silent_prtoagonist

Awesome, I hadn't seen that. I agree that being able to plan maneuvers without a parent vessel would be ideal. Especially if you could set planets themselves as the "parent" similar to TranX MFD from Orbiter.

I second (or sixth) this. Numerical entry as an alternative to sliders should be basic design in all software that has them.

Patch 2 limited the behavior of maneuver plans: I think this is a bad decision for two reasons: There are legitimate reasons to make maneuver plans that a vessel can't actually execute. For example: you can use a dummy probe in LKO to plan out a complicated mission in advance, and then use that information to help design the actual spacecraft to complete the mission, select an optimal parking orbit, etc. It relies on the built-in delta v estimation to be accurate at all times; if the game ever gets confused and thinks you have less delta v than you actually do (a common problem in KSP 1 that was never fixed, it's even worse currently in 2), then maneuver plans will be effectively disabled. This also applies to craft that have more complicated propulsion schemes than "burn all available engines all at once" as well as dual mode engines, as already mentioned in the patch notes. I think a much better option is to simply copy KSP 1's behavior: warn the player that the current craft won't have enough delta v to complete the maneuver, but allow the maneuver to be planned anyway. At the very least this limitation should be togglable in settings.

Yeah I think orbital construction in general will relieve the biggest use case for robotic parts--fitting very un-aerodynamic craft inside a fairing. There are, of course, tons of other interesting uses for robotics, but the inability to make folding spacecraft is the one that I've missed the most.

I can also confirm incorrect conic-patching at Duna. My craft entered Duna SOI from a wildly different direction than the predicted orbit, although the predicted periapsis and inclination at least seemed to be accurate. And now trying to leave Duna again I seem to be unable to plot a return to Kerbin, with any escape orbit resulting in an increase of Kerbol SMa, as though I had left Duna prograde, regardless of what direction I align my escape orbit.

I think the tech update will change perspective on the nuclear engines. NERV won't seem so underwhelming when it's (along with ion) the only alternative to methalox available to you, and SWERV won't seem so OP when you're choosing between it and Orion.

I think the SWERV is a closed-cycle gas core , aka nuclear lightbulb, design. The fissile fuel is a gas, but it's still contained inside a sealed container made of transparent, high melting point quartz crystal. It cuts the specific impulse by about half (which is why I'm assuming it's this design, an open-cycle would have an ISP of more like 3000s), but it's slightly less insane and slightly more likely to ever actually exist. We can leave the true Kerbal-level insanity for the Orion and nuclear salt water drives that are planned.

I'd like to see KSP 1 style, per-part context menus as the default behavior, with the all-in-one parts manager as an alternative launched from the app bar.

In short, stubbornness. My personal record is only a single total mission restart due to bugs. Usually it's more like 2-3. It's a crap-shoot but eventually you get lucky. Today I'm working on a Kerbin SSTO/Duna Lander/Tylo ascent stage for a possible easter egg grand tour.

Alternatively, cut out the middle man kabbage. Make Kerbal photosynthesis canon: They can survive on just light, but they need extra calories (in the form of snacks) for more strenuous activity, like piloting spaceships or constructing new colony modules.

Keep in mind that if we're ultimately supposed to have multiple colonies spread across multiple solar systems--and use high time warp to travel between those systems--then the colonies will need to require basically no babysitting to keep them alive, or it will become a micromanagement nightmare. Probably a simple system like: You need 1 greenhouse per x Kerbals, which just sit there and do their job, and you need y water per greenhouse per munth, which can be found locally or shipped in with automated shipments.

Specifically, once the worst of the bugs and performance issues are addressed, and once the colonies update hits, adding the first feature beyond what's available for KSP 1, then I'll feel comfortable recommending it to non-KSP-fanatics at the current price. Agreed, a rare example of a well written forum poll. Props to OP.

Did a Kerbin SOI Grand Tour. (Easter Egg Spoilers) Only had to restart once due to bugs (the lander tank drains first bug this time). Also the first time I've bothered to return the crew home.

For what it's worth, I'm expecting ~6 months per milestone on the roadmap, if/when they can settle down into steady development cycle again. So final release in 2-3 years, maybe. This is based on nothing other than gut instinct and experience with other EA titles. Sadly, my honest advice is that if you have to ask the question "Should I buy KSP 2?" the answer right now is "No." If you aren't stupid dedicated enough to buy into it just because it has the name "Kerbal" there's not enough game here to really enjoy, especially not for $50. I don't regret buying it, personally, but I'm also not getting $50 of fun out of it (mostly just frustration at this point) and I recognize that it's not guaranteed to get better. Wait and see if it survives long enough to become good before parting with your cash.

I can also confirm that reloading a quicksave sometimes resets the flag textures. Easter Egg spoilers for those who care: