What else needs to go on the mountain of content for 1.0?

[Hannu]

Of course I have long list of things I want to be part of KSP. And others have their own. But to be realistic, I have used at least 1000 hours with this game. It is more than with any other game ever. Far more. I paid about 20 € (23 $). It is less than half of price of typical commercial game. So, if Squad says that the game is ready, I say thank you for best game I have ever played and am not disappointed (of course I thank also many modders, which made KSP so brilliant). Probably I will play this game years. And if Squad releases content which is interested to me (more celestial bodies, visual enhancements of planets and atmospheres, interesting things to do in the game etc.) I will pay for it.

But if I have to mention something, I hope that they will make one or two bug fix updates without adding anything new. It is nearly impossible to fix current bugs and implement huge amount of new things without causing new bugs. No quality assurance can be so perfect that it finds everything. And other thing is 64 bit Windows version, if Unity releases a new stable version. I can get parts, physical and technical info, planets and realism from mods.

Edit: I forgot one important thing. A possibility to mod axial tilt of bodies.

[Wallygator]

I consider this to fall under optimisation:

I think a complete end-over-end redesign of the career dynamic is in order.

1. Your subcontractors should not be telling you what to do ---> YOU should be telling THEM what to do. (Hey Rockomax, make me a new engine! Here is some money and some science points... might cost more if you make them test it, might cost less if you test it)

2. Your funding should come from the government - More if your rep increases, less if your rep decreases. When your funding gets cut to zero - game over.

3. You receive major objectives from the government (or maybe choose from a list) and you break them down in to a series of missions which you can afford - achieve them, then get rep. Kill Kerbals then lose rep.

Until something like this happens, career will continue to be a senseless grind which the reviewers will gladly feast on.

Edited January 25, 2015 by Wallygator

[megatiger78]

colony parts

[Creeping]

Until something like this happens, career will continue to be a senseless grind which the reviewers will gladly feast on.

I agree that career has grinding and that I would prefer for there to be less grinding, but most of the grinding is early in the game when you need that 10 more science for that tech because you don't have the money to send a mission to the Mun, so you just send out a makeshift rover to go around the KSC and collect some crew reports. Besides, a lot of games that I've seen that appear to have grinding (Hyrule Warriors and every other MMO that I've ever seen) usually get good reviews despite the fact that the main concept of the game is mindlessly grinding.

Everything that you said though is spot on.

[Wallygator]

Thanks Creeping.

To be fair, I play career over and over. It just seems to end up the same dull progression - it is quite deterministic and lacks player defined path support. I keep trying to find ways to make it more engaging. The suggestions in the sticky regarding tech tree optimisation are fab and if combined with a more reputation based career mode would go along way to improving immersion.

But I stand by my prediction that the reviewers will rip KSP apart if the "funds and senseless test contract based" career is retained.

Frankly, as it stands KSP should be renamed KSSP "Kerbal Space Subcontractor Program".

[Creeping]

I think tech progression really needs to be overhauled anyway, Wallygator. The fact that you need tech for planes is ridiculous, because we've had planes for over 50 years before we landed on the moon.

The fact that you can start manned is a stupid thing too considering that all early rockets were unmanned up until Vostok I was launched (BTSM for the win). Reputation really needs to be fixed because the only thing I think that it affects is what level of contracts you can get. The only other use for Reputation is to use it in the administration building so you can make some money and science off of it.

The only way to fix career yourself is to roleplay a built in game. Like set requirement for yourself (you have to send a probe to map out the body and land on it before sending a manned mission to it, for example) so it feels more realistic than silly.

Also science gains really need to be fixed. I shouldn't be able to fill out all of the tech tree with just the Mun. That's pretty dumb.

[ScottWright]

Other:

Some kind of limit to antenna range or a remote tech type of thing. Right now, there is no reason to not have the lightest antenna. Right now, the small difference in the time it takes to send data is hardly a motivation.

[Blaf]

Other: Robotics

[Robotengineer]

I voted for a proper win64, reentry damage, fluid dynamics, optimisation, rover parts, science parts, and other. Even though I do not use windows, I know the majority of the KSP community does and they should be able to get a stable x64 without using linux. Other: redo all the parts before adding any please. The current state of most of the parts is pretty poor, and they haven't changed that much over the past year+.

[KerikBalm]

* Fix the memory leakage issue

* Fix the ridiculous jet ISPs (especially now that we have decent liquid fuel tanks)

* stock radial drogue chutes. An air Augmented rocket (it would also help immensely for such a part if thrust scaled with ISP rather than fuel consumption)

* More symetry options (if possible within the engine). I'd like ot be able to switch between radial and reflective symetry in both assemly buildings. and place parts with 2 fold symetry on a part that was made using 6 fold symetry

* More planets are not needed unless they present a new challenge. Do we need another Dres? Bop and Pol are just Minmus around Jool, and Dres is just the Mun in heliocentric orbit.

