Official v0.18 Upcoming thread

[COBALT]

Has anyone realised that SQUAD still need to implement the things that weren't fully finished in 0.17's release.

I mean, why didn't anyone say anything about the fact that they didn't end up making Moho 1/2 rock 1/2 lava!? I was actually really looking forward to that.

Also I think they will be working on improvements to Jool's atmosphere, Eve's invisible oceans and bugs in map view.

They should really also be improving IVA, adding more to it and actually finishing it as most spaceplane CMs don't have controls or windows and the spaceplanes need special, separate controls and feedback from the rocket CMs.

[CobraA1]

I don't want realistic ion engines in KSP, and here's why:

KSP is a game. It should be fun. And part of making a good, fun game is controlling the pacing. Just leaving the window open for hours, nay days on end while an engine is thrusting may be realistic, but not in line with making KSP fun. The average KSP mission probably shouldn't take much more than an hour. It certainly shouldn't take days. The nuclear engine is the closest I ever want to get to an ion engine in KSP.

[ultrasquid]

I don't want realistic ion engines in KSP, and here's why:

KSP is a game. It should be fun. And part of making a good, fun game is controlling the pacing. Just leaving the window open for hours, nay days on end while an engine is thrusting may be realistic, but not in line with making KSP fun.…

But isn't part of the fun of space exploration that 7 year wait between lofting your probe to one of the gas giants only to find the parabolic antenna doesn't open properly when it gets there? Just think of all the Munshots you can do while waiting for that distress bleep from the low-gain secondary transmitter on the probe.

My point being that there are many ways to play the game. If you don't have the patience to fly with ion propulsion, then you don't have to use it, but don't begrudge those who might want to.

Of course, to do that, we'd need some way to handle off-focus continuing operations-- that is: powered flights running on their own the way we have persistent objects in orbit now.

[cardgame]

Spaceplanes are best with their current cockpits IMO simply because it looks much more impressive.

[Nadrek]

I don't want realistic ion engines in KSP, and here's why:

KSP is a game. It should be fun. And part of making a good, fun game is controlling the pacing. Just leaving the window open for hours, nay days on end while an engine is thrusting may be realistic, but not in line with making KSP fun. The average KSP mission probably shouldn't take much more than an hour. It certainly shouldn't take days. The nuclear engine is the closest I ever want to get to an ion engine in KSP.

Personally, I'd love realistic or near-realistic ion engines! Your pacing and my pacing are different; I'm _quite_ happy to leave KSP running in the background for hours at a time - and the new physics warps will help that immensely. I've been doing that since playing Harpoon when it first came out - set up your scenario, give your commands, watch the first few launches of the main battle... and go to sleep. Check it in the morning and by the following evening, perhaps you can do something else again.

Remember, we all play KSP differently. Sometimes only a tiny bit differently, sometimes it's as if it were N completely different games.

Now, I do have to agree that long-term powered flights running while not the focus would be awesome (and would allow the solar powered satellite users options to "keep the panels pointed at the sun" and comm/spy sats to keep antennas oriented at their targets), but I can see that it's not real high on the list right now.

[Nadrek]

I'm going to go with some simple things:

1) Toggle vertical snap in the VAB/SPH - even the current snap to center would be fine, though a few settings (top, 25% down, center, 75% down, bottom) would be even better, just like the current symmetry options.

2) Increased strength large radial decoupler.

3) Standoff fuel line - right now, connecting staged fuel stacks sometimes requires using a small hardpoint between the fuel tank and the fuel line so the fuel line can get past certain items, like decouplers.

4) Even longer landing legs (I have to use two small hardpoints to get the large legs to reach ground past the nuclear engine) - no larger in diameter than the current large ones, unless 5) and 7) are also done.

5) All landing legs should allow strut reinforcement (see 4) )

6) Longer radial decouplers - sometimes I just need more distance so I can pack things in between, or put parts below others and not have exhaust blow them up.

7) Long hardpoints (see 6) )

8) Septcouplers - in particular, so I can place 7 engines under a large fuel tank (assuming they don't guarantee explosions). Alternate: Anything more than 4.

9) Fixed Aerospike placement. Now I have to put FL-200 fuel tanks under the tricoupler to get the Aerospikes to "attach", and that gives me fuel line headaches.

