Meecrob

This is the exact type of review we have all been wanting. Next time could you post it in the year we asked for it? I am 100% serious. To an outside observer, this game is a couple steps away from abandonware. I am not suggesting the game is going to be cancelled, I am saying the effort being put out to communicate is barely above "we aren't working on the game, so why bother?" There is, unofficially. You have to bind it yourself, but axes work, no problem. I dunno why the devs don't mention it.

*Cough cough* angle of incidence. As in the angle the fuselage meets the wing, vs angle of attack which is the angle the relative wind meets the wing. I know you meant the correct thing

Show me where I said that finding bugs is the same as fixing bugs. I said that I think that bugs are not a priority to whoever delegates tasks to the QA team. Show me where I made any reference to their workflow. Look @The Aziz, its cool you don't agree with me on most things; echo chambers suck, but could you at least try to understand where I am coming from? Every time I reply to you, it seems that I am having to clarify my point to you because you want to prove me wrong. I'm not here to be "right," I'm here to have a discussion with other individuals who are passionate about KSP and spaceflight in general. The impression I get from you is that you take pleasure in reading how I got something incorrect. Remember buddy, you never learn if you never make a mistake.

"QA Testing vs. Playtesting" Whatever its called, it is blindingly obvious that only very specific things are being tested/fixed. My guess is that the QA team knows all about the issues in KSP2, but they gotta do what their bosses tell them to do, and their bosses have a different priority. I know that people on the QA team revert to launch a few times and see their craft get borked. I know they paused the game with a plane onscreen for a few minutes and watched the wheels slowly float away. I know they add more Dv than the game says they need because the game is wrong. I know they are getting good at maneuvering without maneuver nodes or orbit lines. I could go on. Ask any KSP Youtuber about their experience. Here is Matt Lowne's: https://twitter.com/Matt_Lowne/status/1779599922628636991

A transmission is a brilliant idea! I think there is a happy medium between the current wheels that seem more at home racing around the runways at KSC and the "rock climbing" style wheels Regex would like.

I agree with you totally, @tuxkiller. My opinion though, reading between the lines of how this launch went not as well as expected, is that I think that Take Two has an emphasis on adding to the player count. People like us who bought the game and are frustrated with the bugs are not going to purchase another copy if they fix the bugs, but if they can greate some hype (like they did for For Science!), they can move a few more copies to people new to the franchise. I'm not sure Take Two has done the math on how players like us, who are frustrated with the bugs currently, might reccommend the game to others if they fixed the bugs. Also, I'll admit I've never run a games publishing studio before, so I could be totally wrong, but in the jobs I have had where the task was to sell a product to as many customers as possible, we didn't sell objectively broken merchandise at 80% full price with capybara stickers all over it, lol.

They won't cancel the project over us not engaging. I know why you are thinking that, and thats because you are applying principles of supply and demand. Publicly traded companies like Take Two and their shareholders are so full of themselves they think they can make their own rules. Shareholders will ask "why is the engagement plummeting on the IP you said would start making money this year? Create engagement or we will sell your stock! I am supposed to make x amount of money this quarter!" Also, we need to face facts here; no use skirting the point anymore. The KSP2 we were promised HAS been cancelled. It was cancelled a long time ago. Right now, we are all awaiting a game called KSP2, but it is actually the KSP equivalent of that horrid "Microsoft Flight" that attempted to make Microsoft Flightsim easier to play. Just like KSP, once players figured out it was watered-down, they went back to playing FSX.

Lol, ok now I'm gonna have to try it myself. Sorry, I didn't mean to mislead, I was just remembering how it was done in KSP1 Ok, so it sorta works, but I keep running into the bug in the VAB when you revert, it puts half your stuff that is in symmetry in the floor, so I give up. I'm still working on last weeks challenge anyways. Good luck!

IIRC use empty fuel tanks.

Finally a big youtuber is speaking out. I've been saying the same thing for months, but I have like 5 subs. It is ridiculously short-sighted to not fix issues that impede video making. Right now, Matt Lowne and the rest of the KSP youtubers are doing free marketing for Take Two. I put up with the bugs because I can pause making my videos at any time, but if you have an upload schedule, KSP2 is silly to attempt to make videos with. Oh and with regards to communication, we aren't getting any because we are still engaging. It feels like the powers that be think this forum is like a youtube comment section. TT isn't afraid some of us are upset. They show us to their shareholders and say "You can't hate something you don't love". Take Two is excrements scared of people not caring at all. If we really want communication, we need to organize a boycott of Reddit and Dischord. Lol, a man can dream!

