Jodo42

I like to write 1 or 2 paragraph long mission debriefings for my crafts after a launch, but the degree to which the text editor for vessel descriptions stinks is remarkable. Attempting to write anything even moderately lengthy, or with any meaningful attempt at formatting turns into an immensely frustrating exercise in clicking and arrow key tapping. Inputs register seemingly at random. If you write something too long the interface just gives up entirely and won't let you edit the description anymore. Are there any mods that fix this? Or is this just something I'm going to have to do outside of the game, with separate text files?

1 syllable, voiceless "th." leɪθ. Rhymes with "faith" and not "bathe."

Massive, game-altering mechanics should be in stock, whether people feel like playing with them or not. It shouldn't need to be maintained by unpaid modders. If you don't like constraints that make you change the way you play then don't use them. That's why pretty much all difficulty options are just that, options. Not including it in stock (eventually) is an omission without a point. Good thing there's a progression system that forces you to use lightweight probes if you don't have the lift capability or in-space infrastructure necessary for crewed missions yet. You clearly read my piece about crewed telerobotic missions since you excluded it from the rest of your post. Nowhere do I say "instead." Good luck putting boots on Venus. Send a rover and control from Earth like with Mars? Sure, but it's incredibly slow. It's so slow that we decided to send a helicopter with the recent rover to help speed navigation up. That's directly because of two things: signal delay and bandwidth. A remote-controlled rover on Eve would be far easier to get surface samples and biome science from if it could be driven in real-time like it currently is ingame. So now a one-way mission becomes two-way and there's extra gameplay in the "flying" which you seem to love so dearly. Suggesting that the devs should implement signal delay that only goes one way instead of signal delay is just creating an unnecessarily contrived solution. If the code's there for the first part then it's there for the option of the second part. It's not affected by signal delay, but signal delay would be affected by it. If you build your CommNet probes so that they only have power on the day side then they won't relay your signal when they're on the night side. If you've set up some high-eccentricity orbits for your relays (like Molniya and orbits in real life) then they're going be spending a lot of time in darkness for part of the year. Your signal delay could be significantly increased if you haven't planned your constellations properly and the signal needs to reroute to avoid hibernating satellites. Glad we can agree that big gameplay enhancing mechanics should be an option. Not including them in stock makes it not an option until the mod gets made- and we can only speculate on how moddable KSP2 will be. And of course, there's console players to think about who just can't get mods period. I don't think being forced to plan your maneuvers in advance, and in a way that's simple enough to be done with signal delay, is removing flying. It's addition through subtraction- it's a completely different way of flying and a new set of challenges for players to figure out. In the example with early interplanetary probes without onboard pilot functions, you might fly an entire extra mission to test passive reentry around Kerbin. Even if it is "removing flying"- signal delay adds more than enough gameplay in the planning stage to compensate. I don't know about you, but a big chunk of my enjoyment of this game- perhaps even the majority- is in the mission planning and building phase. As I explained, signal delay adds a lot to this phase that gets little attention without its presence. It should be an option, in stock. It doesn't need to release with the game. It could be a later patch or DLC. It doesn't need to be super high priority. But it should absolutely make its way into the dev-updated versions of the game at some point.

It provides an obvious and (sort of) realistic incentive to take on crewed missions, which have higher dry masses (especially if there's life support involved) and are generally harder. It encourages an entirely different gameplay loop and incentivizes players to learn about how to design and deploy constellations, how resonant orbits work, power management and orbit darkness time (if there's background simulation of EC usage, which there isn't in stock currently) and, depending on implementation, even a bit of coding with something like KOS. It can help you understand real-world situations- you don't want to be driving your rover with 500ms delay because you put your CommNet constellation in a surface-synchronous orbit, so instead maybe you make something more like Starlink. Now you need to either launch tons of satellites (launch automation should really be something included in KSP2) or plan ahead and restrict your surface activities to times when you have connectivity. Maybe you set it up so that you only have a connection in the day time, for example. You'd have "working hours" and actual schedules to keep. It also encourages you to build and fly in a very different way. Landing with direct control and signal delay requires you to either have an inefficient landing profile (cancelling all your horizontal velocity first and then descending straight down) so you can reliably stay in the attitude you want, OR you can send a crew along to stay in orbit and pilot the probe down in more or less real time. If you're landing with a lot of delay you probably want a lander that's much more passively stable than a manned one, which can just brute-force a landing with reaction wheels. Of course, later on in the tree you can unlock probes that have pilot capabilities which wouldn't be subject to signal delay since they're onboard, so that's a nice career mode incentive. Data transmission simulation in general could provide extra incentive to upgrade your tracking station in a career game. In the context of interstellar colonization signal delay would have huge significance. The distances involved make signal delay even more important to consider. It should definitely be in stock. KSP2 shouldn't be as reliant on mod authors to keep important gameplay mechanics up to date. Of course, just like all the other difficulty settings in KSP1, it should be an option. So you can choose if you want to play with it or not.

Wow, this is an ancient thread you've dug up here. Are you in career mode? If so, fuel transfer in flight doesn't unlock until you upgrade your R&D building.

