My first .24 thoughts

[jpkerman]

With .24 and the gain of science with just completing contracts the amount of science to unlock the advancements in the tech tree needs to be increased. I can get enough science just by completing contracts and ignoring the science experiments. I notice that science is being gained with just the completion of science gathering contracts, separate from any experiment you perform. Those contracts should award prestige and funds but the science you gain should be from the experiment you perform.

The early testing contracts seem to be available after the parts are being used to launch the first ship.

I suggest the first contracts be testing the starting parts before you get the 'Launch a ship" contract.

[Rizendell]

The only thing they really need to focus on are making sure the testing constraints are believable. Example: I have a radial mount parachute contract that says that the minimum speed i can use it is 420 m/s, but the altitude is only max 4.8 km. Obviously nothing is going to be going that fast, that low, in the atmosphere even without parachutes. Im going to have to rig up a super special rocket just to complete it, and its not worth anything, so its just a drain on my funds.

Another example: using the BACC booster at 16000 m. Why would you want to test the booster twice as high as it's going to be used?

Yeah? Try testing the SLS super-long SRB in orbit.

The contract system is suppose to fill your science tree instead of "science mode", so Im not sure why you are complaining about that.

Edited July 18, 2014 by Rizendell

[GusTurbo]

The only thing they really need to focus on are making sure the testing constraints are believable. Example: I have a radial mount parachute contract that says that the minimum speed i can use it is 420 m/s, but the altitude is only max 4.8 km. Obviously nothing is going to be going that fast, that low, in the atmosphere even without parachutes. Im going to have to rig up a super special rocket just to complete it

NASA rigs up super special rockets to test parachutes, so it's not as absurd as you think.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/06/ldsd-rocket-powered-saucer-landing-technology/

[Woopert]

I haven't played the career yet because I'm waiting for mods to be updated, but I have to say 64 bit is amazing! I can run 30+ mods without Active Texture Management with no lag. Many thanks to Squad for implementing it! It's awesome to see how much KSP has been developed throughout my 1.5 years of playing. Contracts really make the game feel more complete.

[Motokid600]

Are contracts tied to specific parts?

[cpast]

Are contracts tied to specific parts?

Some are: one of the five categories of procedural contract is testing a specific part under specific conditions.

[Whirligig Girl]

It's actually meant to make you build things you wouldn't normally build. You also get science from many of these contracts, because you are testing how the thing works.

[Stargate525]

Another example: using the BACC booster at 16000 m. Why would you want to test the booster twice as high as it's going to be used?

Yeah? Try testing the SLS super-long SRB in orbit.

To see how it performs in vacuum? And, as far as I can tell, you don't need to actually burn the whole booster; simply lighting it up long enough to register it suffices. Make it your payload, light it, wait for the contract to clear, then dump it.

I suggest radial.

[Eric S]

I suggest radial.

And I suggest using tweakables in the vab to give it the minimum solid fuel possible so you're not carrying excess weight.

[Stargate525]

And I suggest using tweakables in the vab to give it the minimum solid fuel possible so you're not carrying excess weight.

Oh, that's clever...

[sedativechunk]

I wanted to add into this. I have about 250~ hours into KSP on Steam and I just tried .24 today (I didn't even know it was updating today and i'm kind of sad because it bricked alot of my favorite mods). Anyway here is my feedback to add to this post.

First and foremost, and I don't like the current currency/reputation system. I think it's terrible, in fact. I was really looking forward to this update but I'm finding it frustrating and annoying just building the simplest of rockets. I still haven't completed a single contract, they make you complete some ridiculous/notorious things to try to complete them. Some of them are completely impractical such as launching a basic MK parachute over 370m/s when you are moving faster than the speed of sound! I unlock parts and then it restricts me due to insufficient funds. OP also mentioned that it kind of kills the science system which should be more separated.