I'm not sure the stresses/temps are all that different between Earth's atmosphere and space. The main source of temp/stress is the rapidly expanding heated gas escaping from the combustion chamber, not the external environment. Also keep in mind that jet engines and rocket engines are actually close siblings. They both utilize the Brayton combustion cycle to spin turbine discs to insane RPMs. The correct term for jet engine is "gas turbine," and the turbopump in a rocket engine is a turbine. Granted, the rocket engine usually pumps liquid, not gas, but we are still firmly in the realm of fluid dynamics. This is an issue that is totally solvable, its just a question of the optimal way to solve for SpaceX's purposes. I'm not sure even they will know until they get more telemetry. Current Raptor 2's are only to get Starship into the sky. Engines and airframes do not necessarily develop at the same pace. There are countless examples of aircraft test programs where the production engine was not introduced until very late in the program. Hell, the F-14 had its "flight test" engine till they made the A+ and D models. They are developing Raptor 3 currently. It will be incorporating lessons learned from Raptor 2 as well as introducing features that required more engineering time to develop, and thus were not available for Raptor 1 or 2. Also, if there isn't a Raptor 4 in the works, I'm calling it right now, someone abducted Elon and the person in charge is an imposter. The example/trope you seem to be getting at is when someone adds in overhaul time and says "every hour of flight time requires 10 hours of maintenance" or something similar. A different way to manipulate the numbers would be to say that for a 4 hour cross-country flight in a Cessna, the only maintenance performed was a 15 minute pre-flight inspection by the pilot. Both of those examples are technically true, but are meaningless for comparisons. In your example you are saying that overall, the average per launch is 1 hour inspection time. Cool, lets use your round number. When designing the maintenance schedule, engineering would take note of all things that require inspection and schedule those inspections to coincide with each other. So lets say we have 10 items that require inspection to keep the round numbers going. If done individually, they would take 10 hours to inspect. However, since inspections require removal of fairlings/access panels, etc. if you already have them removed for one inspection out of 10, it means you can save 9 removal and re-installs of the fairings. So, if the fairings take 10 minutes each, we are now at 8 hours, 20 minutes of inspection. Now that number is for one person. If possible, maintenance will get multiple inspectors on the task. Lets assume they could only get two. That still cuts our 10 hours down to 4 hours 10 minutes. So now we have 9 flights on schedule and one flight delayed 4:10. I don't have the numbers handy, but that's about how many flights get scrubbed due to weather, isn't it? 1 in 10-ish? This is all before we make the distinction between line maintenance and depot/heavy maintenance. So far, we have only been talking about line maintenance. The big benefit comes when SpaceX optimizes Raptor removal/reinstallation and they can just swap engines needing inspection out for (heavy maintenance) overhauled engines. Once they have enough boosters of the same block for testing uniformity, I bet they will swap boosters, rather than engines, just like how airlines will just swap entire planes when possible if they go tech at the gate. Overall, I think in say ~5 years, we will have clickbait-y SpaceX youtubers with videos titled "HOW SPACEX CAN LAUNCH WITH ONLY A 15 MINUTE INSPECTION!!!" Yeah, I gotta admit, one thing @Exoscientist is good at is throwing us red herrings. You know he's sitting there laughing at us for all thinking he was dumping on Raptor's reliability, when he was really saying something along the lines of "if this is the state of Raptor now, they need to improve reliability. One way to do that is to not run them full throttle." I think this is where we all need to remember that what SpaceX is trying to do is fundamentally different than anything rocketry related we have ever seen. The age of the billion dollar delicate Rube Goldberg machine is finally dying off! If I were Elon, I would purposefully put up graphics with numbers that don't add up just to see your reaction! Seriously though, given the digits, its possible its a typo? Agreed. I could even see SpaceX going with different variants of Raptor once its operational. Reliability is different in LEO on an unmanned fuel tanker Starship vs. a crewed Starship on the Martian surface.

Ok, good, we are going different directions with this. My mission is going to require multiples. How lame would it be if the only two people actually doing the challenge did the same thing? Good luck, NexusHelium, I've got about 1/100th edited, lets see if we can drop our videos before the next time the weekly challenge is "Uh, I dunno...just like do stuff you did before" lol @ Community Managers: I'm just messin'. This challenge has made me think more than the previous ones, and I totally get that weekly challenges are not gonna make this game compete with Helldivers 2 or something for player count.

