What little thing do YOU think should be added to KSP?

[PilotsofRiots]

3 minutes ago, hurric said:

I here those Humans from Earth are a nasty bunch .... keep them away from us at all costs

 

We shouldn't add any hostile Aliens. Maybe friendly ones, right? 

2 minutes ago, kiwi1960 said:

Why? Aliens do not exist, its a figment of your imagination... much like Humans are. The only creatures to exist anywhere in the Universe are us Kerbals.

Slow down there, buddy. I think there's been a lot of evidence KSC has found regarding human existence. They seem to be intelligent according to sources but not as intelligent as us Kerbals. Just for that maybe, we should add them. 

Edited March 22, 2016 by PilotsofRiots

[hurric]

15 minutes ago, kiwi1960 said:

Why? Aliens do not exist, its a figment of your imagination... much like Humans are. The only creatures to exist anywhere in the Universe are us Kerbals.

You forgot ........The Kraken

[kiwi1960]

11 minutes ago, hurric said:

You forgot ........The Kraken

The Kraken is much like Gollum is related to hobbits... they look nothing alike, but Gollum was once a hobbit.
 

For that reason, the Kraken was once a Kerbal... in fact, I seriously suspect it was once Scott Manley.... I haven't seen or heard from him in ages....

[NQMT]

A part that connects with landing gear.

I use planes a lot, and would love to have a tug that works like that.

[TheOtherDave]

On March 20, 2016 at 11:18 PM, ImmaStegosaurus! said:

Ability to select grain geometry/thrust curve would be helpful in many cases.

That's a fantastic idea! 

 

What I came here to post, though:

1) Procedural tanks/wings. It'd *really* simplify the parts list... just pick a size, drop it in, and set the details. To go along with that, if adaptors could be auto-generated, it'd make it much easier to work with multiple plugins with their own body shapes (in theory, all you have to do is create a part with one shape at each end and interpolate between them... dunno how hard that'd be in practice). Plus, since this would let us lower the parts count, it'd help with planes and rockets being all floppy, and it'd simplify the physics.

2) (This mostly applies to planes) Custom control surface response curves based on airspeed and/or air pressure, so that, say, you could have a large control surface that moderately responds to pitch commands when you're moving slowly (like on a take-off run), then the response tapers off as you gain speed (so that stability control doesn't tear your plane apart because it can't figure out that it's causing the very oscillations that its so frantically trying to dampen), and then responds hugely in the upper atmosphere where the air in thin and you need all the control you can get. Also, it'd be handy to have different regimes, so that different control surfaces could behave differently on ascent (where you want low drag) and re-entry (where you want higher drag).

3) An autopilot with a altitude/airspeed holds and heading/attitude holds that can be relative to either the planet or to a nav-ball vector. Say, so you can tell it to hold the heading at 90° east (which would be relative to the planet) and hold the attitude at 15° above prograde.

Edited March 22, 2016 by TheOtherDave

[AeroGav]

One - Nuclear turbojet engines for planetary bodies with atmosphere but no oxygen.

 

Two - Support for Staged Airbreathing in career mode.    Re-usable booster stages and air-launch to orbit are valid strategies to increase re-usability even if SSTO is currently beyond your tech level.      There was a mod that saved the state of jettisoned stages allowing you to fly them back and potentially save them,  but it no longer works with current KSP versions.

Three - more runways please ! If you are using air launch to orbit, the parent aircraft often finds itself far from home, on a sub orbital zoom climb, and low on fuel.  It often cannot return to the space centre and frequently less than half its value is recovered landing on the antipode. 

[Pds314]

My long list of demands :

#1. Props. Electric props, liquid fuel props, LFO props, lift fans, rotors, turboprops, piston engines, prop fans, etc. Preferably, engines and props would be separate so you could make bigger, slower, more efficient workhorse props, or smaller, faster, less efficient ones for high speed.

#2. Fix the ISP of jet engines. Panther, Rapier, Juno and Whiplash are vastly more efficient than they should be. At least double what is realistic, if not worse.

