KSP 1.11 update

[catloaf]

I would like the to add more rover parts. Perseverance style wheels, chemcam, rocker-boogie suspension to fit the rove-mate, stock bon voyage, cables in breaking ground to help build skycranes. Other changes I would like is to make the light part colored like the light in lights, so a light emitting green light is actually green. And rebalancing progression a little bit. I would like squad to make the early nodes cheaper but make the later nodes much more expensive, requiring you to go interplanetary to complete the tech tree, but reducing science grind in the early game. As well as grouping parts in a reasonable way, like giving the player all the fl-t tanks at the same time, since each is just a stretched version of the same tank.

[Guest]

I'm not part of the Elon Musk fan club due to his politics and personal behaviour, but I still admire his accomplishments, and there's no denying his and SpaceX's significance. KSP has room for the American and Soviet space programs and makes a hat-tip to SS-Sturmbannführer Wernher von Braun, the NSDAP scientist responsible for the V2, so I can't see how a SpaceX collaboration would be any different. 

And hey, if it gets us mod-less stage recovery, I'll switch from "neutral" to "all in favour of."

Edited August 10, 2020 by Guest

[Hannu2]

On 8/5/2020 at 11:49 PM, rettter3 said:

Edit: If he would be interested in science, he would have sent a probe to mars and not his Tesla.

He is not interested in science for science. Science is a tool for him and actual objectives are to do some monumental operations (and have absurd amount of money and power to make it possible). There is no good scientific reasons for manned space operations now. It is based on ideology.

But if Musk and other new space company owners develop powerful and economical rockets and get those programs profitable by launching tens thousands of commercial satellites, also space science will benefit of cheaper launches. It will be possible to have higher performance probes, space telescopes, gravity wave observation satellites etc. scientific stuff for future science funds. Science will never be a reason to develop rockets.

SpaceX does not have ability to build planetary probes. It would cost more time and money than developing of rockets. And no organization able to build Mars probes would not have accepted first technical test flight of new rocket model to launch their multi billion probes even flight has been free. Few hundred millions for ULA or Ariane rocket with very reliable launch record is small part of Mars probe's budget.

[purpleivan]

On 8/6/2020 at 12:22 AM, Vanamonde said:

If you have reservations about associating KSP with Elon Musk, please give reasons rather than resort to name calling either his supporters or the man himself. Derogatory terms have been removed. 

I'd usually steer clear of something like this, leaving KSP to it's own happy world(s), but in this case reality seems to be gatecrashing that party.

I think it's safe to say that given his attempts to label a certain cave diver something very innapropriate with zero evidence, his run ins with the SEC (including potential stock price manipulation),  not to mention his antics attempting to reopen a factory in California, in the midst of a pandemic, in direct opposition to the guideance of the state of California... etc. that Musk is at least, a controversial individual.

As for SpaceX, a very different matter. They (and by that I mean their many tallented and hard working engineers) have done astounding work to achieve what they have and are clearly the foremost private launch company globally.

[pandaman]

6 hours ago, Hannu2 said:

...And no organization able to build Mars probes would not have accepted first technical test flight of new rocket model to launch their multi billion probes even flight has been free. Few hundred millions for ULA or Ariane rocket with very reliable launch record is small part of Mars probe's budget.

This ^^

The Tesla+Starman was just a 'dummy' payload (pun intended).  Much more fun and better PR than a chunk of concretevit whatever, but ultimately still fully expendable.  Would have been neat if he'd stuck on solar panels etc to keep the cameras working and able beam images home for years though.

[Cloakedwand72]

On 8/4/2020 at 8:15 AM, miguelsgamingch said:

A Collaboration With SpaceX Is possible, as elon is a fan of the game.

But i want to see more opinion. 

I want to see a SpaceX themed pack with Falcon 9 & Falcon heavy decouplers & crew dragon & nose cones for side boosters & of course starship in a KSP update. That’d be a cool update.

[GuessingEveryDay]

8 hours ago, Cloakedwand72 said:

I want to see a SpaceX themed pack with Falcon 9 & Falcon heavy decouplers & crew dragon & nose cones for side boosters & of course starship in a KSP update. That’d be a cool update.

These parts are mostly available through mods.

