Mods in Stock

[Firemetal]

5 hours ago, Alpha 360 said:

I vote that there should never be a stock life support or Mechjeb 

 

3 hours ago, RX2000 said:

A more precise node creator should definitely be stock, as well as life support. The life support can be optional, as is CommNet currently.

I would rather see something like KER be stock instead of Mechjeb. I think dV/TWR readouts should be in the stock game for sure, but an autopilot that does everything for you right from the beginning should NOT be stock in my opinion.

Mechjeb is basically autopilot. I think it is more fun flying it yourself.

Now on the topic of DV and TWR readouts, I think that should be optional. Maybe default on easy. If you asked me two weeks ago, I would have agreed but much has changed for me since then. Calculating DV and TWR is easy. All you need is the values, the equations and a calculator. It is that simple. I personally think it is much more fun calculating it but for newbies, it might be better for them to just have the readouts there.

Just now, eloquentJane said:

Or, you know, for people who like to get screenshots without a UI and not crash their rockets. Or for people who like to design vehicles mainly for aesthetics and don't want to have to do the calculations required to make them efficient as well. Although I agree that its autopilot functionality doesn't suit the stock game.

As for what I'd like to see implemented in stock, the mod that I absolutely cannot play the game without* is Kerbal Alarm Clock.

*Actually, there are a large number of mods that I don't enjoy the game as much without having installed, but most of them aren't utilities that I feel should be added to stock.

I totally agree. KAC is so awesome especially for multi-tasking. That needs to be stock.

Also RCS build aid would be nice.

Fire

[ottothesilent]

3 hours ago, Alpha 360 said:

Forget mechjeb, it is for those lazy people. Life support is a pain and fun at the same time. I would support a life support that yu could turn on and off at will though, maybe. If there is greenhouses and recyclers, then I would accept it.

Or mechjeb is for people that make lots of the same launches to LKO, LMO very regularly and don't want to bother flying the same mission 20 times in a day. I don't criticize your play style, so don't criticize mine.

[Sandworm]

4 hours ago, Alpha 360 said:

What should be stock and what should not? So far they have a simple stock remote tech and will any other mods be implemented? Image that Ksp will continue and that no more staff leaves(which is entirely unrealistic). what mods would you implement? 

It's far more than just remotech.  Many mods have been adopted in full.  Specific-orbit contracts were originally a mod.  Concepts and tricks pioneered by modders have also been replicated by Squad.  The ability to adjust various UI element, specifically the navball, were first available as mods.  Mineable resources were developed years before becoming a thing in stock (Kethane).  Even the orientation holds were first a mechjeb thing.

[septemberWaves]

6 minutes ago, Firemetal said:

Now on the topic of DV and TWR readouts, I think that should be optional. Maybe default on easy. If you asked me two weeks ago, I would have agreed but much has changed for me since then. Calculating DV and TWR is easy. All you need is the values, the equations and a calculator. It is that simple. I personally think it is much more fun calculating it but for newbies, it might be better for them to just have the readouts there.

The equations aren't difficult but they aren't exactly quick either. And for someone like myself who already spends a huge amount of time making spacecraft look good - which means changing the masses around quite a lot as the vehicle is constructed - it's easiest to have a real-time display of the current delta-v in a stage.

I have spent several hours designing my Raven series of launch vehicles recently, and due to the way they are set up, there are over 160 possible configurations (though some of those are obsolete because they don't have the thrust-to-weight ratio needed for their potential maximum payload). They are simple to construct by attaching beneath a payload an upper stage subassembly, lower stage subassembly, and as many SRBs as are needed to obtain the necessary thrust-to-weight. I can create a Raven-series rocket for a given payload and destination in under two minutes now that I have the basic configurations saved as subassemblies (the SRBs are added independently and they are mainly why there are so many possible configurations). However, if I had to manually calculate all of the delta-v values for each added component, I could foresee that process taking upwards of half an hour in some cases.

It depends entirely on play style whether delta-v providing mods are appreciated. I am certainly happiest when I can spend all of my many hours in the VAB (which I would estimate has taken up at least half of my total time spent playing KSP) perfecting the appearance of whatever I'm creating, whilst other people prefer function over form and actually enjoy doing the relevant maths.

