pandaman

I can't think of a reason it needs to exist at all. If I haven't got enough fuel I want to have an idea of how much by.

Hmm. Much as I am itching for more content too, it really doesn't feel as if the game is in a suitable state for it to be worthwhile just yet. Far too many bugs and glitches etc to be worth investing much time into 'serious' missions. To the point where I'm purely doing R&D type missions to test out launchers and probe deployment methods etc, ready for when I can actually build and use functional probes and use them.

I'm intrigued to see how they tackle that. But at least, I'm not bothered enough about MP for it to be a huge disappointment if they can't make it work sufficiently well, though I hope they can.

I never used Scansat, as I wanted to keep mod count to a minimum, but I too felt that the 'instascan' approach was not a great implementation. Yes, I think a more realistic approach should be the default stock method.

Working on the assumption that MP will be limited to a closed group of upto 16 players (based on what I understand from what Nate said about upto 4 agencies each with upto 4 pjayers) then that indicates that it is going to be primarily small group co-op or space race focused (I don't think KSP lends itself, functionally or socially, to large numbers of individuals doing their thing MMO style). This should make it relatively easy to filter out those you discover don't play nicely. Whilst I doubt I will play MP much myself, I can see the appeal and think it is a worthwhile feature.

They seem to be just a visual indicator as to where the planet is (centre of the circle). As an alternative to a big 'dot' or out of scale image of the planet which would give a false impression of scale. Makes sense, but I did think they were SoI boundaries at first.

Yes it does. It seems to be when below 25km or so, which would be why it doesn't appear to occur on bodies with an atmosphere.

I understand the problem (reducing the cloud coverage/quality in settings might help you), but I disagree with 'turning off' the atmosphere. I see cloud cover as one of the things you need to plan for and work around, and it helps make planets present different challenges when otherwise very similar too. As @dr.phees said, appropriate surface scanning tools would be the way to tackle this IMO .

Not just you. But what I have realised is that, unlike KSP1, the node marks the START of the burn, not the mid-point. It's logical but does mean that you need to place it before your Ap, and/or 'wiggle' it afterwards to get the results you want.

No doubt some of the experiments will be the same. And we will most likely need to activate the majority of them in the same way (click to start etc). What I hope is different is the implementation of some of them, and what the game does with the science we collect. I'd like more experiments to give yield over time (temperature monitoring etc) so you get a small 'trickle' of data and science points over time rather than a single big payout instantly. After all that's how observational experiments work. And ideally for the science gained to be of practical use rather than just currency.

How soon can we expect a decent Dv and TWR tool in the VAB (and flight). To plan anything reasonably well we need at least ASL and Vac Dv per stage. Per body TWR and ASL Dv would be nice too, but that could be linked to science discovery and 'learned' in game for bodies other than Kerbin. KSP1s implementation may not have been perfect but at least it existed and was certainly adequate.

I've had a couple of occasions, when flying an aircraft, where something just 'fell off' as if decoupled. (No decouplers of any sort on the craft). One was a large undercarriage wheel and the other a Goliath engine attached to wings. Both very similar test variants of the same craft. Flying relatively straight and level, and having had several successful test flights previously. Anyone else had this?

The gridded CAD style flat views in VAB are a great feature and very handy. However visualising and setting vertical and horizontal alignments would be much easier if we were able to adjust the grid size, or have a fainter smaller grid in addition, so that the lines would be closer to the bits we want to check. What may be more useful though are horizontal and vertical 'Rulers' that can be dragged to exactly where we want them (such as directly over undercarriage legs). Perhaps even a protractor too to assist with angled placements.

Even in KSP1 time warp didn't stop immediately, but yes it 'fades out' slower in KSP2. My guess it it's to 'ease in' the new level without a sudden stop that could cause issues. I always keep an eye out and reduce warp when I'm getting close. If you hover over the warp arrows it shows the speed as a pop-up.

As much as it's 'not my thing' I do think Multiplayer is a worthwhile feature. I might play MP a bit with my kids (they got ne into KSP originally), but not a great deal MP will, I think, encourage some to try it that may be reluctant. A friend that plays can guide and assist with the 'learning curve' without sitting over their shoulder.

Yes, I find that a bit jarring too. It certainly needs some sort of 'long distance' representation to ease in the appearance and enable you to see the clearer areas from a long way off.

Yes, probably more logical than my conclusion. Absolutely, my sentiments too.

Completely agree. Stupid, Stupid idea. I have been quite patient with bugs and apparently odd 'design decisions' so far. After all it's still a bit experimental, but this one really rattles me as as it feels like a rushed BS move, from someone that doesn't know or play the game. By all means tell me if I haven't enough fuel to fulfil my plan, but at least let me plan it so I can see how close I am, and try different ways. The game doesn't 'know- what I want to do, I may want to do a single digit Dv tweak to my orbit with very little juice left in the tank. In one case I had a third of a tank of fuel left, and couldn't even try to plan a manoeuvre. No idea how much Dv 'cause it wouldn't tell me (that's the root problem here), but I was able to do it inefficiently with lots of fuel to spare.... So much for 'not enough fuel'.

Don't knock it. 51% is enough to get elected without needing to do a deal or form a coalition .

Not if the upper length limit was extended. I would assume that it would not be too difficult to 'unlock' extra length steps as a part of science/tech progression.

I'm not sure I'd go quite that far. .. The procedural wings work great, and the fairings (although nit perfect) do work ok from a construction point of view. I think the non tapered / adapter style tanks, beams and trusses, maybe SRBs too) should all be variable length, but probably in 'steps' equivalent to the current shortest length. That effectively keeps the same 'Lego' style, but greatly reduces part count and size of the parts list.

Just as several others have been saying. This is exactly why I see this could be a huge thing for building large ships. As your agency's 'tech' improves you can unlock longer variants of what is already in the parts list (to reflect improvements in design and materials), perhaps with limits in proportion to the part's cross section. It doesn't limit options or creativity, but reduces part count and number of joints considerably.

I really don't understand why fuel tanks aren't adjustable length either. Same for the structural girder type segments. But, we've been over and around this one for years. So let's see....

Assuming that there are plans to improve the Dv, TWR and ISP indication, both in VAB and flight... Can you also include 'Current ISP' along with current Dv and TWR when in flight? This would enable us to determine what the most efficient altitude and throttle settings etc are.

Frequency? I haven't a clue, and I think it's far too fluid a thing to expect any reliable regularity. It's more important that they get released when the game is stable enough to cope with them and when they are ready. Currently I don't think it is in a state where it is playable enough to be even worth introducing the next roadmap feature. I do think that as the state of the game improves then frequency of 'roadmap' updates will tend to increase though.