#3. Offer low-weight rockets and tanks. Also offer structurally reinforced tanks like the current ones that are suitable for aircraft and other high-lateral-stress applications. Liquidfuel rocket engines should weigh 25% what they do now. Rocket tanks should weigh much less. Real life tanks are around 2.5x lighter, WITH structural support. Big orange shouldn't be 4 tonnes empty. It should be like 1.5.

#4. Offer a wider range of part sizes. I want to have mk0 and mk2 low-bypass turbofans with tvc and afterburners, mk2 medium-bypass turbofans, mk3 high-bypass turbofans. Heavier jet engines with high temperature limits, or ISP for high-bypass engines. Offer mk0 through 10-meter tanks, cockpits, capsules, fuselages, compartments and passenger cabins, and engines to match.

#5. Add comfort ratings to passenger cabins. It's maddening that a 3.75m airliner cabin about 5 meters long can only transport 16 people (2.5-foot kerbals) to the Island runway, when the real life version common on B-737s or A-320s fits 36 people (6-foot humans) in a smaller space, with extra room for fuel and cargo, to boot. Equally maddening is the fact that the same cabin is viable for permanent habitation, when IRL, having a home with 1 square meter of floor space per person would be considered oppressive, and would probably lead to mass suicide and murder and terrible disease, with people not having room to lay down without being in contact with someone else. The most crowded habitation modules I've encountered in person are college dorms with 3 people in 13.3 m^2. Disease spreads like wildfire and outside time is essentially required for sanity. You absolutely cannot store 13 people in 13 square meters of floorspace indefinitely without running your reputation into the ground. Even putting 3 in there was controversial, considering that it's 4 times more crowded than officially "overcrowded" housing. Also, there's no bathroom included. That would have to be separate, as it is in college dorms.

Basically, we're at a dilemma and Squad has chosen an unusual and unclear solution. A mk3 passenger module could, in reality, hold 40 humans plus cargo and fuel for a short flight, but only 4 humans, if that, for a multi-month excursion. It holds 16, for some reason. I propose we have multiple different setups, with short-term airliner-style modules having realistically high capacity, but quickly eroding passenger comfort, causing them to eventually go berserk one by one. Likewise, larger low- capacity modules allow passengers to live for months. Modules could also be designed for high or microgravity, with microgravity modules being more comfortable in microgravity, but uncomfortable under significant acceleration and vice versa.

#6. Add more sizes of wings and complete the sizes that exist. I want modular FAT-455 wings, as well as wings and surfaces that are small and thin like the basic fins are. Additionally, most mk3 planes are big enough to make The current fat-455 airliner wings look downright dinky, and anything bigger makes them more useful as tailplanes. Really, the normal wings are optimized for 1.25m and mk2 craft. The Fat-455 are optimized for 2.5m craft, and nothing really exists for 3.75m+ craft, least not airliners or similar tube-&-wing designs. I would suggest several new sets of wings, a true 3.75m-sized wing series, a 5m-sized series, a 6.25m- sized series, a 7.5m-sized series, and a 10m-sized series, for those of us who want to build the biggest plane ever flown.

 

And uh, well, I kinda ended up suggesting a spaceplane overhaul anyway. Oops.

 

[Pds314]

Another list of demands:

Auto-adapters: conveniently matches the size and shape of any parts it is connected to by expanding to fill the shape of the part node. Anything from mk2 to S2 to S2 widebody to Mk3/HL, old mk3, old mk2, LLL block, etc. Can be preset with various options like convex, circle, etc. Mass, strength, fuel/battery capacity and cost scale with size. These would also track the offset of the other part, so length and obliqueness could be auto-generated.

Area-ruled tank: automatically thins and thickens to compensate for other parts and correctly area-rule the plane. Available in a wide variety of sizes.

Rotable attachment mount: Available in several sizes: powerful hydraulic mount allows slow, powerful movement of whatever is attached. Allows tilt-rotors/tilt-jets, as well as swing-wings and variable-geometry cockpits.