[Tyko]

10 minutes ago, eloquentJane said:

It depends entirely on play style whether delta-v providing mods are appreciated. I am certainly happiest when I can spend all of my many hours in the VAB (which I would estimate has taken up at least half of my total time spent playing KSP) perfecting the appearance of whatever I'm creating, whilst other people prefer function over form and actually enjoy doing the relevant maths.

If the numbers are critical to the game, then there should be a quick way to find them. To @RX2000's point, the maneuver node tells how much DV you need for the maneuver, there's a discontinuity in the user experience when there's no way to see how much DV you have.

I'd be really interesting in knowing how many people buy the game and quit playing quickly once they realize they have to either A) keep a calculator handy or B) be forever uncertain of whether or not they have enough fuel to complete their missions...

 

[Firemetal]

29 minutes ago, eloquentJane said:

The equations aren't difficult but they aren't exactly quick either. And for someone like myself who already spends a huge amount of time making spacecraft look good - which means changing the masses around quite a lot as the vehicle is constructed - it's easiest to have a real-time display of the current delta-v in a stage.

I have spent several hours designing my Raven series of launch vehicles recently, and due to the way they are set up, there are over 160 possible configurations (though some of those are obsolete because they don't have the thrust-to-weight ratio needed for their potential maximum payload). They are simple to construct by attaching beneath a payload an upper stage subassembly, lower stage subassembly, and as many SRBs as are needed to obtain the necessary thrust-to-weight. I can create a Raven-series rocket for a given payload and destination in under two minutes now that I have the basic configurations saved as subassemblies (the SRBs are added independently and they are mainly why there are so many possible configurations). However, if I had to manually calculate all of the delta-v values for each added component, I could foresee that process taking upwards of half an hour in some cases.

It depends entirely on play style whether delta-v providing mods are appreciated. I am certainly happiest when I can spend all of my many hours in the VAB (which I would estimate has taken up at least half of my total time spent playing KSP) perfecting the appearance of whatever I'm creating, whilst other people prefer function over form and actually enjoy doing the relevant maths.

I see what you are saying and I respect it. However, It sounds more like "just a game" from that point of view.

The thing with calculating DV is that it makes you feel not only are you playing a game and you are giving your mind a workout but also you feel like an actual rocket scientist that way. It is so satisfying to build a rocket, calculate its TWR and DV even though it is more time consuming. You don't even have to do it sometimes if you know what works and what doesn't but that is how I like to play the game.

But these are just opinions. Play KSP whatever way is fun for you and others will play whatever way is fun for them. That is why it should be optional for DV and TWR readouts.

Fire

[Chiron0224]

I have a list of mods that I will not play without because the game is incomplete without them. 

1.For one, I tried to dock two vessels on a friend's computer and literally gave up and went to download Docking Port Alignment Indicator before continuing. 

2.Something like a bare bones KER (the elements that should be stock are dV and TWR readouts in VAB and during flight, and AP/PE and time to each displayed on main view)

3. Better burn time because it would be a simple change to the maneuver node burn time calculations that would be very helpful

4. Kerbal Joint Reinforcement (why do I need a mod just to make my rockets not be total excrements?  having to apply a bunch of struts, in my opinion, adds nothing valuable to the game.  The rockets should just be sturdier in general)

5. Maybe some way of planning transfer windows (like the Transfer window planner mod, but the stock version could certainly be more bare bones).

 

Now for things that aren't necessarily mods I can't live without but I think would really improve stock

1. Having science be more interactive than just clicking "run experiment".

2. Some reason to travel and do stuff on the surface of other bodies.  Right now there's no reason to build a roving vehicle or rover probe and venture further than a view steps from the landing site

3. A crew roster that you could use to plan the crew rotation of upcoming missions (I currently use an excel spreadsheet)

4. A way to fire or retire Kerbals (there was a mod for that but it hasn't been updated since .25)

5. Something like Strategia which vastly improves the Administration building strategies (sure do hope that mod gets up to 1.2 soon).