I might want to see a moon like Titan (thick atmosphere, but low gravity)... but I don't need more gas giants that are qualitatively the same... no I don't need to see rings.

Some retrograde orbits could be cool... ie like Triton, but in the end it won't change much, you just have your aerobraking approach on the other side of the planet.

Other things I would want aren't possible with the game engine... ie double (dwarf) planets ike Pluto-Charon, and axial tilts.

* clouds and such would be nice, I already use a mod to add them.

[Kedwin Hubble]

I'd like ot be able to switch between radial and reflective symetry in both assemly buildings

You can do this in .90

[Jovzin]

Memory leak bug please. I really hate it that I have to count how many times I can switch betwen VAB and launch pad.

[whiterafter]

I think the reason most players can't play the game on 0 mods is because they're purely used to them.

I used to play KSP with no mods and it was a blast, installed MJ and now don't wanna go back

[rcp27]

* Fix the ridiculous jet ISPs (especially now that we have decent liquid fuel tanks)

The announcement about 1.0 states that there will be a full part rebalancing as part of 0.90 -> 1.0

* stock radial drogue chutes. An air Augmented rocket (it would also help immensely for such a part if thrust scaled with ISP rather than fuel consumption)

With the editor gizmos introduced in 0.90, placing the existing drogue chute in a radial alignment is not difficult, although a radial mounted part would be useful. Not having one isn't the end of the world, though.

We already have an air-augmented rocket: the RAPIER engine.

* More symetry options (if possible within the engine). I'd like ot be able to switch between radial and reflective symetry in both assemly buildings. and place parts with 2 fold symetry on a part that was made using 6 fold symetry

That feature was added in 0.90, using the R key.

* More planets are not needed unless they present a new challenge. Do we need another Dres? Bop and Pol are just Minmus around Jool, and Dres is just the Mun in heliocentric orbit.

I might want to see a moon like Titan (thick atmosphere, but low gravity)... but I don't need more gas giants that are qualitatively the same... no I don't need to see rings.

Some retrograde orbits could be cool... ie like Triton, but in the end it won't change much, you just have your aerobraking approach on the other side of the planet.

Other things I would want aren't possible with the game engine... ie double (dwarf) planets ike Pluto-Charon, and axial tilts.

More planets would make a fine addition for a post-launch upgrade, but to be honest, the system as it exists now is big enough to keep a newcomer to the game occupied for tons of gameplay. In terms of what is needed to make a decent 1.0 launch, there is enough content now. Of course players with tons of game time will have been there and done that, but for newcomers, what we have is plenty. It took me nearly 200 hours of gameplay before I actually landed a Kerbonaut anywhere further away than Minmus, and I am still yet to send anything bigger than an ion probe to the Jool system.

[KerikBalm]

The announcement about 1.0 states that there will be a full part rebalancing as part of 0.90 -> 1.0

That doesn't mean they will "fix" the jet ISPs

With the editor gizmos introduced in 0.90, placing the existing drogue chute in a radial alignment is not difficult, although a radial mounted part would be useful. Not having one isn't the end of the world, though.

It stil lrequires an attachment node, not a surace attach - no its not the end of the world, but I think it would be a nice little bit of polish,

We already have an air-augmented rocket: the RAPIER engine.

That is not an air aumente rocket.

Air augmented rockets do not need oxygen to function, and would work in an atmosphere of a noble gas (or any other inert gas)

I suppose its not needed, but its something I'd like to see.

[Sidereus]

The only things I feel absolutely need to be done before a 1.0 release are optimization (specifically, getting the memory problem under control, and adding support for multi-core CPUs) and getting the Windows 64bit version working. Everything else is gravy.

[Pthigrivi]

Really with everything thats promised for 1.0 I think they're there in terms of features. I know this is planned, but what I'd really like to see are overhauls of the science and kerbal skills systems. The tech tree could use some work, but really its the experiments themselves that are lacking I think. There's a good thread on this here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/108153-Science-it-s-boring-how-can-it-be-made-more-fun

And at present Kerbal training is really rudimentary and not actually functioning properly. Id personally like to see a skill-tree type system where experience can be spent on leveling up in multiple disciplines allowing us to choose a kerbals skills and development.

There's a thread on this idea here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/107243-Skill-Tree-for-Kerbals

...Oh and just a bit more surface detail: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/107825-Surface-features