shdwlrd

Thanks Nertea for the in depth explanation of how thermals will work.

Yes and no. All the jet engines needs an increase to their thrust in my opinion. My gripe comes to the Pather engine. The dry thrust is lethargic at best, the wet thrust is insane. Let's take the plane I was flying. The typical acceleration was 1-5m/s/s for cruise mode. But with the afterburner, the acceleration was around 10-15m/s/s. I can't give hard numbers, but I know the afterburner mode is too powerful. (Not that it's a bad thing.) I think that for the Pather, you should be able to tune both the dry and wet thrust separate from each other. Ended up getting off my point. You should be able to tune all the parameters within the operational envelope for each engine. If you want a low and slow plane, you should be able to tune the max altitude and power curve to facilitate that. If you want that huge cargo plane to have the best efficiency at high subsonic speeds and high altitude, you should be able to fine tune that.

I don't know if this is related or something different, but I've noticed that when you adjust the position or size of a wing or stabilizer, the left side will always invert. In most cases, it will return to normal once you complete the move or save the changes.

I've been running across this too. I've been balancing my planes to require little to no input to fly, the constant rolling of the planes is really annoying. I've also seen the same behavior with rockets that use wings for stabilization.

After playing arounds with the atmospheric engines with different plane designs, the atmospheric engines need a way to adjust the performance of them. With some designs, there's just not enough thrust to move the plane with a reasonable number of engines. In other designs, the acceleration is abysmal compared to the real life counterpart. (Fighters specifically) I'm not suggesting anything too extreme. A slider to adjust the thrust output from the stock thrust value to 100% of that value. That way with the very limited number of stock atmospheric engines, you can have a wider variety of performance choices for the planes you design. Let me clarify my want. I would like to tune the different parameters for each engine within their typical performance envelope.

It has nothing to do with hardware. It's knowing how to force your OS to run how you want it to and to run only what you want running. Hell, you don't even need to be an OS guru. Both Nvidia and AMD has software included with their drivers that will force the prioritization of games over other software. (Except for the kernal.) You just have to use them. Fair enough. The game is unplayable for you because of bugs. But not completely unplayable as in the software doesn't run.

I don't get how some people are saying that KSP2 is completely unplayable. It plays fine, even with a sub spec PC. (The system was built in 2018.) I don't know if some people are so spoiled that anything less than 120fps, 4K is unplayable or some people are so computer illiterate that they don't know how to sterilize and optimize a PC for gaming. Or can it be that I'm from the age of PC gaming where you were lucky to get 30fps on all games. (Both 2d and 3d) But saying that KSP2 is completely unplayable is a massive lie. The game is completely playable. It may not run the way you like it. Or not have the features that will drive you to play. That's fine. For me, both apply reasons apply. But I wouldn't say the game is unplayable. (PC specs: AMD Ryzen 2 2700X (moderate OC through Ryzen Master); 16 Gb stock timings (not stable with XMP or modified timings), AsRock B450 Mini ITX main board, Nvidia GTX 1060 6gb, WD black HDD. Running the game at 1080 full screen. (1080p is more CPU intensive than running a game at 1440 or 4k.) Frames looking at the surface is 9-20. Frames looking at anything without a planet in view is 30-75. (Lower side in atmo, higher side in space.) Average craft size of 50 to 150 parts.)

And some of those fights continued to KSP2 before it was even released...

Interstellar is going to take awhile for me too. I don't have time I use to. I hope that the game will be stable enough from update to update. I'm tired of having to start a large mission over again because of things breaking.

KSP2 was to start you in the Kerbin system from the beginning. The rational for that was to have something familiar for the veteran players and an "easier" starting place for new players. It was a conscious choice by the developers. Not because they were lazy or unimaginative, they wanted a familiar starting point for the game.

Very true. I'm included in that camp. Even with the EA announcement, I was expecting a better polished game. Even if it was incomplete and somewhat buggy. It was worse than I expected. You're right though, with time it will get better. In this case, patience is a virtue.

Good advice. Learned that one long before the Expanse.

You seem like a software developer by trade. So imagine this scenario. There is an obvious bug affecting certain areas of the software you're working on. You and your team trace the root cause to one of the very foundational pieces of code for software. There are many different pieces of the program that touch this piece of code. What do you do now? Just bandaid your section of code (just like everyone else did)? Or bite the bullet and correct that code, and start the tedious process of correcting and verifying all the other pieces of code that touch that piece of code? It seems like IG is doing the second option instead of having to remind and teach their software devs that this is bugged and this is how you get around it.

Scott wasn't the only one that was critical about the game. The other predominant steamers were too. But none said the game was a lost cause. In their own ways, all of them basically said this is an EA release, and was in rough shape. None said you should skip it, but they did warn their viewers to expect a less than perfect game.

Ooo... good question.

Atmospheric heating isn't necessary at the moment. It's more important to have a predictable atmospheric flight model to work with. Once you have a predictable flight model to work with, then add atmospheric heating. That way you're only tuning the heating once, not every time you have to change base atmospheric flight model. If you want to add the FX, sure. There better be a clear note that the FX isn't representative of craft heating though.

I have to ask... Why is this such a huge priority when there are other more pressing bugs to get fixed and features to be added? KSP1 survived several years without it. Why is it mandatory for KSP2 to have it now?

Are there plans for more variety for plane and rover parts? (Ex. Commercial style cockpits. More parts that look like they belong on a ground vehicle.) Will there be more shape profiles for the basic rocket parts? How difficult was it to unify the different art styles of the KSP1 parts? Will we see a different but similar art style for future parts as the game development progresses?

Those subjects people unconsciously deal with day to day. So why not point it out in the form of a video game?

I hope you're joking.

Noticed that too. Was going to mention something but I remembered game physics. You know. One character that can 400kg of weight and not even notice. Or a character that pulls a gun the size of him out of their pocket or pack.

Ok... there is the thing that that no one touched on in this thread. Intel is only supporting and developing for the modern graphic API's. I don't know what DX version KSP is built on, but if it's not DX12 or any other modern API, KSP will run like crap on the Intel Arc cards.

And don't forget creative problem solving. Over the years of development, there have been some hints on how they want to alleviate the crawl of interstellar travel. I'm guessing that there will be more levels to the time warp that won't be accessible unless you're in interstellar space. Outside of that, the other methods quick interstellar have been totally shut down. The only other option is reducing the distances between the stars, but something tells me that is something that won't happen.

Backed... it would be fitting that a game using Lego style of construction to be made with Legos.

I don't blame you. The thing no one wants to understand; the late game drives and engines are based on theoretical designs. (MH engines included, think of Nertea's near future mod) None of the late game engines have/can be built/tested/flown because of human politics or gaps within human technology. This is a game where a fictional society that doesn't have those limitations. So if they want to build a nuclear detonation pulse drive, they can. If they want to build a fusion impulse drive, they can. If they want to use a linear particle accelerator for a drive, they can. As I said earlier in this thread, interstellar travel is going to suck. It's going to take a LONG time. It's not going to be fast, practical, or easy. It's just going to be possible, that's it. (Much like rowing a boat across the Atlantic. It's possible, but it's slow, energy intensive, not very practical now a days.) There won't be any instance gratification with interstellar travel in KSP2. You will have to be patient.