My two cents on suggestions and dlc

[GoldForest]

So since Making History is out, and I've had some time to tinker around with it. I've gotten some ideas and thoughts that I would like to put out there for the community and Squad to consider. I'll separate my ideas into two categories, patches and future DLC. Alright, so let's get to it:

First, the patches:

Base game patches/updates:

-Spaceplanes and shuttles: I love planes, and I love space shuttles. I know we can make a somewhat shuttle-like craft in KSP Now, but I would like it if Squad added an actual Stock Space Shuttle to the game, maybe even their own version. We have the wings and the fuselage and the engines, but we're missing the EFT and the SRBs to go with it. These are the main two parts I would like. Further more, I think a stock Dreamchaser or some other tiny shuttle would be nice for crew transportation. 

-New Parts and Part revamps: Since 1.4 and making history, I've found that the 1m and 3m parts don't fit into the new style. They're the old style. I have no doubt that this will be addressed in future patches already, but I would just like to put it out there. As for new parts, I think Squad either forgot or didn't think of doing a Saturn third stage. The current 3 meter parts are not cutting it visually in my opinion. The full tank is too long, and the half tank is too short. I think we need either a new 3m tank, or I would like to see a 3m to 2m part so we can do that tapered engine mount that the actual third stage has. This part could have some tank attached to the top of it so it makes the half tank longer by extension. 

-Station parts: We're lacking in this department severely in my opinion. The last major station part we got was the science lab I believe. Other than that, we have the 4 Kerbal cabin, the cupola, and maybe the plane parts to make habitable parts of space stations. Other parts have to be fuel tanks, or multiple part jerry rigged pieces. 

-SLS parts revamp: Now that we have 5m parts, maybe Squad can go back and revamp the SLS, make it actual size. Maybe even add the ability to make the ICPS and the Cargo variant.

Making History patches/updates:

-Mercury parts and revamp: Mercury LAS/LES, tiny RCS ports, 1.5 stage part, do I need to say more? Alright, I will to clarify my position. We can make a some what Mercury-Atlas rocket, but we're missing the 1.5 stageing part. The part with the two engines that falls away? Yeah, that. Also, RCS thrusters are big on the Mercury, even the solo port one. A tiny rcs thruster would be nice. As for Mercury LAS/LES, I think a new parachute would be in order, a flat inline one, or a revamp of the current tiny parachute. Just the model, not the chute itself. Maybe make it more rounded and add a node on top of it so that the LES can go over the chute? Just an idea.

-Gemini and Titan parts: The "Service module" for the gemini is nothing like the real one, I know why it isn't tapered, but still. Also, I think the Titan parts might be a little too small, or Gemini is too big. Gemini's service module is supposed to flare out wide to meet the TItan Rocket isn't it? Just something that been nagging at me. I'm still loving that we can make Gemini though, don't get me wrong.

-Saturn V missing parts: I mentioned one thing above, but I'll go ahead and include it here too. Stage III. An actual Stage III part or parts would be great. Also, the S-IVB's thruster pack, that would be good too. 3m avionics ring/probe core. Saturn V style launch clamps. Saturn V crew module LES shroud. Speaking of shrouds, textured shrouds with the black and white checker theme, and the stripes. And could we get a way to make shrouds change sizes at the base and or top? So like, if I put a 2m engine on a 3 meter part, the top of the shroud can be set to 3m, and if I attach a 5m decoupler, the bottom can be set to 5m. Just an idea.

-Saturn I parts: First stage, fore mentioned S-IVB, and the engines to go with it.

DLC/Update Ideas:

Making History Part II - So, we got Saturn V and R7 rocket. Yay! For part II, maybe we could get Mir station parts? Skylab? Soyuz? Please?

Making History Part III - After Part II, I think ISS would be the next step. A whole DLC/Update dedicated to the station, kerablizing all the parts for KSP. 

Making History Part IV - SpaceX Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, ULA Vulkan(Probably soon to be name changed due to copyright issues from what I've heard), the new Russian Rocket Angara, New Glenn rocket parts

Forgotten History - A pack dedicated to the brave rockets that never saw the light of day or were abandoned. Saturn Nova, N1, Ares Rocket Family, Jupiter Rocket Family, 

Space for Rent - A pack dedicated to space station parts and interplanetary habitats

Farwell Kerbol - An official Squad Planet pack, featuring one or two new solar systems, and interstellar vehicles to get there. And maybe in add a black hole and make it the center of the game, and have Kerbol orbit it as well as the other solar systems?

