Some things I think would make KSP better.

[shooty]

Hi,

Here's the things:

1.) Right click menus on parts in flight not following the craft.

Example: Bad radial decoupling knocks off 1 of 4 radial attached engines, I want to shut off the engine on the otherside to regain balanced control,

it takes awhile to click the part (because the rocket is spinning) - well now the menu is spinning - Doh!!!

Perhaps being able to get the right click menus on the stagging Icons would help - or at least have the menus only move in response to user made camera adjustments or being draggable while holding a key.

I dont realy know what the best way to handle it would be, but not having the menus follow the part the way they do now would be appreciated.

2.) Tech nodes should do more then unlock parts, they should upgrade some existing parts, (I aready do this).

Example: when reaching composites, New upgradded versions of command pods become availeable, using only extra configs.

So the Mk1-2 Command Pod would have a new varient (using the same model and textures), Mk1-2b Command Pod that contains more electric and more monoprop and a thermometer but at the same weight.

This would be due to the better materials and fabrication processes available as well as the miniturization of electronic components.

A second gen skipper with same stats as the fist gen (but this one was in the dumpster and had a racoon living in it) but it's a little lighter - ect...

A way to put old versions in a depreciated parts catagory might be helpful to keep down the clutter, but the parts should still be accessable.

Also there is no appreciable performace impact by adding another config to the already existing part folders.

3.) On the pause menu have an option to see the key assignments even if it is not interactive and only information. I was flung out of a hatch and I forgot how to use the jet pack!

4.) Using action groups keys in the map view. (unless I'm missing something)

Thanks.

Edited January 3, 2015 by shooty
spellin an stuph

[tater]

#2 is a great idea.

[shooty]

Thank for reading and commenting.

[ghpstage]

2.) Tech nodes should do more then unlock parts, they should upgrade some existing parts, (I aready do this).

Example: when reaching composites, New upgradded versions of command pods become availeable, using only extra configs.

So the Mk1-2 Command Pod would have a new varient (using the same model and textures), Mk1-2b Command Pod that contains more electric and more monoprop and a thermometer but at the same weight.

I wouldn't want to see anything like this with the balance in the current build, as new parts are often significantly worse than older ones already!

e.g.

The MK1 command pod is almost always superior to the MK2 as 3 of them provide the same seating capacity, torque, electric charge and monopropellant storage for the half the price and with a much lower weight. The only advantages of the higher tech one are impact tolerance and parts count. The lander cans have similar progression issues.

I also have serious questions over the value of the BACC booster over the RT-10 which has higher t/w, higher wetmass/drymass are more than twice the mass and more than twice as expensive! Again it only seems to have a real advantage in parts counts and perhaps staging costs. I have similar doubts about the bigger S1 SRB vs RT-10's too.

4.) Using action groups keys in the map view. (unless I'm missing something)

This would definitely be welcome, along with the ability to stage on the map screen. Edited January 4, 2015 by ghpstage

[shooty]

I wouldn't want to see anything like this with the balance in the current build, as new parts are often significantly worse than older ones already!

e.g.

The MK1 command pod is almost always superior to the MK2 as 3 of them provide the same seating capacity, torque, electric charge and monopropellant storage for the half the price and with a much lower weight. The only advantages of the higher tech one are impact tolerance and parts count. The lander cans have similar progression issues.

I also have serious questions over the value of the BACC booster over the RT-10 which has higher t/w, higher wetmass/drymass are more than twice the mass and more than twice as expensive! Again it only seems to have a real advantage in parts counts and perhaps staging costs. I have similar doubts about the bigger S1 SRB vs RT-10's too.

I dont undersand what you have written in relation to my post.

I see you disagree with my idea but your explaination of why makes me think you may have misread my post or dont understand the word example in this context.

Anyway thanks for taking the time to post, however I dont know what it is your trying to say.

You seemed to have missed the point.

Also I could swear that you have just paraphrased an unrelated post from a totaly unrelated thread.

[Wallygator]

All good ideas. Appreciate your Thinking and suggestions. The Devs should consider this. Some elements might be difficult to implement but still they are good ideas.

[StrandedonEarth]

Points 3-4: As well as being able to at least view what the custom action group assignments were, even if not able to change them.

[shooty]

"As well as being able to at least view what the custom action group assignments were, even if not able to change them"

That would be excellent and should be added. Actualy I think it is long over due.

Good addition