6. Something like Station Science so that there's a reason for Kerbals to be on a space station for a long time.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Chiron0224

[Curveball Anders]

23 minutes ago, Firemetal said:

Play KSP whatever way is fun for you and others will play whatever way is fun for them.

Sounds like a good way

[Kerbart]

1 hour ago, Chiron0224 said:

4. A way to fire or retire Kerbals (there was a mod for that but it hasn't been updated since .25)

There is! It's called "discovering during re-entry that you forgot the chutes"

[Renegrade]

2 hours ago, tjt said:

I'd be really interesting in knowing how many people buy the game and quit playing quickly once they realize they have to either A) keep a calculator handy or B) be forever uncertain of whether or not they have enough fuel to complete their missions...

Driveby Renegrade Comment of the Day: I'd venture a guess that about 99% of the players never get past the "whee explosions!" stage...and aren't capable of getting past that stage in any case.  I'd exclude those from any figures in advance.  The remaining breakdown after the morons are gone is probably like 85/15 or something, I'd guess-guess.  There's a pretty tall error bar molesting that last figure (being two guesses deep), but I'd point out that it's going to be a fraction of 1% or thereabouts anyhow, and kinda fades into irrelevance as far as the marketing department cares.

1% of the playerbase controls 99% of the successful missions~  #KSPonePercent~

[Superfluous J]

In FTR* every mod that everybody always mentions is mentioned. Except Module Manager. So I'll mention that one to complete the set.

*Okay so it's not as catchy as "B4" but I couldn't think of a better way to do it

[Superfluous J]

MOD BINGO

B	I	N	G	O
Contract Configurator	Take Command	Kerbal Joint Reinforcement	Waypoint Manager	Visual Enhancements (Any)
Realism Overhaul	Blizzy's Toolbar	Real Solar System	Extraplanetary Launchpads	Precise Node
Kerbal Attachment / Inventory System	Docking Port Alignment Indicator	FREE SPACE (ModuleManager)	Strategia	RCS Build Aid
Kerbal Engineer	Transfer Window Planner	MechJeb	Kerbal Alarm Clock	Procedural Anything
Distant Object Enhancement	Life Support (Any)	Editor Extensions	Chatterer	Better Burn Time

Use this card any time anybody asks any question about anybody's opinions on mods in general.

Edited December 13, 2016 by 5thHorseman

[Corax]

2 hours ago, Chiron0224 said:

4. A way to fire or retire Kerbals (there was a mod for that but it hasn't been updated since .25)

[Overland]

KERBAL INVENTORY SYSTEM & KERBAL ATTACHMENT SYSTEM

(KIS & KAS)

Its a rather strange thing it never has been stock..it should be..

It has unlimited uses irrespective of if your major tom, rocketman, a ground pounder or happen to be an engineering genius subjecting wide eyed kerbals to terrible deaths or flights into the night sky (and terrible deaths)

[Long Finger]

5 hours ago, Firemetal said:

I personally think it is much more fun calculating it but for newbies, it might be better for them to just have the readouts there.

Well if the read-outs were just there would you ever have learned how to calculate it? And is that better or worse in your view?

4 hours ago, tjt said:

I'd be really interesting in knowing how many people buy the game and quit playing quickly once they realize they have to either A) keep a calculator handy or B) be forever uncertain of whether or not they have enough fuel to complete their missions...

B I feel is the true Kerbal way! Try and fail enough that you either switch to A and learn how to work it out in advance yourself, or get to the point where your changes to avoid failure are sufficient to succeed. Either way will be rewarding.

If you want automated calculations I don't see a problem with that, but I think you should have to decide you want it and install the appropriate mod.

[Chiron0224]

2 hours ago, Kerbart said:

There is! It's called "discovering during re-entry that you forgot the chutes"

 

2 hours ago, Corax said:

 

I meant without deleting them.  Like you could click "retire" and so they would be out of the general line up but you could still see all the retired Kerbonauts and if you use Final Frontier you can still see their ribbons.

[kBob]

Kerbal Alarm Clock.

[Vanamonde]

@Alpha 360, your thread has been merged into the master thread for this discussion. 