Widget-based procedural wings and tanks: self-explanatory.

Chines: chines.

[Blaarkies]

@Pds314 Good suggestions, but some of them have a pretty good reason as to why they are...they way they are.

#3: Because it takes nearly 12 000m/s dv to get into low earth orbit, but that much dv in Kerbal universe could easily do a grand tour of the Kerbol solar system. The ridiculous fuel tank wet/dry mass ratio is design to limit the amount of dv attainable. As for heavier aircraft fuel tanks, that makes sense, it stops player from using them in space where they shouldn't be...but what else are we gonna put up there since LF tanks are so rare at the moment?

#5: Snacks!, It's not a fix to all the problems, but it is a step in the right direction. Remember, Squad wants KSP to be accessible by everyone...and if games are loaded with info you need to know before hand, it's going to frustrate a lot of new players(mostly because kerbals committing suicide is not as cool as explosions)

#6: B9 Proc Wings, Yes it is fun building Lego style, but that simply does not work for wings, also i know about marvelous stock planes showcased on youtube, so through clipping it is possible to build perfect wings...but 100+ part spaceplanes don't fly as nice as a 30 part, 20ton payload spaceplane.
Not sure if this is what you meant with "Widget-based procedural wings and tanks" though

[Pds314]

1 hour ago, Blaarkies said:

@Pds314 Good suggestions, but some of them have a pretty good reason as to why they are...they way they are.

#3: Because it takes nearly 12 000m/s dv to get into low earth orbit, but that much dv in Kerbal universe could easily do a grand tour of the Kerbol solar system. The ridiculous fuel tank wet/dry mass ratio is design to limit the amount of dv attainable. As for heavier aircraft fuel tanks, that makes sense, it stops player from using them in space where they shouldn't be...but what else are we gonna put up there since LF tanks are so rare at the moment?

#5: Snacks!, It's not a fix to all the problems, but it is a step in the right direction. Remember, Squad wants KSP to be accessible by everyone...and if games are loaded with info you need to know before hand, it's going to frustrate a lot of new players(mostly because kerbals committing suicide is not as cool as explosions)

#6: B9 Proc Wings, Yes it is fun building Lego style, but that simply does not work for wings, also i know about marvelous stock planes showcased on youtube, so through clipping it is possible to build perfect wings...but 100+ part spaceplanes don't fly as nice as a 30 part, 20ton payload spaceplane.
Not sure if this is what you meant with "Widget-based procedural wings and tanks" though

By widget-based, I mean there's little arrows you can drag to change and move the root and tip.

 

And they do have everything but chemical rockets ridiculously overpowered. Jets don't supercruise on 9k ISP, nor do ions work on a practical amount of solar panels and make kiloNewton thrusts. Nuclear rockets are realistic except for shielding.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Pds314

[Blaarkies]

1 hour ago, Pds314 said:

By widget-based, I mean there's little arrows you can drag to change and move the root and tip.

 

And they do have everything but chemical rockets ridiculously overpowered. Jets don't supercruise on 9k ISP, nor do ions work on a practical amount of solar panels and make kiloNewton thrusts. Nuclear rockets are realistic except for shielding.

That will be amazing, like a scale tool(5th gizmo) that scales any part? But rumor has it, that SQUAD tries to steer away from procedural parts. I guess it fits inline with the no-random-universe concept as well:

"Hey you should see this awesome ship i built with these parts"
..."yeah? how did you do it, mine doesn't work" -because the friend didn't scale up parts to the same amount. It a stupid example, but I understand why(if) SQUAD doesn't do it.

I agree with you, but some stuff dont have clear answers for fixes. Like Ion engines are always going to be the odd ones, until some thrust-fast-timewarp becomes available...even as overpowered as they are, I hate myself when burning through 2 big 1.25m ion tanks, with 1 ion engine(that fits a comfortable section of the dv/mass curve)...if I have to sit and watch a burn, on 4x timewarp for 5-minutes RL, I give up and do "MOAR BOOSTERS!!"