So many things still need sounds. Extension sounds for antennas, and maybe some occasional beeping while they're transmitting. Rover wheels. Landing gear. Drills. Converters. A noise for entering and exiting capsules. Suit noises while you're on EVA. Maybe some slight rustling noises when solar panels and radiators deploy. A hum from lamps and lights. Reaction wheels should make a whirring noise since there's a wheel spinning inside. Some kind of IVA noise. And PLEASE, the robotics and propeller parts. I think Ion engines make some kind of humming noise IRL. That classic clicking noise for the Geiger counter. An inflating sound for the 10m heat shield. Ladder noises. And of course, all of this should be environment-dependent. If you're on Kerbin it sounds normal. It's muffled if you're in vacuum, since the sound can only transmit through the vessel itself. Harsher sounds when you're underwater or deep in Jool's atmosphere (any water sounds in general would be great). A lot of people talk about the future parts or colonization being their most wanted features for KSP 2. Sound design and faster scene changes are mine. This game feels so much more "dead' than it really should because of the lack of sounds.

Is there a way I can get KER to display more decimal places for various figures like semi-major axis or orbital period, either through the ingame menus or by adjusting some settings file?

Hopefully a simple question: is there a way I can change the units and precision of various figures? I'd like Universal time in seconds, for example, or at least in Kerbin time format instead of Earth. Mean anomaly and LAN in decimal instead of degrees/hours/minutes, extra decimal places for everything, etc.

I just had a similar experience to you. I'll give you a stopgap solution that may or may not work, and my long term plan to not run into this issue again. Is your cargo unit within reach of the ladder on the capsule? If so, here's how I did it (a very Kerbal solution)- EVA and while still on the ladder swap your RCS pack and the deployable science. Then let go, fall to the surface in ragdoll mode, and deploy the module. Minmus' gravity is low enough that you won't injure yourself. Then, I lined my Kerbal up very carefully and jumped. As I flew up past the capsule I pressed F to get on the ladder. Rinse and repeat. This will work on very low gravity worlds, but nowhere else, and your lander design might be such that you can't get close enough to your capsule to grab the ladder during the jump. You could try the same strategy but jumping directly to the cargo bay instead of the capsule ladder too, but you'll have to be quick about transferring cargo between inventories. In the future, I'm going to place my cargo bays low on the lander, down near the legs. This not only makes sense relative to a real-world design, since you wouldn't want to be carrying cargo down with you, it also lowers your CoM a bit some so you're less likely to tip. If you absolutely can't put the cargo bays low down on the lander, then yeah, I guess you'd have to use ladders.

There's more than enough interesting stuff left to justify adding at least another gas giant, that is doable with the current engine. Co-orbital bodies. Saturn has several moons in this configuration. If you properly incentivized travel between them (say, they both had an atmosphere, or some interesting ISRU resource), it would be an easy teaching moment for resonance orbits, which aren't frequently used elsewhere in the game. Highly inclined, eccentric, and retrograde moons. Plenty of the first two in our solar system, and there's Triton for the last. Something like Hyperion, with the elongated but still not "lumpy" shape. Plenty of other possible weird shapes, like Pan and Atlas. This is ignoring both stuff that doesn't exist in our solar system but is still realistic, like your subsatellite suggestion, desert/ice/lava planets, brown dwarfs and Super Earths, contact binaries like Arrokoth, and weirder stuff like stellar remnants, as well as real objects that would require some additions to the current engine, like ring systems and shepherd moons, volcanism like on Io, cryovolcanism like on Europa and Enceladus, content that would make ocean planets and cave systems worth exploring, bodies with unusual axial tilt etc. Much of which is already doable with Kopernicus. And of course, there's plenty more mundane stuff. Procedural asteroids generating as trojans, Kupier Belt/scattered disc/Oort cloud bodies. Small bodies in general are great for complex moon/binary systems (see: Pluto, Eris, Haumea, Makemake, asteroids with moons, etc). I'm sure others can go on. Our universe is an amazing place with a huge amount of diversity among its objects. And we've been blessed with a pretty amazing, diverse solar system, too. Imagine a species that lived in a "boring" system with few large objects. Or even just imagine we were like Venus, with no Moon. How would the course of human history be altered if our closest explorable worlds were only bright specks in the sky, featureless and indistinguishable from stars to an untrained eye? How much longer would it take such a civilization to explore the cosmos? Whatever reason they have for not adding new bodies, it's surely not because of a lack of options.

In general if you're having trouble with old links the first thing you should do is try them out in archive.org. It looks like very little from the OP's website was saved. The only working download is for 0.13.3. It's probably better to use the archived versions of the old, now-defunct official links. I didn't check them all, but 0.7.3 is still working. I suspect 0.6.5 is back to being a lost version unfortunately.

Also known as linear motion or robot rails. Like how a claw machine works. It's hard to describe, so watch a video: Right now adding translation to robotics setups requires awkward piston contraptions. This kind of rail setup could be used for everything from robotic arms to heavy cargo landers. Not to mention potential uses as a monorail or train system, if scaled up. This sort of thing is technically already possible in stock, but wheels have always been lackluster in KSP and the setups tend to be high part count and low reliability. Breaking Ground could use some pulleys, winches and ropes, too, but that's another topic.

Saw this on reddit today. Easter egg spoilers. https://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/fkhiti/i_found_an_easter_egg_in_gameslinxs_beyond_home/

First time on the Mun in JNSQ. Any landing you can transmit science from counts, right?

I was looking to make some custom engine configs for BDB- most of the engines have the same rated burn times and ignition #s, and I've had some issues with engines failing reliably well short of the rated times- but I really don't know where to begin. Could somebody point me in the right direction? Is it more or less just text file editing, or do I actually need to know how to code? If it's a relatively simple process, much of the research has already been done by the RO crew, so I could probably source most of my numbers from them.