My Suggestion For The Developers

[The Space Dino]

More realistic KSC destruction : I think it's kind of unrealistic because buildings don't just collapse instantly on themselves, and only the part where a ship crashes on the runway should be damaged, not a whole section of it.

Launch pad water tower light: There should be an actual visible object that produces light on it ( like the Illuminator Mk 1 and Mk 2 ), not just a point of light on the water tower.

Can Jool be more realistic when you descend into the atmosphere? Because KSP glitches out when you reach a certain depth into Jool. In real life, spacecraft that enter a gas giant's atmosphere are destroyed by heat and pressure, instead of simply blowing up like fireworks in KSP.

That's all!

[awang]

4 hours ago, The Space Dino said:

In real life, spacecraft that enter a gas giant's atmosphere are destroyed by heat and pressure, instead of simply blowing up like fireworks in KSP.

What would "destroyed by heat and pressure" look like?

And to be fair, the way KSP destroys things probably isn't realistic for most situations.

[The Space Dino]

13 hours ago, awang said:

What would "destroyed by heat and pressure" look like?

And to be fair, the way KSP destroys things probably isn't realistic for most situations.

It would be like getting those heat gauges and then blowing up.

Yes, I do agree on your second statement.

Well, at least stuff blow up!

I hope the devs took a look at this..........

( I don't really like those unrealistic building destructions)

Edited May 12, 2016 by The Space Dino

[awang]

10 hours ago, The Space Dino said:

It would be like getting those heat gauges and then blowing up.

Isn't that what already happens? I feel I'm misunderstanding something here...

10 hours ago, The Space Dino said:

( I don't really like those unrealistic building destructions)

Eh, I suppose there are worse things to worry about. I suppose in theory you shouldn't be seeing buildings being demolished all that often either, unless most people play a heck of a lot more destructively than I think they do.

[Tex_NL]

As with everything in games there has to be a delicate balance between realism and playability.
I am sure it is possible to let buildings fail very realistic. But I am also sure this would put a huge strain on the physics engine making the game unplayable. During 'normal' missions buildings do not fail but the additional strain on the physics engine will always be there.
Sure, it would be nice to see partly damaged or destroyed buildings. Craters, skid marks, burn marks. All very nice but they don't really add to the game. It's called Kerbal Space Program for a reason. Not Kerbal Destruction Program.

[Alshain]

I would prefer the devs hadn't wasted time on the building destruction we have, let alone on more building destruction.

[Cornholio]

Building destruction is just a gimmick in a game about space travel.  It has little to no use and should not be on any development plans anywhere for improvement.