Good news everyone! KSP enters Beta version. What you like the most, what you don't?

[tater]

If someone makes an engineering improvement, it will affect all future flights using the same hardware. If it only affects the craft that guy is in, it's a "spell," "potion," whatever you want to call it, period.

[bigbadben]

If you want to improve the hardware (ISP), it should be done in the research tree, or something like it, to that matter. Leave the Kerbal bonuses to something non-related to actual piloting. The idea of a pilot "tweaking" a ship is not a result of exp, but a result of your personal exp in the vab/sph.

Speaking as a real-life-pilot, some things squad could do with increased Kerbal exp is to unlock new certifications to fly different things, as we do today. Not sure if the community would agree to another game limiting mechanic such as this, though.

[NathanKell]

Renegade: In comparison to an F-15, it is.

(Note that the Douglas D-558-3 was rejected because its heat shielding was too *good*, however >.>)

The SR-71 needs a very special skin structure for M=3+ flight, rather more than the XB-70/XF-108 was going to need for M=3 flight. M=5+ is...much worse.

Yes, of course in comparison to the STS Orbiter it needs far less shielding; but it certainly *has* heat shielding, and not the minor shielding the XB-70 was given.

[Sky_walker]

If you want to improve the hardware (ISP), it should be done in the research tree, or something like it, to that matter. Leave the Kerbal bonuses to something non-related to actual piloting.

Totally agreed.

Speaking as a real-life-pilot, some things squad could do with increased Kerbal exp is to unlock new certifications to fly different things, as we do today. Not sure if the community would agree to another game limiting mechanic such as this, though.

Yea, we already had this discussion and I think majority agrees that it's a good idea, though as always - each one member got his own ideas for the details.

One of the nicest things I seen discussed on that topic is adding a certification for using the nuclear engines - IMHO step in a right direction, though still not enough to balance them out (I very much would like to see some real, harsh consequences of destroying them).

Perhaps once a Kerbal gains sufficient skill they can execute a manover node.

Unnecessary obstacle for a new players is unnecessary.

The planned manover could possibly have an error cone displayed around the planned trajectory. The more skillfull the Kerbal the narrower the cone.

You know what's the problem with cones? All you have to do is aim at the middle. It's more like a mild annoyance than anything affecting the gameplay in any real way. Besides - I don't even know if their patched conics algorithm can display cones like you imagine them (such cone would have to be basically multiple lines traced on a different paths as within one cone you might have orbits on escape trajectory, crashing into the Mun, and orbiting Kerbin after Mun flyby). It's not really feasible.

Edited October 20, 2014 by Sky_walker

[Rakaydos]

Integrate Kerbal piloting skill with Stock Mechjeb. The more skilled the kerbal, the more he can do without you perched over his shoulder.

[KasperVld]

We're getting very off-topic again. Two previous warnings have been posted - this is the final one. Please stick to the topic of this thread which is what was written in this article, not which features you want or how they should be implemented.

[bonyetty]

You know what's the problem with cones? All you have to do is aim at the middle. It's more like a mild annoyance than anything affecting the gameplay in any real way. Besides - I don't even know if their patched conics algorithm can display cones like you imagine them (such cone would have to be basically multiple lines traced a on a different paths as within one cone you might have orbits on escape trajectory, crashing into the Mun, and orbiting Kerbin after Mun flyby). It's not really feasible.

Of course you would aim at the middle but the Kerbal, if he were to execute the manover, may not have the skill to execute the manover precisely. The cone is to indicate his potential error. You would only know how well he did once he did it.

I wouldn't have a clue if it's possible but it sounds like you are saying it is possible and in various ways. sweet.

Exactly the more skill the Kerbal has the more likely they are to execute the manover precicely if not so skilled correction manover/s may be requided.

Edited October 20, 2014 by bonyetty