Multiplayer - I know, I know, I know, stop yelling at your screen. You're going to wake your neighbors. I know the problems with multiplayer. Time warp. Take it out right? Well, now it takes you actual real world months to get anywhere. Part limit, "I'm giffen 'er all she's got capin, she can't take no more!" it a phrase that explains your CPU when you hit 100 parts on screen right? Well, I know these problems exist, and that a new engine would probably be needed in order for them to be overcome, mainly for the part limit, but I still would like to suggest this. 

"Honey, come meet the neighbors" - AH! Giant Peach skin men! AH! Blue cat kerbals! AH! These gas prices are too high! Okay, I've had my fun. But seriously, different species in KSP. Maybe even make them playable? 

Asteroids, comets, and meteors, oh my - An update to interstellar debris basically, while adding say maybe comets? Maybe even a locked in one? Haley's Comet anyone? By the way, how many drills does it take to get to the center of a comet? Oh! One more thing for this one, asteroid brake up. I know, probably hard, but why not make it procedural break up? Or maybe the asteroid can shrink during reentry and tiny asteroids spawn next to it?

Weather - "Are we tipping over?" - Jeb "Are they tipping over?" - Mission Control. Wind, rain, lightning, thunder! Maybe a tornado or two. 

====================================

Well, that's all I can think of for right now. I know it's a lot, but I had a lot on my mind. Feel free to comment, critique, or even expand on the ideas I have given. 

[GoldForest]

I'm adding this post because I thought of a way to make multiplayer work in KSP I think.

Instances. 

Basically, two types of instances will exist inside the server:
-Server side
-Client Side

Server side instance is permanent and can not be time warped in anyway shape or form. It's static. 

Client side instances are flexible, and there's an instance per client. So Client A could be in instance number 4 and Client B could be in instance number 6. They will not see each other, not can they interact with each other, unless they sync with Server instance, then the client A and B will be in the same instance. Also, any updates to the client instance effect the Server instance. For example, let's say there's a space station in orbit, and Client A adds a module to it. The station is in Server instance, but because it's being interacted on by the client instance, the server instance will update and pull the new station part into the server instance, and then will update all client instances. Another feature of the client Instance would be Time warp. "But you said there's no time warp." This might get confusing. Okay, let's say Client A sends a rocket to Duna. Client A will time warp inside Instance 4, and will not effect any other instance, nor the server instance. When he gets to Duna, and comes out of time warp. Let's say his friend, client B is who he is meeting there. Client B is inside the Server instance, but Client A is not. All client A has to do is sync with Server instance .The Server will detect he is at Duna and pop him in the same spot he was in his own instance into it's own instance. "What if client A decides to time warp again?" They will be kicked out of the server instance and back into Instance 4. 

That's my idea for how Multiplayer could work. 

Another feature for these would be that Client A could invite Client B into their own instance and they could do stuff in that, but time warp would be controlled by the host client. So Client A time warps for both themselves and Client B.

[qzgy]

On 4/6/2018 at 5:27 AM, GoldForest said:

Feel free to comment, critique, or even expand on the ideas I have given. 

Well since you asked so nicely, I'll have a go.

 

On 4/6/2018 at 5:27 AM, GoldForest said:

but we're missing the EFT and the SRBs to go with it

We can make those though. We have the big Kickbacks or so, which can be clustered together (or just used by themselves) and we also have the other fuel tanks we can make into an EFT. Or at the very least an approximation of one, which for me is good enough.

 

On 4/6/2018 at 5:27 AM, GoldForest said:

Since 1.4 and making history, I've found that the 1m and 3m parts don't fit into the new style.

Style disparities have always existed. At least they're working on it. And personally, I'm kinda a fan of the older parts. Call it nostalgia, but I like the old ones. But yes, a single consistent style would be nice.

Also the parts are 2.5 m, not 3 m.

On 4/6/2018 at 5:27 AM, GoldForest said:

The full tank is too long, and the half tank is too short.

Clip it? Or use 3 1/4 sized tanks to make that middle ground? The nice thing about KSP is that you're not too constrained by the parts - you can mix and match.

 

On 4/6/2018 at 5:27 AM, GoldForest said:

I think we need either a new 3m tank, or I would like to see a 3m to 2m part so we can do that tapered engine mount that the actual third stage has. This part could have some tank attached to the top of it so it makes the half tank longer by extension. 

I disagree. I think we have the parts we need and don't really need a new tank part just for one rocket. Versatility with parts is always good IMO and I don't think a specific engine mount would be good. Maybe some sort of switchable model/tesxture or something like that if you really want a tapered mount. But it can also be approximated in various ways.

