Americans doing it, but rather the Soviets. In fact, the first Soviet docking in space, of Kosmos 186 and 188, was fully automated, and that was in 1967.(snip)

Sorry, can you please back this argument that
a) Soviet designers had a habit of treating cosmonauts as passengers in their spacecraft
b) (astro)cosmonauts ... (were) rather ... full participants ... in the American system

with some real proof? If you have time of course.

I know that:

a) Buran was fully automated to the extend cosmonauts protested to have manual control, in case something happens - where they succeeded (yet Buran flew only once). Yet I find no references to how automated manned space soviets flights were.
b) USSR started its space program much earlier and was much more advanced. USA played a catching game until some point. As such automation could simply be available to Soviets much earlier than to Americans. This does not mean Americans relied more on manual control and Soviets treated cosmonauts like passengers.

Because from aviation, American technology uses way more automation than Soviet, which is why your claim surprises me.

[Workable Goblin]

5 minutes ago, Kerbal101 said:

Sorry, can you please back this argument that
a) Soviet designers had a habit of treating cosmonauts as passengers in their spacecraft
b) (astro)cosmonauts ... (were) rather ... full participants ... in the American system

with some real proof? If you have time of course.

I know that:

a) Buran was fully automated to the extend cosmonauts protested to have manual control, in case something happens - where they succeeded (yet Buran flew only once). Yet I find no references to how automated manned space soviets flights were.
b) USSR started its space program much earlier and was much more advanced. USA played a catching game until some point. As such automation could simply be available to Soviets much earlier than to Americans. This does not mean Americans relied more on manual control and Soviets treated cosmonauts like passengers.

My reference is Siddiqi, Challenge to Apollo: The Soviet Union and the Space Race, 1945-1975, which is a well-regarded history of the Soviet space program in English (actually, the best-regarded English-language history of that program). He extensively discusses this point with references to Russian-language sources, but it's apparent if you look at how often the Soviets launched uncrewed dress rehearsals of later missions (such as Cosmos 186 and 188, or Buran, or the Korabl-Sputnik flights), whereas the Americans tended to conduct only a few uncrewed missions and then move on to accomplishing things without further automated tests. For example, whereas the Soyuz program had multiple automated docking missions, there was not a single Gemini mission that attempted anything similar; both uncrewed Gemini test missions were simple orbital missions to prove that the capsule could support life. All of the complex objectives, like rendezvous and docking, were performed in crewed flights. Similarly, the Soviet L-1 lunar flyby program involved multiple uncrewed tests of the spacecraft prior to the first crewed launch, whereas the similar Apollo 8 mission was performed with no prior tests (other than of the Apollo spacecraft and the Saturn V launch vehicle).

Also, it's not quite true to say the Soviet program was "much more advanced". The whole question of "Why did the Soviets accomplish so many firsts?" is complicated, and in many cases a line can be directly drawn between less advanced Soviet technology and their ability to claim certain firsts. For example, the R-7 was larger than the contemporary and generally similar Atlas* and Titan I because Soviet nuclear weapons technology was not as advanced as American bomb technology, and so they required a larger, heavier bomb to achieve the same yield (and I believe that they may have required a larger yield to accomplish the same level of destructiveness due to less accurate guidance systems, but I am not sure about this point). This allowed the Soviets to launch much larger spacecraft early on, one point where they were perceived to be ahead--and one point which they required, because they needed larger spacecraft to accomplish the same tasks. For instance, while Vostok massed almost 5,000 kilograms, Gemini, which had a longer design mission duration and far more maneuvering capability, weighed just 3,800 on the pad. Mercury was only 1,400 kilograms in its heaviest configuration.

In this particular case, of computer control and automation, it's clear that Soviet technology was inferior to American technology in important respects like size and power consumption from at least the 1950s right on to the end of the Cold War. Besides the point I made above about the relative masses of different crewed capsules, you can look at early satellites with similar missions to see that the Soviets had trouble building systems quite so lightweight and efficient as the United States. Returning to Vostok, this was also the base of a reconnaissance satellite, the Zenit, which had a similar American counterpart, the Corona satellite series. Both had the same mission of taking film photographs of other countries and returning that film to the launching country. Yet Zenit weighed thousands of kilograms while Corona weighed just 750, much less. Granted, Corona had certain recovery advantages, but it was still much lighter than Zenit, due in no small part to the difficulty that the Soviets had in building electronics that would work in vacuum. Given that computer programming is more or less similar everywhere, the lighter electronics that the United States could build were an obvious advantage in building spacecraft with more sophisticated automation, if they had so chosen, but for a variety of reasons they didn't while the Soviets did, as I said above.