[hurric]

How about .... being as this in reality  is just a computer Game/simulation

 

When you actually complete a mission (or) land without killing your crew...you get a round of applause from the guys back at mission control .... a simple sound file would suffice

It happens in real life so why not here

Edited March 24, 2016 by hurric

[Foxbat]

Capability to toggle solid floor in VAB/SPH.  Probably many uses but I would like to line up stock docking ports for base assembly or refueling units without having to constantly test & adjust alignment.

[max_creative]

Easter eggs on Dres!

[ImmaStegosaurus!]

This thing is basically a really long and thin wire that has a negative charge. It causes drag and slows down a satellite until it has reached wanted altitude or entered atmosphere. Sort of like an ion engine but it can only brake and it's a wire so cheap it's next to free and requires no fuel. Just electricity and time. Lots of time.

" As a numerical example we estimate that a 5 km long plasma brake tether weighing 0.055 kg (55 grams!) could produce 0.43 mN breaking force which is enough to reduce the orbital altitude of a 260 kg object mass by 100 km during one year. "

Here's a paper about it. Downloadable as PDF.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5968

News article about this and what it's attached to.
http://yle.fi/uutiset/finnish_researchers_invent_plasma_brake_to_curb_space_debris/5544892

Edited March 25, 2016 by ImmaStegosaurus!

[Peder]

We need 3 different sizes of "pivot engines"... Then people can create everything from folding wings/ramps on planes and robot arms ect ect.

Also it would be nice if players would get a reward for finding "easter eggs".. Example we could get money and science when placing a flag within 100m distance from the object.

 

Edited March 25, 2016 by Peder

[zolotiyeruki]

I would like smaller 1.25m monoprop tanks and batteries.  Although I guess I could use a service bay and put monoprop and batteries in it...

[Stoney3K]

Surface-mountable (jet or RAPIER) engines. Since we don't have pivot joints right now, if you want to build a VTOL, you're left with sticking Wheesleys on the surface of an aircraft and half of the engine (and attachment point) sticking out the other end.

Junos are too underpowered to be of any use for VTOL, and the other jets are too heavy or bulky to be integrated into any aircraft. They also lack the gimbal range required for decent VTOL flight.

So some engine we can surface-attach, has a massive static thrust but a rapid falloff with speed and a large gimbal range would be great.

Oh, and one tiny but really useful tool:

A decent part editor with documentation for all the parameters.

Just sayin'.

Edited March 29, 2016 by Stoney3K

[Servo]

LF only tanks in the same footprint as the oranges. Also adapters with LF only

Medium-sized solar panels,

action groups are editable in flight/can be keymapped to other things (besides numerical keys)

 

[Blaarkies]

1 hour ago, Stoney3K said:

Surface-mountable (jet or RAPIER) engines. Since we don't have pivot joints right now, if you want to build a VTOL, you're left with sticking Wheesleys on the surface of an aircraft and half of the engine (and attachment point) sticking out the other end.

Junos are too underpowered to be of any use for VTOL, and the other jets are too heavy or bulky to be integrated into any aircraft. They also lack the gimbal range required for decent VTOL flight.

So some engine we can surface-attach, has a massive static thrust but a rapid falloff with speed and a large gimbal range would be great.

Oh, and one tiny but really useful tool:

A decent part editor with documentation for all the parameters.

Just sayin'.

I think surface attach limits should be removed all together(every single part should be surface attachable). With the new gizmos, it really is just a hassle that you have to circumvent in every design. As soon as I unlock the Oscar tank, I can "surface attach" anything, anywhere(use gizmos on ISRU to make something "look" attached to the unattachable ISRU sides).

It's fine at the start of the tech tree, it limits where parts can be placed and that is great, until tier 3-4(?)