 

[Souptime]

On 8/10/2020 at 12:45 AM, catloaf said:

I would like the to add more rover parts. Perseverance style wheels, chemcam, rocker-boogie suspension to fit the rove-mate, stock bon voyage, cables in breaking ground to help build skycranes. Other changes I would like is to make the light part colored like the light in lights, so a light emitting green light is actually green. And rebalancing progression a little bit. I would like squad to make the early nodes cheaper but make the later nodes much more expensive, requiring you to go interplanetary to complete the tech tree, but reducing science grind in the early game. As well as grouping parts in a reasonable way, like giving the player all the fl-t tanks at the same time, since each is just a stretched version of the same tank.

OH YES DEFO MORE ROVER PARTS!!!!

But maybe ALSO some more engines!

"KSP 1.11, lets light this candle"

SRB's are unblanced, they need more thrust as most IRL srb's i've read on wikipedia have much more thrust than regular LFO engines, and we need low thrust small engines for things like (k)orion or probes, Rover parts and general tweaks ti make the game better, definetly more 3.5 meter parts as alot of ingame (Stock) things are medium, not large or small y'know? there's defo mods to fix all these but for stock players i think it would be nice

On 8/4/2020 at 4:27 PM, Bill Phil said:

Eh. I'm not a big fan of Elon and his ventures (for a variety of reasons). 

I would rather KSP work with more space programs and scientists, as well as focus on graphics and bugfixes. Maybe a few more DLC if they think they can add new and fun gameplay elements (a colony DLC would be interesting, though that might be better understood as an expansion and perhaps better left to KSP2). 

Oh yeah, colony updates, and more station parts. BUT i propose another idea: THE AISAN UPDATE! most ksp parts are based off of the NASA parts. But i want to make the KSRO and KAXA, japanese/chinese/indian parts and stuff like that. If yall want ideas i got plenty of them

[Souptime]

And russian parts, maybe more launchsites in the making history DLC

[Souptime]

This should be moved to suggestions and development

[mvb4298]

ULA update ??

 

[Gargamel]

On 8/12/2020 at 12:55 AM, Souptime said:

This should be moved to suggestions and development

That's a very valid point.   So moved. 

[kerbiloid]

 

On 8/12/2020 at 7:45 AM, Souptime said:

And russian parts, maybe more launchsites in the making history DLC

But to discover them you should first fly by by plane.

Spoiler

 

 

[mvb4298]

On 8/14/2020 at 11:43 AM, kerbiloid said:

 

But to discover them you should first fly by by plane.

  Hide contents

 

 

U-2

how about missions in science mode

[Lewie]

8 hours ago, mvb4298 said:

how about missions in science mode

Oooh now that’s an idea!

 

[theJesuit]

9 hours ago, mvb4298 said:

U-2

how about missions in science mode

If we have missions in science mode, can we also get upgrades to the buildings in science mode?

Actually, here is a mod idea - cost of everything becomes 0 - no funds from contracts - no cost to build anything.  Instead, to get funds to upgrade facilities you need to convert your Rep, or Sci, or both! to funds.  Or, world firsts are the only contracts to get funds.

Edited August 18, 2020 by theJesuit

[mvb4298]

weather ?

 

[Emilius73]

On 8/4/2020 at 7:51 AM, AlamoVampire said:

What follows is my opinion and likely will be an unpopular opinion given the fanbase SpaceX has. Again my opinion.

 

I am personally not a fan of the idea of ksp partnering with SpaceX. Why? I honestly dislike how Elon thinks trashing LEO with starlink satellites is a good idea. I am all for reusability do not misunderstand, but his practice of adding hundreds of satellites to low earth orbit that rob deep sky astrophotographers of valuable data (wasted frames, seconds to upwards of 7-10 minute shots) all because of a shiny train of satellites tore through the shot streaking it? I was a spacex fan before starlink, not any more. Yes its great to see NASA crews launch from Florida, but, to me, starlink tainted spacex for me. 100% my opinion. 
 

075108042020

I get it, Starlink can affect astronomical observations. But think of this: that "train" of sats is only formed right after launch, with the sats then raising their orbits and putting themselves in their final positions. And as mentioned before, new technology always has problems, but IMO having a system like Starlink is much more beneficial over its marginal effect on astronomy. If Starlink works, millions of people will have access to high-speed internet all over the world, and the internet is every day becoming more important in our lives. The pros outweigh the cons immensely.