But more than all this, I don't like to bash KSP and Squad because this is probably one my most favorite indie games in the world, but the reason this entire system SUCKS is because of the 2.5km part limit on launch. Scott Manley did a video exploiting this. You use solid rocket boosters for example (which I use many on some of my bigger rockets) and when they fall past that 2km mark or however far that physics limit is, the parts disappear and you get ZERO return on them regardless if you put parachutes on them and what not. They also need to have a rover part on them (which is silly) to make them recoverable. This entire thing makes this new career mode entirely broken IMO.

So basically every time you have a launch and use up expensive rocket parts, you can't recover them. To add on to this storm, I enjoy using the "deadly re-entry" mod and it is completely unrealistic/impractical to recover massive rocket parts. Just like the real space programs, I always recovered that tear drop capsule from the sky. Never no huge monstrosities. Oh well, that's my feelings towards it.

[Claw]

You use solid rocket boosters for example (which I use many on some of my bigger rockets) and when they fall past that 2km mark or however far that physics limit is, the parts disappear and you get ZERO return on them regardless if you put parachutes on them and what not. They also need to have a rover part on them (which is silly) to make them recoverable.

These are valid criticisms. SQUAD is aware of the 2.5km physics deletion vs. recovery, though I'm not sure if there are any specific plans yet on how to dealing with that. Also be aware that only parts dropped at low altitude will get deleted above 0.1 atmosphere pressure, which is less than about 23km on Kerbin.

You can also recover parts without having a probe core on them. The issue with that is that you don't see the funds screen pop up, but you should still be getting recovered funds back.

So basically every time you have a launch and use up expensive rocket parts, you can't recover them. To add on to this storm, I enjoy using the "deadly re-entry" mod and it is completely unrealistic/impractical to recover massive rocket parts. Just like the real space programs, I always recovered that tear drop capsule from the sky. Never no huge monstrosities. Oh well, that's my feelings towards it.

Well, if you're using DRE, then it's more "realistic." Very few parts of real life rockets are recoverable, let alone for any sort of monetary return.

Edited July 18, 2014 by Claw

[Jouni]

With .24 and the gain of science with just completing contracts the amount of science to unlock the advancements in the tech tree needs to be increased. I can get enough science just by completing contracts and ignoring the science experiments.

Before 0.24, you also got enough science by ignoring biomes and science experiments. That's how I played my career mode games to avoid excessive grinding.

[Eric S]

So basically every time you have a launch and use up expensive rocket parts, you can't recover them.

I don't find this an issue. The contracts are balanced so that I run a massive surplus, even though I make no effort to recover anything other than the capsule and what it's attached to (usually a parachute, sometimes a few goo canisters).

[Sky_walker]

First and foremost, and I don't like the current currency/reputation system. I think it's terrible,

Play science mode.

still haven't completed a single contract

Found your problem with the career game mode.

Some of them are completely impractical such as launching a basic MK parachute over 370m/s when you are moving faster than the speed of sound!

Build a small sounding rocket, mount chute on it, complete the contract.

Besides - noone forces you to pick contracts that you consider impractical.

I unlock parts and then it restricts me due to insufficient funds.

Really? I'm yet to have a problem with funds - and I have barely 100 hours in a game.

Hm... perhaps that's what you are doing wrong: Overengineering.

Scott Manley did a video exploiting this. You use solid rocket boosters for example (which I use many on some of my bigger rockets) and when they fall past that 2km mark or however far that physics limit is, the parts disappear and you get ZERO return on them regardless if you put parachutes on them and what not.

I never bothered with returning things like SRBs or stages back to the base and so far - no problems with funds.

They also need to have a rover part on them (which is silly) to make them recoverable.

Rover part?BS. They don't.

This entire thing makes this new career mode entirely broken IMO.

It's fine. You just have a lot of very bad habits in KSP, and that's your problem, not a problem with the game itself. It plays just fine if you are flexible player.

[Sky_walker]

Before 0.24, you also got enough science by ignoring biomes and science experiments. That's how I played my career mode games to avoid excessive grinding.

IMHO research tree should be expanded (reduce the amount of items player gets for each research node) and require more science to complete - in fact the amount of science to max-out research tree should be equal to the maximum that you can get out of exploring Kerbin and it's moons. So that player would be given a choice: Either sit and grind or start exploring other planets (note: obviously it'd require adding biomes at least to Duna).