 

On 4/6/2018 at 5:27 AM, GoldForest said:

Station parts: We're lacking in this department severely in my opinion.

Well something to figure out first is what to do with stations. They don't really have a purpose other than for the science labs or refueling or looking pretty. This is also common in the rest of space - not much to do once you're there. For the time being then I think its okay. I can make a perfectly reasonable space station without complaining too much. But yes, new parts would be nice if they had a point.

 

On 4/6/2018 at 5:27 AM, GoldForest said:

SLS parts revamp: Now that we have 5m parts, maybe Squad can go back and revamp the SLS, make it actual size.

Why though? Also, the 5m parts IIRC are a Making History thing, no?

I can't really see a point to a revamp of the parts for rescaling to real size, which would be a) insanely large and b) probably overkill for the stock system. Also the cargo variant and what not seems already possible within the game as it is. No need for new parts....

 

On 4/6/2018 at 5:27 AM, GoldForest said:

we're missing the 1.5 stageing part.

I mean... would be cool. Doesn't seem super necessary though...

On 4/6/2018 at 5:27 AM, GoldForest said:

A tiny rcs thruster would be nice

And fiddly to place and what not. Does clipping/offsetting the part in not work or something? At that point why not just integrate it with the capsule?

 

On 4/6/2018 at 5:27 AM, GoldForest said:

a flat inline one

This would be nice. I can support an inline chute.

 

On 4/6/2018 at 5:27 AM, GoldForest said:

Gemini and Titan parts:

Can't comment on these.

 

On 4/6/2018 at 5:27 AM, GoldForest said:

An actual Stage III part or parts would be great. Also, the S-IVB's thruster pack, that would be good too. 3m avionics ring/probe core

But don't we already have the parts for that? I mean, the 2.5m SAS core is modeled after the actual S-IVB stage (sort of I guess.) and we have the 2.5 m remote guidance unit as well. Alternatively, creative building techniques could be used to make things a bit nicer. So I don't think dedicated parts are necessary in this case.

On 4/6/2018 at 5:27 AM, GoldForest said:

Saturn I parts: First stage, -snip- and the engines to go with it.

Ok maybe engines don't exist, but it can be approximated well enough already no? Just cluster a set of fuel tanks around a central core. Again seems unnecessary.

On 4/6/2018 at 5:27 AM, GoldForest said:

(multiplayer) ... a new engine would probably be needed in order for them to be overcome, mainly for the part limit, but I still would like to suggest this. 

No stop. I'll explain my comments on multiplayer later, but even having a nwe optimized engine still means though that the CPU has to still process each part if KSP is going to retain individual part based calculations. Making a new engine won't suddenly make KSP run 8 times as many parts on the same machine. Maybe 1.5 or 2, but you will still run into part count limitations.

On 4/6/2018 at 5:27 AM, GoldForest said:

DLC/Update Ideas:

Mods already do 90% of what you suggest there as far as part packs. And the base game could still use work, before going farther into "moar stuff (tm)". Mainly on polishing. More DLCs aren't going to help the base game get more polish. You've seen how buggy 1.4 is and apparently still is, even after two patches. So I think holding off on DLCs is probably good for now. And although it sounds cool to have more species, it kinda takes the focus away from space (which even I admittedly don't visit too much). And it doesn't seem to be a request in high demand.

 

On 4/6/2018 at 5:27 AM, GoldForest said:

Asteroids, comets, and meteors, oh my

Ok seriously, how often does this come up? Like... really. I don't think super often....  Again. Would be neat but not super necessary.

 

37 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

Client side instances are flexible, and there's an instance per client. So Client A could be in instance number 4 and Client B could be in instance number 6. They will not see each other, not can they interact with each other, unless they sync with Server instance, then the client A and B will be in the same instance. Also, any updates to the client instance effect the Server instance. For example, let's say there's a space station in orbit, and Client A adds a module to it. The station is in Server instance, but because it's being interacted on by the client instance, the server instance will update and pull the new station part into the server instance, and then will update all client instances. Another feature of the client Instance would be Time warp. "But you said there's no time warp." This might get confusing. Okay, let's say Client A sends a rocket to Duna. Client A will time warp inside Instance 4, and will not effect any other instance, nor the server instance. When he gets to Duna, and comes out of time warp. Let's say his friend, client B is who he is meeting there. Client B is inside the Server instance, but Client A is not. All client A has to do is sync with Server instance .The Server will detect he is at Duna and pop him in the same spot he was in his own instance into it's own instance. "What if client A decides to time warp again?" They will be kicked out of the server instance and back into Instance 4. 