Anyway, VTOL engine sounds good. In the meanwhile, use a Panther in afterburner mode. Real good (and sponsive)thrust, its not super heavy...but use Verniers on the far edges(wing tips, nose, tail), just turn on RCS and maybe CAPSLOCK for precise control(it help a lot for RCS stuff)

[78stonewobble]

I don't know if these are small enough suggestions or too huge or too far removed from ksp:

1. I like mechjeb... I'm not a pilot. I'm not really an engineer either, I just like to build things and see them fly. Something like mechjeb builtin, even if it needs to be unlocked in career or science mode, would be a nice edition for me. I also think that mechjeb/something similar can help people understand what it's all about and teach them how to fly and do things. Some people learn by doing, some people learn by seeing/hearing.

PS: It's not essential at all ... I and others can theoretically just get mechjeb, but not all people are mod/computer savvy... is all im saying.

PPS: Here this autopilot acts as an assistance to the player piloting a craft directly.

2. Maneuvernode precision... I know there are approximations up the wazoo. I'm saying... let the maneuvernode prediction be correct, even if it doesn't mesh some other thing that would normally render the original maneuvernode incorrect for something.

It's frustrating to get presented X information and make a manuevernode Y to accomplish Z, only to find out that the information should have been V and thus the maneuvernode should have been N to get the result of Z.

Yes, I know there are approximations up the wazoo in something like this... just try not to punish the player for that...

PPPS: By all means punish the player for making a mistake, just don't punish the player unnecessarily hard for limitations of internal simulations and calculations.

3. Related to above 2... Autonomous craft and autoexecution of maneuvernodes. Yes, there are some autopilot programs, but I want something that can follow a flightplan I lay out for it... from launch to arriving at a destination (launch and landing via maneuvernodes?), using my maneuvernodes as the "programming".

PPPPS: Here the autopilot acts as a genuine autopilot or spaceprobe maneuver software programme.

4. Wholly unrelated to any of the above... A little story wouldn't hurt...

Alien remnants/artifacts/leftovers/? Not as in making ksp into a scify story at all... just a little ... flavour ... and incentive to visit places and planets...

It doesn't even have to be aliens... Make a spaceprogramme story?!?! A little clip/story/speech/newsarticle/monument to celebrate first flight, first kerbal in space, first kerbal to crash, first kerbal on the mun and so on.

Not a steam achievement thing... Something ingame, that documents and celebrates your achievements and you can look back on and forward to... help the player make a little story about his/her space programme.

These 2 ideas are just my random thoughts on it, inspired by others and possibly inspiring others in return.

EDIT: 5: Something akin to alarmclock should be in the game for multiple simultanious flights.

....

The first 3 things are "small things", not necessarily in the sense that they are time, money and technically easy to throw in the game, but because they're not essential or necessary to enjoy ksp and there are fine mod alternatives that do it adequately... I just think that they could have their place in a solid wellrounded basic ksp game that is equally inviting to new and old players.

PPPPPS: Allthough I might be a little biased towards thinking that mods should stick to adding things like ... parts of the colour you like.. realistic looking parts... or features that are "relatively" (i know, it's subjective) far from the base game like combat. Basic features (whatever the hell that means and we can debate that for the rest of our natural lives) should be in the basic game.

I can try to describe it by analogy from fallout 4 and the settlements system there. The basegame allows for you to manually assign every single settler with gear, weapons, armor and to a specific task. Which is fine... til you have to do that 10 times 20 times. Sure, any minute now you can probably find a mod that can automatically equip settlers with specific gear, weapons, armor depending on their task... but I think that kinda functionality kinda belongs in the game itself.

No offence to modders who do absolutely awesome and amazing things and not just in ksp, but you shouldn't have to cover for developers or be the unpaid backup (I don't think that's the case with ksp at all, but I could be a little worried in the case of fo4).

...

The number 4 thing could probably be construed as a small thing ... but it's not... it needs to be done in a way that matches the wonderfull style of ksp and i don't envy anyone with that task and I can understand why a story was cut... I really do understand... It's a hard thing to get right...

Here I'm just saying, that maybe the reward from engaging players even more and drawing them in... could be worth the risk.

Does KSP NEED a story? No...

Does KSP deserve a story or could a story make KSP better? Maybe, I don't know... I think it's worth toying with the idea from time to time.

