pandaman

Yes, Yes, Not satisfied . To be more specific... I think the first two will reach a suitable level, but I can see it being a bumpy ride. As for the third question, realistically I'm between 'Has problems....' and 'Not satisfied...' . Depending on my mood, so... Not satisfied, but still playing a bit.

I expect destructible buildings (including launchpads) will be an optional 'thing' as it was in KSP1. Random part failures I very much doubt will be a stock option, but there will almost certainly be a mod that adds it.

It's not a 'reaction' at all. The Forum Moderators move things to ensure they are in the most appropriate places. They are not game devs, they are volunteers on these forums.

I don't disagree. I suspect however that due to the 'non impulsive' trajectory calculations etc in KSP2 it is probably more difficult to do with any reliability. We do need some way to 'plan/plot' further ahead though, even if it's effectively no more than an illustration of intent.

I agree, but it's an easy handle to grab for those that want to criticise and paint a gloomy picture. Though I suppose it's also the only easily available measure, but it's a very, very rough indicator at best.

I think a little differently, though not massively. Rather than it being a simple blanket 'upgrade' to the standard suit that gives extra capabilities to everyone. I would envisage upgrading as you suggest, to the point where the 'standard' EVA suit is the current one, but without a jetpack as a standard attachment. Essentially as in later KSP1 with the inventory system. Everyone has an EVA suit so they can walk around most planetary surfaces or do tethered EVA in space, but you can save weight by only taking jetpacks or parachutes etc for the few that will need it if you wish. There is also the opportunity to develop specialised suits for harsher environments and, like jetpacks, you decide how many to carry depending on your plans. These wouldn't be assigned to any specific crew, they would be in the inventory and available to all to use as required. Yes it does add some complications and fiddliness, but no more than KSP1s inventory system.

And is that just how the idea plays in your head? I am just saying, instead of focusing on how special you think it's going to make those places feel, why not also play in your head the thought of forgetting a required space suit and not realising until you've already landed... Which is no different to forgetting batteries, parachutes, solar panels, ladders, comms, science experiments etc. Obvious stuff that you will need to take with you in order to do the job you are going for, any one of which, if forgotten, can ruin your day. I do understand your point, and I don't fully disagree, it is an 'extra thing' to think about and take along after all, and I can see why it may not appeal. But that's the mission planning and design process, decide what you want to accomplish, work out what you need to take to achieve it and plan accordingly.

Well, not flavour in a taste sense obviously. See it more of like a specialised tool that you need for certain tasks. and with it not being 'standard issue' or an automatic upgrade (which would be pointless) it would make the environments you need it for feel a bit more special. Certainly not something I would get excited about, or at all upset if not included,

We all find different aspects satifying in different ways. The same could be said about many aspects of upgrading 'normal' tech... Engines, Ladders, wheels, bigger parachutes etc. that you need to develop in order to explore different environments. I certainly don’t think it's a big deal, and I think more than one or two 'specialist' suits would be overkill. But the concept of needing to take a specialised piece of kit (suit in this case) to fulfil a certain task (EVA underwater, or in extreme heat) is not really different gameplay wise to taking a thermometer to measure temperature, or a parachute to land on Eve. No, it doesn't add a lot, but it does add a little bit more 'flavour'.

Hmm. First DLC free to those that bought (and didn't refund) before say the First roadmap update, would be a nice 'thank you for your faith in us' gesture without being unrealistically generous. I don't expect it mind you. And nor do I feel I have any right to it. I took my chances and bought it not even knowing if I could run it (I could, just) with no thoughts of refunding. It did accelerate my PC upgrade plans by about a year though.

Oh, so that's what it's supposed to do.

Not disputing that. It's a real pain. But that's not a problem with the parts.

I think the procedural wings are a major improvement. I see no point, or benefit, to adding numerous extra parts by adding fixed sizes. Mind you, some way of adding fuel capacity would be very welcome.

That is my fear too. I think some new content/ features could, and should, be added gradually with patches. Partly for good PR and partly to get feedback. But I think there are a lot of current bugs and issues that need to be fixed that will just prevent us using some new features so bugfixes are a priority.

I think it needs something along these lines. Either a 'cheat' to orbit/location option like in KSP1. Or preferably an in game 'Test/Simulation' mode. It would be a nice addition if it can increase the accuracy of the simulated environment based on your in-game observations and experiments etc.

I think the 'obnoxious' comment was referring to the contrasting formatting of the text you used, not the words or message itself.

That works, but if you are warping at the time it's a few key presses. Or two if you press / then <. I do agree though, having it tied to Esc is more intuitive.

Yes, though I certainly wouldn't expect the game to mind-read my ever changing intentions I know they are aware of the problem, and I can certainly appreciate the difficulties of what they are trying to achieve, but currently it doesn't even seem to use information it demonstrates that it has. Eg. A simple probe (core, tank & engine plus comms and RTG) in Mun orbit detached from its transfer stage (about 3k Dv in VAB). Tank full and green bars showing it, engine activated and working, and it tells me I have ZERO Dv so can't plan a manoeuvre.

I agree that attachment nodes need work. But I do suspect your design is the main issue. The reason I think you are having issues is basically gravity. Vertical stacks won't have a tendency to sag in the same way that a horizontal stack supported at the ends will. The vertical one is no 'less' fragile, it's just dealing with different stresses. Also... How does the game know what you think is a plane and what's not?

As I understand it all the celestial bodies got fully reworked and replaced. But they reused the basic 'map' of Kerbin for familiarity reasons, and some 'old friends' from other bodies, like the Mohole and Dres canyon, were also remodelled.

I'm finding it's the 'little' things that sap my enthusiasm most. Like... Vessel naming not working, the VAB save method being somewhat unintuitive and glitchy, or suddenly deciding I have 0 Dv when it can see and shows I have a full tank. 'Bigger' things like orbits decaying, landed vessels falling through the surface etc. Are equally frustrating, but I can accept they are more complex and may not be as easy to get right. Though I do feel they should have got them sorted before release.

That's what I was thinking, but couldn't put into words effectively enough. Thanks. As I've said elsewhere, the logic behind the implementation makes sense to me... now I understand it. Maybe what 'could' work is... At the point of 'zero fuel' it switches automatically to 'Plotting Mode', and tells you it's doing it by pop up message and changing colours or dotting the lines or something. Whereby it ignores the vessel conditions and assumes zero mass and infinite available Dv... No need for a toggle that we could forget to engage or disengage either.

Having just read Nate's reasoning behind it I understand the logic, but still think it's a poor idea. Or rather a very poor implementation. For starters, the Dv and TWR information needs to be sufficiently reliable for this to be if any use, which it currently isn't.

It's jot so much the wobble itself that bugs me, it is after all a good visual clue to the weak points, but the resulting enforced 'gimballing' that completely wrecks any chance of recovering stability. And it's even caused by using the right parts for the job. Surely a part designed to rigidly connect two rigid cylinders should be able to do that!

I've got so familiar with wet noodle rockets that to see one stay rigid just looked 'wrong'. I must admit, seeing it tumble was one of those 'I did that too' moments. I was half expecting it to straighten up and carry on.