That's my idea for how Multiplayer could work. 

Ok.

First - for your station module thing. We assume A adds a module to a station in his own instance, call it Universe-A. So in Universe-A, we have the station with a new module. Now, assume B does the same thing in Universe-B, adding a module to the same docking port. Both then sync with the Master universe (lets call it MasterUni). Now, on the server side thing we have two modules occupying the same docking port. How is this resolved? You have a paradox. Yes shush, I know you say it auto updates once it docks or something, BUT what if B was almost docking and then it suddenly updated, killing his module? You have a problem there then... ALSO, how does timewarp factor into this? Like if B was in his own instance as you say, right? and then comes to the station to dock, but then A docks before hand or afterwards in his own misaligned instance? I see issues....

 

As for your timewarp "solution" - So...... crafts can suddenly jump in and out of instances? Regardless of Position or something? It doesn't seem like a sound solution..... or actually a working one IMO....

 

So yeah. Those are my comments.

 

[GoldForest]

27 minutes ago, qzgy said:

Well since you asked so nicely, I'll have a go.

 

We can make those though. We have the big Kickbacks or so, which can be clustered together (or just used by themselves) and we also have the other fuel tanks we can make into an EFT. Or at the very least an approximation of one, which for me is good enough.

We have no 2.5 meter SRBS and adding multiple kickbacks imo is a little... it takes away from the visual appeal for me. As for EFT, yes, we have the parts to make an approximation, but making the nose cap or end cap is hard in KSP. I know the shuttle parts were sort of just added because of the cockpit, but still, I would love to see actual shuttle parts.

27 minutes ago, qzgy said:

Style disparities have always existed. At least they're working on it. And personally, I'm kinda a fan of the older parts. Call it nostalgia, but I like the old ones. But yes, a single consistent style would be nice.

Also the parts are 2.5 m, not 3 m.

When I said 3m, I meant 3.75m parts, not 2.5 meter parts.

27 minutes ago, qzgy said:

Clip it? Or use 3 1/4 sized tanks to make that middle ground? The nice thing about KSP is that you're not too constrained by the parts - you can mix and match.

Well, I use a half tank then a quarter tank, but even that is a little long, but it statisfies me. 

27 minutes ago, qzgy said:

I disagree. I think we have the parts we need and don't really need a new tank part just for one rocket. Versatility with parts is always good IMO and I don't think a specific engine mount would be good. Maybe some sort of switchable model/tesxture or something like that if you really want a tapered mount. But it can also be approximated in various ways.

Well, I would be fine with a tapering tank part to make the S-IVB mount. I wasn't exactly calling for the exact part, just a few new parts to help make it look like the real thing.

27 minutes ago, qzgy said:

Well something to figure out first is what to do with stations. They don't really have a purpose other than for the science labs or refueling or looking pretty. This is also common in the rest of space - not much to do once you're there. For the time being then I think its okay. I can make a perfectly reasonable space station without complaining too much. But yes, new parts would be nice if they had a point.

Yes, I do agree they had little to no point, but I believe if you make it have a point, then it will have a point. I have a few ideas for stations. In Career mode, they can make it to where a Kerbal earns experience for every day they are in space. And so it can't be farmed or abused, make them earn less and less experience per day. Then when they return to Kerbin, they get a slight multiplier maybe for how long they were up there, to a certain day or percentage. Another feature for Career mode is that stations generate science per day, again with limitations and restrictions so it can't be abused. They could  add special station parts, say a organic lab or a botany lab that you have to maintain to keep the science going, and if the plants or germ cultures die, then you have to send up new ones aboard a rocket. 

27 minutes ago, qzgy said:

Why though? Also, the 5m parts IIRC are a Making History thing, no?

I can't really see a point to a revamp of the parts for rescaling to real size, which would be a) insanely large and b) probably overkill for the stock system. Also the cargo variant and what not seems already possible within the game as it is. No need for new parts....

I didn't say make them real size, well, I didn't mean real size. I meant actual size inside the game. Like add actual Kerbalized SLS parts, the SSME's are too small to lift the new 5m parts , we also are missing the 2m srbs. And like I said, the upper stage of the SLS would be nice. As for the tanks, no need for new parts, just add varients to the current 5m parts

 

27 minutes ago, qzgy said:

 

I mean... would be cool. Doesn't seem super necessary though...

And fiddly to place and what not. Does clipping/offsetting the part in not work or something? At that point why not just integrate it with the capsule?