Absolutely last PPPPPPS: I don't think squad should use manhour upon manhour on story and not now... but maybe just... keep throwing ideas around the water cooler if you can... It's not like I have the brilliant idea on how to do put a story in... maybe someone else will tho...

Edited March 29, 2016 by 78stonewobble

[Stoney3K]

I don't think I'd want MechJeb in stock, but some degree of precision in my control would be nice.

Right now the only control you have over attitude with stock SAS is to use the stick and to eyeball it, where you can only see the result (not even the target attitude) on the navball. The same with maneuver nodes -- you can only do a rough approximation of the node you want but it's hard to get any precision out of that.

A numerical control panel which allows the player to punch in numbers for exact attitude, and for maneuver nodes would be awesome, something similar to RemoteTech's Flight Computer gadget. It's part of even the most basic of spacecraft so IMO it should be part of the game.

[78stonewobble]

11 hours ago, Stoney3K said:

I don't think I'd want MechJeb in stock, but some degree of precision in my control would be nice.

Right now the only control you have over attitude with stock SAS is to use the stick and to eyeball it, where you can only see the result (not even the target attitude) on the navball. The same with maneuver nodes -- you can only do a rough approximation of the node you want but it's hard to get any precision out of that.

A numerical control panel which allows the player to punch in numbers for exact attitude, and for maneuver nodes would be awesome, something similar to RemoteTech's Flight Computer gadget. It's part of even the most basic of spacecraft so IMO it should be part of the game.

Well, you wouldn't be forced to use mechjeb or the analogue in stock... but I think something similar deserves to be there, because it can be a great teacher by showing you how to accomplish something in the game, right there in the game... by seeing how, where and when it maneuvers.

I think that all the text guides, youtube videos and even tutorials can only do so much...

A built in option that can show a new player how to do something... Can do that 1 thing an experienced player just hates doing (docking or landing or taking off or flying in a straight line for 5 minutes) or the option to automate parts of your giant spaceprogram if the player so chooses.

PS: A 2nd reason is offcourse the precision you mention... Precise maneuvering can be so finicky with the manuevernodes as they are.

PPS: I don't need it in stock either. I could allways go get it as a mod... but I think it or something similar deserves to be part of the stock options for a new player or even the experienced ones. I mean I didn't need improved water either... I don't use it... but other people do...

[qzgy]

Better root tool?

Things breaking by buckling or melting not just exploding?

[Stoney3K]

7 hours ago, 78stonewobble said:

Well, you wouldn't be forced to use mechjeb or the analogue in stock... but I think something similar deserves to be there, because it can be a great teacher by showing you how to accomplish something in the game, right there in the game... by seeing how, where and when it maneuvers.

I think that all the text guides, youtube videos and even tutorials can only do so much...

A built in option that can show a new player how to do something... Can do that 1 thing an experienced player just hates doing (docking or landing or taking off or flying in a straight line for 5 minutes) or the option to automate parts of your giant spaceprogram if the player so chooses.

PS: A 2nd reason is offcourse the precision you mention... Precise maneuvering can be so finicky with the manuevernodes as they are.

PPS: I don't need it in stock either. I could allways go get it as a mod... but I think it or something similar deserves to be part of the stock options for a new player or even the experienced ones. I mean I didn't need improved water either... I don't use it... but other people do...

Exactly that. Right now, with the stock SAS it's all but impossible to fly "exactly 90 degrees east, 10 degrees pitch up, and wings level", you can only approximate that manually by pointing your nose in about the right direction and hope for the best.

I don't really need Ascent Guidance or a Maneuver Planner (although a tool that shows me where the best Hohmann transfer window is would be great) but something that allows me to steer a craft with some degree of precision is really appreciated.

A better SAS would also give you control over where your PROGRADE vector is pointing (ie. where you're actually going) and not just where your nose is pointing. If a crude autopilot can control that, it would be less tiresome to fly straight and level for 10 minutes (prograde on zero pitch would just hold altitude) or to track a nearby target in orbit (keep prograde on the target and you're going to hit it bang on).