[roger_muppet]

Yo i made an account just for this suggestion, and i'm sure it'd pop up sooner or later anyways, but here i go.

First and foremost, really like the patch - cool and all! There are missions that require part testing, i would really like it if you were able to see what part it is that you are really testing. Like a little picture and its stats would be cool (like in construction menu). Just a tiny thing.

Cheers!

[Laie]

Won't have time to try .24 for another few hours, so I have to ask... is it necessary to revocer as much as possible?

Of course you can, and being a maximalist myself, I understand why someone would try to recover as much as possible. But do you have to? Will your endeavour go broke, or slow to a crawl, if you play realistic rockets and recover almost nothing?

(BTW, I've read elsewhere that you need no probe core on every part. Go to tracking station, select debris, recover. Check your bank account before and after.)

[Sky_walker]

Won't have time to try .24 for another few hours, so I have to ask... is it necessary to revocer as much as possible?

Nope.

Of course you can, and being a maximalist myself, I understand why someone would try to recover as much as possible. But do you have to? Will your endeavour go broke, or slow to a crawl, if you play realistic rockets and recover almost nothing?

Your progress will be slower than if you'd recover everything, but you still will be able to progress no matter what - whole science tree can be explored in Kerbal system itself, so you can build just a cheap and light rockets, what allows you to progress the game even if you run only on an up-front payments. You just need to be clever and avoid overengineering like a fire.

[Jouni]

IMHO research tree should be expanded (reduce the amount of items player gets for each research node) and require more science to complete - in fact the amount of science to max-out research tree should be equal to the maximum that you can get out of exploring Kerbin and it's moons. So that player would be given a choice: Either sit and grind or start exploring other planets (note: obviously it'd require adding biomes at least to Duna).

The current prices work well with my play style. A career mode game might start like this:

1. An atmospheric flight with a crew report.
   
2. A suborbital flight with another crew repot.
   
3. An orbital flight with a crew report and an EVA report.
   
4. An flight around the Mun with a crew report and an EVA report.
   
5. An flight around Minmus with a crew report and an EVA report.
   
6. A Minmus landing with a crew report, an EVA report, and a surface sample.
   
7. A Mun landing with a crew report, an EVA report, and a surface sample.
   
8. Intercept an asteroid in interplanetary space. Do a crew report and an EVA report, and get a surface sample from the asteroid. By now, I have unlocked the hitchhiker and all 2.5 m engines, allowing me to fly reasonable interplanetary missions.
   
9. A mission to Gilly, with crew reports from Eve orbit, Gilly orbit, and Gilly surface; EVA reports from Eve orbit, Gilly orbit, and Gilly surface; and a surface sample from Gilly. This may already unlock nuclear engines, allowing me to to basically anything. If I still need more science, a trip to Duna and Ike is feasible with conventional engines.
   

With science from contracts, I might skip orbital EVA reports after the first one, as they don't make too much sense.

[cpast]

IMHO research tree should be expanded (reduce the amount of items player gets for each research node) and require more science to complete - in fact the amount of science to max-out research tree should be equal to the maximum that you can get out of exploring Kerbin and it's moons. So that player would be given a choice: Either sit and grind or start exploring other planets (note: obviously it'd require adding biomes at least to Duna).

That might no longer be possible, given that contracts a) often supply science and are procedural.

[SilentSkills]

The only thing they really need to focus on are making sure the testing constraints are believable. Example: I have a radial mount parachute contract that says that the minimum speed i can use it is 420 m/s, but the altitude is only max 4.8 km. Obviously nothing is going to be going that fast, that low, in the atmosphere even without parachutes. Im going to have to rig up a super special rocket just to complete it, and its not worth anything, so its just a drain on my funds.

1- Constraints don't need to be believable

2- It wouldn't be Kerbal if they were, and the game would turn into a repetitive, real life proven progression that wouldn't be as fun.

3- It's very hard to run out of funds.

4- It's incredibly fun to rig ed rockets just to get the contract criteria met sometimes.