I had no problem working with FASA's rcs ports for Mercury. They would work 99.99% of the time. Rarely had a problem with placing them.

27 minutes ago, qzgy said:

This would be nice. I can support an inline chute.

I'm honestly surprised there are no inline chutes in game. 

27 minutes ago, qzgy said:

Can't comment on these.

I'm guessing you don't have Making History, or don't care about that certain suggestion, or you don't care for Gemini/Titan and can take it or leave it, or any other reason not listed. 

27 minutes ago, qzgy said:

But don't we already have the parts for that? I mean, the 2.5m SAS core is modeled after the actual S-IVB stage (sort of I guess.) and we have the 2.5 m remote guidance unit as well. Alternatively, creative building techniques could be used to make things a bit nicer. So I don't think dedicated parts are necessary in this case.

No. We don't already have the parts for that. I've been taking the 2m core and sas and clipping them inside the 3m tank, but when you have 3m fairing and 3m fuel tank sandwiching a 2m part, it adds a point for breaking. I have yet to have said breaking, but I do fear the Kraken's wrath. Plus, having mismatched part sizes isn't that good. It's both visually and logistically unappealing imo. So I would like to see 3m probe core, and a 3m sas module. 

27 minutes ago, qzgy said:

Ok maybe engines don't exist, but it can be approximated well enough already no? Just cluster a set of fuel tanks around a central core. Again seems unnecessary.

I tried to make a Saturn IB, it's too heavy to get off the ground if I do it visually, even the Reliant doesn't have enough thrust when put in x8 mode. I had to stick the new Vernior engines on to get the TWR and SLT above 1. I like functionality and good visuals, and the rocket I made barely covers both. 

27 minutes ago, qzgy said:

No stop. I'll explain my comments on multiplayer later, but even having a nwe optimized engine still means though that the CPU has to still process each part if KSP is going to retain individual part based calculations. Making a new engine won't suddenly make KSP run 8 times as many parts on the same machine. Maybe 1.5 or 2, but you will still run into part count limitations.

I know MP is a far cry, I just thought I'd add my vote to wanting it. 

27 minutes ago, qzgy said:

Mods already do 90% of what you suggest there as far as part packs. And the base game could still use work, before going farther into "moar stuff (tm)". Mainly on polishing. More DLCs aren't going to help the base game get more polish. You've seen how buggy 1.4 is and apparently still is, even after two patches. So I think holding off on DLCs is probably good for now. And although it sounds cool to have more species, it kinda takes the focus away from space (which even I admittedly don't visit too much). And it doesn't seem to be a request in high demand.

Yes, but I'm just suggesting future DLC for when the do decide to crack one out. I'm not saying, "NEW DLC NOAH!" all I'm giving is suggestions for when it's time for a new DLC. 

27 minutes ago, qzgy said:

Ok seriously, how often does this come up? Like... really. I don't think super often....  Again. Would be neat but not super necessary.

Again, just a suggestion for them to expand on the Asteroid Day mod/DLC

27 minutes ago, qzgy said:

Ok.

First - for your station module thing. We assume A adds a module to a station in his own instance, call it Universe-A. So in Universe-A, we have the station with a new module. Now, assume B does the same thing in Universe-B, adding a module to the same docking port. Both then sync with the Master universe (lets call it MasterUni). Now, on the server side thing we have two modules occupying the same docking port. How is this resolved? You have a paradox. Yes shush, I know you say it auto updates once it docks or something, BUT what if B was almost docking and then it suddenly updated, killing his module? You have a problem there then... ALSO, how does timewarp factor into this? Like if B was in his own instance as you say, right? and then comes to the station to dock, but then A docks before hand or afterwards in his own misaligned instance? I see issues....

 

As for your timewarp "solution" - So...... crafts can suddenly jump in and out of instances? Regardless of Position or something? It doesn't seem like a sound solution..... or actually a working one IMO....

 

So yeah. Those are my comments.

 

I had thought about that, but I just chocked it down to, *SpongeBob hands* communication. But seriously, if you're building a space station in Multiplayer, you're talking to everyone on server about what you're adding and where it's going. I think Client A would tell Client B, "Hey, I'm going here." then Client B might say, "Oh, well, I was going to go there." And they would sort it out and Client A would wait for CLient B's part, or go somewhere else. 

Well, if two craft are occupying the same exact position, the server would most like throw an error to the person not in the MasterUni. "Hey, someone else is right here, please move to a safe distance of 50m in any direction before proceeding to sync."