* Interestingly, early plans for the Atlas would have made it much closer in size to the R-7, but advances in bomb technology allowed Convair to cut back on vehicle size significantly.

[Kerbal101]

On 1/27/2016 at 10:01 AM, AlamoVampire said:

@Kerbal101 Allow me to be absolutely blunt here. This is not an addiction of any kind as you so blithely put it. This is a matter of treating my space program as if it was working along side the likes of NASA, JAXA, ESA or ROSCOSMOS. With only a SINGLE exception in ALL of space flight manned or otherwise everything we the human species has put into orbit and beyond has been computer controlled. The single exception? Neil Armstrong, Apollo 11 AFTER a 1201 & 1202 alarm nearly had the computer set them down in a boulder field. Neil Armstrong took manual control after it was clear that he had no option left. 

I find that having mechjeb not only allows me the luxury of telemetry but affords me the capability AND privilege to let the computer fly my vessels during times when tedium would outright kill ksp for me, but ALSO have the honor of feeling as if I am flying alongside Neil Armstrong, Edwin E. "Buzz" Aldrin Jr and every other hero to fly to space. 

It is a matter of being more true to real space programs for me and honoring every single sacrifice made in the name of furthering scientific understanding. 

I could go on, but, I feel that my point is sufficiently made. I do wish you well and many happy journeys.

 

In 1967, Komarov had tried to manually rotate the Soyuz-1 so that the solar panel faces Sun. Unfortunately, due to uncontrolled rotation, late stabilization and unknown reason for primary chute to malfunction (plasma? too early deployment?) he crashed at 40m/s. The outcome is known.

I understand your point, but real space programs rely on automation because manual control is far less predictable/reliable. There is no "F9".... I don't use MechJeb, because I like the challenge to learn perfect manual orbital rendezvous, perfect indirect planet rendezvous, gravity turn by gravity/air friction forces. Comparing this to videos, I found out that this approach is much more efficient (and fun) than MechJeb.

I guess, in KSP terms, you prefer to be more scientist than pilot Jeb.

[regex]

IMO, if you're not playing Realism Overhaul whilst invoking the likes of NASA, ESA, and POCKOCMOC, you're doing it wrong.  Also, KOS over MechJeb if you're actually into doing things realistically, even if MechJeb is a damn fine piece of work with an author/maintainer who puts up with an incredible amount of guff.

Speaking of which, we don't need two mods in the game, we need the entirety of Realism Overhaul in the game.

[Francois424]

The two mods that I feel should be part of the stock game...  and I mean they are essential for me to play with any kind of seriousness at all : 
 -  KER (the most important mod ever),
 -  KAC (which is less important but helps tremendously when going interplanetary)... 

Having the D-V reader (By Stages), vertical/horizontal speed, TWR, Radar Altitude, Periapsis/Apoapsis time/altitude are so helpful in planning a mission that I feel naked without these.
I always setup a few others as well: Impact Time, Atmospheric Efficiency (less useful nowadays since souposphere is gone, but sometimes is), Thrust, specific impulse, Latitude, Logitude, and parts count.

KAC is a more recent thing for me, but since I am doing multiple interplanetary at once I find it indispensable... Not to mention I can add transfer windows too in it.  That one helps a lot with ship Delta-V.

- - - - -
There's about 20 other mods I use/will use when 1.1 (finally) shows itself, but KER and KAC are an absolute must for me and (I presume) many others.
These should be the next ones added...  Then again, we might not like the implementation we'd get...  Oh well 

^---\_O_/^---

[Zoidos]

On 26.1.2016 at 4:32 PM, Kerbal101 said:

Make a game play itself. VAB construct itself. Bases build themselves. Mining do itself. Like really.

Jeb could never be replaced by MechJeb. MechJeb can't collect surface samples.