Seeing a problem with a new technology is no reason to abandon it. It's a reason to fix it.

And besides, why is Starlink an obstacle to SpaceX featuring in a videogame? I see no reason behind this.

On 8/5/2020 at 3:49 PM, rettter3 said:

If he would be interested in science, he would have sent a probe to mars and not his Tesla.

If Elon wouldn't be interested in science, SpaceX, Starlink, Neuralink, SolarCity, Boring Company, etc. would either not exist or be very different. Also remember that the Tesla was 1. Not launched to Mars, but to a Mars-crossing orbit around the Sun and 2. The Tesla launch was a test flight for a completely untested vehicle, meaning launching a probe in that flight would have meant spending billions of dollars and putting those billions at an immense risk since the vehicle was (before that flight) completely unproven.

Edited August 19, 2020 by Emilius73

[GuessingEveryDay]

29 minutes ago, Emilius73 said:

I get it, Starlink can affect astronomical observations. But think of this: that "train" of sats is only formed right after launch, with the sats then raising their orbits and putting themselves in their final positions. And as mentioned before, new technology always has problems, but IMO having a system like Starlink is much more beneficial over its marginal effect on astronomy. If Starlink works, millions of people will have access to high-speed internet all over the world, and the internet is every day becoming more important in our lives. The pros outweigh the cons immensely.

Seeing a problem with a new technology is no reason to abandon it. It's a reason to fix it.

And besides, why is Starlink an obstacle to SpaceX featuring in a videogame? I see no reason behind this.

If Elon wouldn't be interested in science, SpaceX, Starlink, Neuralink, SolarCity, Boring Company, etc. would either not exist or be very different. Also remember that the Tesla was 1. Not launched to Mars, but to a Mars-crossing orbit around the Sun and 2. The Tesla launch was a test flight for a completely untested vehicle, meaning launching a probe in that flight would have meant spending billions of dollars and putting those billions at an immense risk since the vehicle was (before that flight) completely unproven.

Couldn't have said it better.

[Incarnation of Chaos]

Personally unless it comes with a stock FMRS, then I wouldn't see the point of any SpaceX parts. 

As for any objections based on Musk...

Please bro, Von braun used POWs to build his rockets. The USSR were hardly angels either, oh and the entire reason why any of this technology was pursued after WWII at all was to deliver the most deadly weapon ever created by man. The hydrogen bomb.

If we can separate all of that from apollo and space exploration in general, I think people will get over some Falcon 9 parts....

Edited August 26, 2020 by Incarnation of Chaos

[Fraktal]

Me, I flat-out don't give a damn what Elon does between rocket launches. Partially because I'm against the whole "ostracize this person for all eternity, waah waah waah!" thing that's all too prevalent these days whenever anyone steps out of line for what's considered politically correct and partially because if Squad would really care about this sort of thing, they wouldn't have included Making History's Soviet-themed parts after what happened to Komarov due to the Party wanting a PR stunt for Lenin's birthday and wouldn't have included the Big-S parts either after the deaths of the Challenger crew due to NASA managers rushing the launch. Allowing those but excluding SpaceX would be a colossal double standard, no matter how much of an idiot Elon makes of himself.

Anyway. Things I'd like to have in future updates:

• Landing gear than can fully retract into the fuselage, yes. It could work as either legged variants for existing fuel tanks, or as radially attached parts that invisibly clip into the stack while retracted. I think this latter one would be easier to implement.
• Give the existing landing legs variants that allow the player to choose between horizontal and vertical clearance - that is, allow the legs to reach out further away from the lander, increasing the size of the ground contact area for better stability on a slope but at the cost of the landing leg not being as tall, meaning you have to choose between increased stability or decreased chance of tailstriking on touchdown. If that's not an option, then just give several variants with different leg lengths.
• Speaking of which. A structural rail part of variable length and possibly width, designed to be mounted radially so that if whatever engine you're using on your lander is too big for your landing legs (ex. LT-05 versus Terrier, LT-1 versus Poodle), you can offset the landing leg downwards to reach the ground without half of the landing leg's mounting visibly hanging in the air.
• Visual overhaul for the Reliant and the Swivel. Pretty much all the other engines got a pretty-up so far, so why not these two?
• Visual overhaul for plane parts. The Mk1 cockpits and crew cabin, the intake and the Mk0 tank are the ones most in need of retexturing. To a lesser extent the Mk1 tank needs something done with the texture as well, since it almost always ends up rotated in weird ways when radially attaching it. Wings would also be good with a smooth all-white texture as an alternative to the current black-trimmed-hodgepodge one.
• Drop tank parts for planes that have built-in radial decouplers and do not cause horribad drag like a standard decoupler would, optionally with an advanced tweakable that automatically stages off the tank once it's empty at the cost of the player not being able to drop it manually anymore.
  • And if we're already at it, how about some conformal fuel tanks?
• A quality-of-life mechanism for making it easier to snap elevons onto wings with minimal clipping regardless of wing orientation.
• Fixing the MEM's off-center CoM. It's been years, Squad, what's keeping you?
• Let the player fine-tune how far apart the dynamic attachment points are on an Engine Plate. It's annoying when two engines are not enough thrust but adding a third causes the engine bells to clip into each other.
• Alternate configurations of the existing vacuum engines that also double as size adapters. I'm thinking something like an upside-down FL-A5/FL-A10/R-type adapter with half a dozen or so exhaust nozzles at the circumference (visually firing diagonally outwards rather than downwards but the thrust vector points downwards) rather than one or two bells in the middle, leaving enough room in the center for an inline attachment node.
• Merge the 1x6 and 3x2 solar panels into a single part as variants, along with a few more possible combinations.
• Inline solar panel part. Basically a quarter-length Structural Fuselage with four OX-STAT panels equidistantly integrated into its circumference, sunken into the surface deep enough to seamlessly maintain the 1.25m diameter with no extra drag. Optionally, it can also close shutters over the panels to disable power generation but withstand reentry heat better. Of course, the integrated nature of the panels means no sun tracking.
• Zero-gee passenger cabins in more sizes.
  • 1.25m has the Mk1 crew cabin, but its interior is very much not that of a zero-gee cabin. I'm thinking a fairly minimalist cabin with a one-guy-behind-the-other sitting arrangement, similar to the Mk2 inline cockpit or the KV-2 pod. Optionally, the cabin's diameter is slightly larger than 1.25m, about the same as if the Mk1 lander can was circular rather than octagonal.
  • For 1.875m, I'm thinking a three-seater cabin where the passengers are sitting either facing outwards, back-to-back with each other, or rest their backs against the rear of the cabin with their heads pointing inwards in a trefoil formation. Refer to the Ares capsule in The Martian to see what I'm thinking of.
  • For 3.75m, I'm thinking something similar to the Hitchhiker Storage Module but with a double-deck internal design similar to the science lab, with three seats per deck and a ladder in the middle of the IVA space.
• And if we're already at crew arrangements, how about a late-game high-visibility 1.25m command pod, something like an External Command Seat sitting in a spherical glass dome the size of a KV pod for 360° panoramic visibility?
  • Which way the seat is oriented relative to the pod's attachment point (ie. whether the attachment point is behind, below or even above the seat) is an advanced tweakable.
  • No top attachment node and nothing can be radially attached to the pod.
  • No monopropellant storage and no built-in reaction wheel because there's visibly no space for it.
  • Slightly lower than average impact tolerance due to the outer hull literally being made of glass.
  • Heat tolerance about on par with the Mk1 lander can due to all the glass, plus the canopy is slightly wider than 1.25m so shielding it during reentry is difficult. Optionally, the part would also have a shutter-like heatshield that covers the canopy from the bottom up when deployed, making the pod as heat-resistant as the Mk1 command pod at the cost of losing the visibility.
  • Not sure if the canopy would also function as an EVA hatch. If it does and the above heatshield is implemented, buttoning up disables the hatch.

Edited August 26, 2020 by Fraktal

[SOXBLOX]

    I think that we're likely to see an update centered around Perseverance and Ingenuity, New Horizons, and more comet stuff. Maybe something to make a mission equivalent to Stardust, like a science experiment that collects dust particles? So, rovers, another probe core, reskins of the relay antennas? I want to see reskins of or alternate variants of the LV series to make them more clusterable and prettier overall. And of course, MORE SOLAR PANELS!!! Bigger landing legs, too, I guess? Also would really love to see plain textures for the fuel tanks, like perfectly pure white, with no seams, rivets, etc., and maybe a matte black. Also, expanding on the 3.75 m size cat would be...huge!