You aren't supposed to, lol. Back in the Gemini days, all the astronauts hated Buzz Aldrin because he made the rest of them look like amateurs with regards to rendezvous. The astronauts of that era were test pilots, and then there was Buzz with an Sc.D. in Astronautics. From Wiki: This [Buzz' selection to NASA's Astronaut Group 3] made him the first astronaut with a doctoral degree which, combined with his expertise in orbital mechanics, earned him the nickname "Dr. Rendezvous" from his fellow astronauts.[38][39][40] Although Aldrin was both the most educated and the rendezvous expert in the astronaut corps,[14] he was aware that the nickname was not always intended as a compliment. Jokes aside, learning rendezvous is one of the more difficult parts of KSP, but if you've already made it as far as designing a Duna mission, you have the required skill and interest, its just a matter of practice to hone this specific skill. Rendezvous training takes a period of failure where you seemingly make no progress for way too long and seriously wonder if maybe you are just not capable of doing it. Push through that feeling because you are in the period where your brain is absorbing the procedures. Rendezvous is surprisingly complex...especially for something people already assume is complex. After many failures, you will have an attempt where you realize your brain started doing the steps before you thought of them consciously. This is the point you are now a beginner. You will be able to rendezvous, but pack some extra Dv, lol. All my crafts from this time period had way too much monoprop. This is also the point where you realize that your reward for learning how to rendezvous and dock, is the full game. KSP without docking is basically just a demo, lol!

Hey, this video sorta fits Mission 2. I made a video to show a workaround for using the "stilts-edition" launch clamps in KSP2. Then someone said that my workaround doesn't allow you to launch on an angle...well, here's my workaround for that. I'm not sure what is up with the rocket tracking radial out near the end of the burn, but hey, EA and all I guess. I had to use sepratrons to work around that issue, but did not use WSAD.

Here is my first video: Kerbal Rock - A KSP2 Mission Cinematic. It was inspired by seemingly half the player base flying planes to Kapy Rock. I dunno how some of y'all have that amount of patience, lol! Jokes aside, this took way longer than anticipated. Flight time was about 16 minutes, but capturing multiple angles and hand flying without the navball absorbed so much of my time that I bet a Kerbal could walk to Kapy Rock faster than I made this video! Hope you enjoy!

-please delete-

Congratulations! I bet your adrenaline was pumping like 2000psi through your body when you started to get close!

Sorry, no desktop-quality screenshots, my computer sucks, lol. Here's a video at least:

I think you might be on to something here - a poll will give users an idead of how popular certain ideas are. As it is right now, we can only guess based upon an assumption of how many people share the same views based on who talks the loudest. I know a ton of people are sitting these debates out as to not get caught in the crossfire.

What are you talking about? The way I phrased the post made sure the CM's stated their exact intentions, and I replied that I love their attitude. They fully understand what I was getting at. My apologies, but I don't always have time to explain all of my intentions to everyone on the board. I'm trying to steer this ship to calmer waters. You can tell the CM's appreciate it by the fact that both of them and JustJim jumped into the thread. I'm seriously getting sick of the comments from the peanut gallery. As to the topic, my number one request is that the powers that be look at the value in making this a proper sim like KSP1. As it stands, the direction it is going seems to be a mostly curated mission structure with a sandbox to pick up science points if needed. Almost like a space GTA. KSP1 had open ended contracts and a sandbox to grab your science points from wherever you wanted. That made it so that the only thing fixed was that your start point was Kerbin. From there, you can go anywhere. In KSP2, you are going from Kerbin to Mun, to Minmus, to Duna, etc. I know I can still hit Eve at the start if I want, but most people new to the game won't. I really believe that the whole reason KSP caught on was a bunch of enineering people sunk their teeth into the game. If they want to replicate the success of the first game, they are going to have to give the same tools to us players to show the world how cool the game can be, or else they are going to get a bunch of youtubes titled "My KSP Run - Exactly the Same Order as Everyone Else, but My Craft is Green!"

Look into Nate's past...

I know, but I'm starting this thread as a signal that I am joining you fine gentlemen

Thank you! I knew you were a gentleman, you just had some stuff to deal with Quoted for truth, I'm out of likes for the day, but I'll hit you back tomorrow!

I love it!

Yeah, like how you have completely ignored me for like a month now is it? You tell me you are a straight-shooter, then go radio silent. I honestly don't care you had to hold the fort down. Thats just poor planning on your boss's part.