10) Finer grained rotation. When placing the separator rocket on top of a hex symmetry outer set of fuel tanks, it's not possible to point them all at the center. octo symmetry would be worse!

And on the "I'd like it, but I doubt it" list:

A) "Symmetry applies to [Current part/Overall rocket]". I.e. when I build some rockets, I can use symmetry to put tanks around the center. Then symmetry applies to the overall rocket automatically. If I have to hand-place those tanks (absolutely required sometimes), then symmetry applies to the current part... even if I created a 6x symmetric rocket, and wished I could use symmetry every again.

Yes, I love big rockets.

[karolus10]

I think that ion engines problem could be solved when on-rails orbital decay calculations will be possible. Ion engines has thrust so small, that they could be trait similar like drag in the upper atmosphere (cut in KSP on 70 km because of inability to higher warps in low density atmosphere) making possible using tiny thrust of ion engines on-rails (if such thing is possible in KSP).

[Neomatt]

Only one thing I want for 0.18, and it's sorta planned/thought about: improved patched conics in the map view for easier rendez-vous/interplanetary travel.

Right now, without a trusty calculator on Alt-Tab, it's impossible to guess by trial-and-error a trajectory. And I love to do just that.

[BlueSubstance]

... Hahh...

I WANT A PROBE CENTER!!!

Or a Rover Center!!!!!!!

-Blue

[bamarocks777]

Best thing to add would be the ability to select the Second Space Center for launch of rockets and the ability to have different launch towers for all of your rockets instead of just always using one. another thing would be the ability to move around freely in your capsule during an IVA. Maybe even also docking hahaha just kidding. I would like to see docking at around .20 instead of .18 or .19. LOL

[Exclipse]

Would like to have the ability to turn off any engine, not just jet engines.

[Stevenator1]

I would like to think in terms of efficiency rather than new features.

In addition, the features that should be added are the ones that are small changes to the code, but large changes to the gameplay (or ease of gameplay).

In terms of efficiency-

1. A realistic drag model (as I understand it, and I believe I understand it well) is not hard, the only issue is optimization, making it a feasible solution. Unfortunately, I have seen drag equations, and I know how ridiculous they are on ops...

2. Another possibility (which was started with the addition of 2M parts) is to make larger parts. This makes less lag in the point that you can just have less parts, less physics, less calculations - to do the same objective in the game.

3. Though this option slightly degrades the <realistic> physics of the game, it is an option - upon launching a ship, find groups of parts based on integrity, staging, and overall mass of the section and the whole ship. If the section is all in one stage, is very tightly put together, and not too small of a mass in ratio with the rest of the ship, an option is to "permanently weld" the parts together, allowing them to act as 1 physics object. Though this would take a lot of work to implement, it could essentially render very large ships into simple physics objects, that could just "unweld" upon breaking, to give us the same fantastic explosions we know and love.

4. Though this doesn't fit too much into efficiency, the issue of rocketing through a planet/moon when going into it with too high of a warp. It has many times caused crashes or slingshots that I would rather avoid, and would make for a better user experience.

And in terms of easy to implement features that drastically change gameplay:

1. Entry reheat. This is a generally simple game mechanic to add, but drastically changes how you play the game.

2. A simple start on a career mode. This could even be as simple as having a set amount of Kerbals you can launch into space, placing a higher priority on getting your Kerbs back to the planet alive.

3. Better support for different fuel types in parts. This not only would enable the stock game to have nuclear power cells easier, but also helps modders that do supply and electricity mods.

[ManMustExplore]

I would really love a way to fix, destroy parts during EVA's. Also bigger pods would be nice.

[Xel_AI]

Dear Devs...

In lieu of the new awesome ( n-squared ) planets , I have a suggestion.

Seeing as most rockets and amateurs will not be able to reach the planet due to lack of fuel and stuff like that , I think it's time to add new methods of travel in. (Nope , not teleporters)

Instead , I think it's time to add Starships capable of visiting multiple planets. Don't use the launchpad , you can create a starship launching platform right?

I'll make a tiny suggestion - use MagLev assisted mass drivers, where a powerful magnet accelerates the StarShip into orbit without much effort.

[_Aramchek_]

I think people need to remember the game is still fairly early and lots of "game" elements are going to have to wait until the bigger elements are in place.