    In the QOL category, a transfer window planner could be cool, but I would really like to see a tab in map mode for comets, instead of lumping comets and "space objects" together. 

    As for a SpaceX collab, what would it add? Landing legs, a couple engines? We could use a larger, more capable crew capsule, but I don't want a Dragon clone. A reusability feature is probably out of the question (too complex); though this will likely appear in KSP 2, KSP 1 doesn't seem to be up to the task. And there's a mod for it anyways.

    Of course, a collab like this runs the risk of subtracting a lot. Elon and his company are controversial within the community here; is immortalizing them in the game the best idea? While I do not disagree with his stance on some issues, I do disagree with him on other things. Why should I have to be reminded of his opinions and company when playing a video game about rockets and realistic physics?

    While I don't hate SpaceX, I don't love them either. I was warming up to them (and am still almost excited about Starship), but then I saw a train of Starlink sats while observing. My scope is rather modest; I have no motor drive, no observatory, and only three eyepieces. But even though Starlink won't mess up any of my pictures or ruin any of my work now, it will ruin the work of others, and maybe interfere with mine, if I move to astrophotography. Of course, the trains disperse, but when the constellation is complete, I will be guaranteed to see many, many Starlinks drifting through my FOV. Amateur astronomers will no longer be able to observe the skies without capturing images of satellites, and families will no longer be able to go outside on a cold, clear winter night and see Andromeda and Orion twinkling away, unmarred, as they have for millennia. 

  You can argue that new technology and new space telescopes will solve the imaging issue, but this misses the point. If an industrialist was to cover Mt. McKinley or the Grand Canyon in shopping malls, factories, and even research labs, would you tolerate it? If someone argued, "Well, cameras will take pictures for you to look at, and then we'll build the stores, factories, and labs", would you agree with their argument? Of course not, because the point is for everyone to see these wonders in person, for themselves. Views through telescopes have inspired many young children to grow into engineers and scientists. Dare we take that away? Why would Kerbal Space Program partner with the only company currently doing it, even if said company is looking to correct it?

Edited August 27, 2020 by SOXBLOX

[tosha]

Honestly, the next thing I want to see in stock is some kind of life support. Ever since 1.0, when KSP 'soft integrated' FAR and Deadly Reentry, providing easier and simplified stock versions of realism mods, while leaving them optional, it's seem logical to me that a life support feature should be added. Probably have it off by default, and have plenty of tweakable settings for things like supply usage, penalties, etc.

 

Also making History Engines need to be nerfed, and/or stock engines buffed. It's not fair that you can get (in the case of the wolfhound much) better engines than in stock,  all just by paying $15

 

I mean, I first played the game on my dad's copy in 2012, so that got dlcs for free, but not everyone can have that.

Edited August 29, 2020 by tosha
m

[Fraktal]

3 hours ago, tosha said:

Also making History Engines need to be nerfed, and/or stock engines buffed. It's not fair that you can get (in the case of the wolfhound much) better engines than in stock,  all just by paying $15

You're missing the fact that the Wolfhound is at the end of the tech tree, so you'll get it later than its stock counterpart in terms of size. That balances it out because you still need to use the Poodle until you reach that point. I genuinely can't see why people are so upset at the Wolfhound's high Isp when it's late-game. Of course it's gonna be powerful. Shall we now nerf the Nerv and the RAPIER as well?

And I personally feel that more than one Making History engine is actually underpowered. At the 1.875m diameter, the Bobcat isn't enough to launch even a Mun lander in one stack and you can't cluster more than two per stack without clipping, the Kodiak is flat-out USELESS at the point you get it and once again limited to two per stack before it starts clipping, the Cheetah is unlocked too late to be useful as a middle ground between Terrier and Poodle it should be.

Edited August 29, 2020 by Fraktal

[JIMMY_the_DOG]

On 8/4/2020 at 8:43 AM, Boyster said:

I agree!!!

Expanding on reusability IS A MUST.

I really hope they do it!!!!

Until then check this

It is a gem of a mod!

I had this mod all until ksp got stuck loading some sort of "kartofulkuchen" and refused to load more until i had closed kerbal out after a couple hours..... then i deleted this mod and kerbal loaded so.... anyone know any answers?