[Francois424]

Was going to post this in the original spot but got moved as I was writing.

In Order of preference, for me.

Absolutely :
 - Kerbal Engineer Redux (KER) -- Essential when going outside Kerbin SOI

Should be  :
 - OPM (GP2 is so long overdue it's not funny anymore, and OPM is already done and ready to go).  The only thing I'd change is a 7 moon Gas Planet.  Maybe Urlum.
 - An electric propeller of Sorts (overdue as well and suggestion posts on KSP forums as far as 2013 requesting this).  In an exploration game going on other atmospheric worlds without oxygen, this is a no brainer for biome hunting and just travelling around.

Nice to have :
 - EVE/Scaterrer (Doesn't have any real impact on gameplay per say, but is very nice and immersive)
 - Kerbal Alarm Clock (KAC)... I've played successfully for 2 years (with KER) but this is really nice to have.

There's also a post by my name, about what parts should be in stock game, propellers are one of them only.  There where many more.
But those above, are stuff that would IMHO be really nice.

Edited November 3, 2016 by Francois424

[razark]

4 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

FREE
SPACE

You misspelled "Module Manager".

 

 

Edit:

To all of you listing out your favorite mods, please look at this post and this one, by @MachoCyclone and @kaptain_kavern.

Edited November 3, 2016 by razark

[Gaarst]

The 61 mods here. Would save me a lot of trouble when changing versions.

[Superfluous J]

19 hours ago, razark said:

You misspelled "Module Manager".

Haha I had that on my list too but must have erased it. Amusing as it's the one I named myself

[Corax]

CursorDeleter, at least an option to disable the clunky blob.

[stellargeli]

On 11/2/2016 at 4:23 PM, ottothesilent said:

Or mechjeb is for people that make lots of the same launches to LKO, LMO very regularly and don't want to bother flying the same mission 20 times in a day. I don't criticize your play style, so don't criticize mine.

Simmer down...  Everybody...  Opinions are opinions, don't take them so personally.

[Dark Lion]

The KSPedia and Map View could almost certainly benefit from Kerbal Engineer Redux data. Perhaps an additional tab or alternate app similar to the KSPedia could provide more formulae relevant to properly engineer your vessels, if not specify your chosen vessels' stats or by your garage. Maybe an in-flight/editor "vessel statistics" pop-out or button-toggle (yeah, I don't count that flimsy, buggish one in map view.) Otherwise, while it does overwhelm some players with information, the UI can be edited to compromise in favor of those more selective players who find all that data just a little too cheaty (I'm a little of both: basic IFR needs from launch then occassional orbital info for synch or encounters, but GIMME GIMME DATA while building. Thrust-to-Weight Ratio, and thrust torque readouts are just two of my favorite, invaluably time-saving options of many more UI options.) I absolutely love KER and would love to see it integrated into stock, however, I can't imagine how you can make it more... well, Kerbal, I guess. 

Here's one though -I just can't play the game I want to without it. Perhaps it's more preference than anything, but until I stumbled across Kerbal Planetary Base Systems I struggled to manage interplanetary, self-sufficient research bases without ridiculous-looking, kraken-summoning, part-counts wrecking my missions so often. The aesthetics of KPBS alone caught my eye, but the available utilities of this mod seem much more Kerbal-friendly. The simple concept of having at least one  flat side on most of the parts makes it an easy dismount for your little greenies without a ladder -but the garage.... You KNOW you want someplace to keep your favorite jet while island-hopping on Laythe in a base-lander. Well I do!  But to pull off the same endeavor stock, the average player's FPS drops to an unbearable rate at launch. KPBS avoids this simply by having an overall ground-based conceptual design that streamlines the building of vessels meant for interplanetary landings and just so happens to fit the overall Kerbal parts-scheme for some excellent potential for combinations to fit any mission, or just to create beautiful and elaborate vessels to send on a journey (or mutilate...)

Actually, I can't NOT say something for the integration of Infernal Robotics. Seriously Squad, not only are these guys talented, but you made a space program that doesn't have any moving parts?! Enough said.