[brandonw00]

One cool graphical feature I'd like to see is your ship breaking the sound barrier when you are exiting the atmosphere. It would add a neat touch to the game.

[Stephens.P]

I would like to see atmosphere and heat effects

[RoboRay]

I would love to see a lander capsule. So then I can see horizontally while I land.

Engineer 1: That will require the astronaut flying the LEM... to make a 90-degree change in axis. Left roll becomes left yaw. But left yaw becomes right roll...

Engineer 2: Astronauts are smart. They'll figure it out.

Engineer 1: Hello? They're Kerbal astronauts.

Engineer 2: (long pause) We need another design. I'll call

the configuration control board.

Edited September 24, 2012 by RoboRay

[jenskerman]

A new building like control center (for missions an stuff) or a kerbonaut trainig center or a qbservatory would be nice...

[marcoboy123]

Asteroids!

Or more dangerous thing and EXPLOSIONS !!!

And that you haven't invincible money!(No Sandbox)

That would make the game a lot of funnier

[EvilotionCR2]

No. It's not.

---

More planets will not come for a long time. In the near term we'll be looking at improvements to existing planets, applying polish, etc.

We have a basic idea of what we want to do for 0.18 already, although I don't really know details (if I could, it's not like I could say)

PS: Stop suggesting docking. It's not happening in 0.18. Besides, you guys have two docking mods to play with in the meantime!

[Awaras]

I'm going to go with some simple things:

1) Toggle vertical snap in the VAB/SPH - even the current snap to center would be fine, though a few settings (top, 25% down, center, 75% down, bottom) would be even better, just like the current symmetry options.

This would make me a happy camper - The different height settings would be icing on the cake but a simple on/off button would be very welcome because I can't count the times I have had to restart the game just to place a few tanks in perfect vertical alignment...

Also, I would love to see a keyboard shortcut to switch the different patched conic draw modes on the fly, since they can all be useful in different situations - for example, draw mode 0 is ideal for fine tuning a transfer orbit to another planet because you can zoom in on the target planet and see the patched conic projection close up, but it is not very practical for other uses.

Maybe the devs could implement a menu similar to the dev options menu that opens when you hit a certain combination of keys or something like that...

Edited September 24, 2012 by Awaras

[aggressorblue]

Personally, I'd like to see the GUI given a lot of much needed attention, modders can and have implemented a ton of content and mods. They generally can't change the core underpinnings of the game.

Some ideas for ship building GUI:

-Un-do/re-do buttons for part's placement

-the ability to select and delete parts from within the sidebar while building a ship (*really* annoying when you 'loose' a strut connector within a ship...)

-More organized viewing of ship parts, for example The propulsion tab has several sub tabs (perhaps allgined vertically down the side of the tool 'bin') that sorts by SRBs vs Liquid Engines Vs. Fuel Tanks. Another prime example of hot lo leverage this is to sort by part diameter size.

-A taller Hanger building

-Ability to add/remove/change command modules during building

-More obvious highlighting of selected parts

-Allow a staging overview, ie ability to highlight all parts activated in a given stage stage

-Remove static parts from staging view (one can not 'activate' a strut, for example. Why does it need to appear in the stage view?)

-By default, Launch support tower should be assigned to lowest stage!

For Orbital/Flight ops:

-Allow thrust control while in map view

-Allow Picture-in-Picture (PiP) screens. egs: view the map in a small window in the corner of the screen while in the external views, or view the outside of the craft while in the cockpit view.

-Clicking a part from within the staging menu has the same effect as click the part itself. Take the folding latter as an example. I have to click the part on the craft to activate it currently, but it would be nice to just do so from the staging menu. Even better create a sub-menu with the flight ops GUI that groups all dynamic parts together, for easier access of activation.

-Allow a special 'emergency' stage, that would activate, say, an escape tower, and be assigned to a given hot-key.

Hope any of that helps. Keep up the good work

[Awaras]

-Un-do/re-do buttons for part's placement

You can already do this with Ctrl-Z and Ctrl-Y

For Orbital/Flight ops:

-Allow thrust control while in map view

You can do this already, you just need to pull up the navball by clicking on the tab in the bottom of the screen.

[Moustachauve]

Can I see 2 "orbit" indicating the FOI of the moon?