pandaman

Has anyone figured out a workable 'optimum' ascent profile yet? I expected things to behave differently to KSP1, but I'm generally either going way too shallow and failing to reach orbit, or way too steep and having to crank over sharply once high in, or out of, the atmosphere . I can't seem to find the "ballpark guidelines" such as "turn 5 deg at 50ms off the pad" or "45deg attitude at 10km altitude" that gives me a decent chance at consistency. Also the 'follow prograde' SAS option doesn't seem to want to do a gravity turn as efficiently as KSP1, most likely 'pilot error' but a couple of hints would be appreciated

When opening a workspace how about having the Load, Merge and Delete options on the thumbnail rather than at the bottom? Maybe they could pop up on clicking so as not to hide other details.

I think there should be more 'long term' experiments, a bit like the seismic sensors in KSP1. As in.... You leave an experiment running and it sends (hopefully useful) data periodically. Such as take a temperature reading every hour and send the results every 10 days, on receipt you get a few science points, the amount of which would diminish over time, depending on the nature of the experiment.

Science mode as a precursor/test bed for the upcoming 'exploration' mode could make sense. Also it could work as a 'less serious' campaign type system for those that want it. The biggest issue with the KSP1 science mode was the balance (which should be a simple fix) and complete lack of context or relevance for the experiments.

I can't say I'm missing it as such, but I did find it very useful and a nice thing to have. My surface refueling system relied on being able to connect fuel lines . Orbital VABs serve a different function IMO, they are for building the vessels. The EVA construction allowed in the field repairs and modifications

I'd say it's a valid thing to include and not out of place when you consider we have oceans that ideally need submarine parts to enable exploration.

Yes, this I think this would be a good addition. Ideally with an easily accessible toggle (perhaps a button on screen) to enable us to easily turn them on again if disabled.

@ColKlonk2 I would often add a light (the striplight parts are great for this) on my ships to easily show which side is 'up'.

That's exactly what I was thinking

Keeping crews alive (and functional) is such a key aspect of RL space travel that it just seems illogical to brush it aside. Sure 'mods' can, and almost certainly will, cover LS in both very simple and highly detailed forms. But that's not the point. I do understand Nate's point, and there are obviously bigger priorities. But I do feel a fairly basic stock LS system should be implemented in time for v1.0.

Pesky baboons, siphoning off the fuel and selling it back to KSC.

Which is exactly why LS needs toggles and difficulty options. Each to their own, as much as I want it in stock, I may well also want to have some saves with it disabled. As for 'annoyances' running out of fuel, electricity or comms range are also annoying, and not fundamentally different to LS. All are equally critical to mission planning both IRL and KSP.

I think the 'idea' is sound, just the implementation could be a bit better. Not unlike a lot of the UI features, but I guess that's one of the things this EA is intended to look at.

I have seen this mentioned elsewhere, but can't find it now, so... The moving ring indicators on the SoI boundary are a great idea, but can be a bit difficult to distiguish. I would suggest changing the Entry to have the rings moving inwards and the Exit moving outwards. Maybe also distinguish them more clearly by changing the colour or shape of one of them or by adding radial lines etc.

This sums up my thoughts on this too. The robotics parts (hinges, pistons and servos etc.) added a lot of useful options (just a shame they were so darned glitchy at times). But, whilst I acknowledge that many really enjoyed using them, the detail and fiddliness of the propellers was just out of scope IMO.

I'm essentially just 'mucking about' for now. Doing simple self contained 'non-infrastructure' type missions. Partly to just learn and familiarise myself with it. And also because I have to assume anything I do may have a limited lifespan due to bugs or changes in future patches and updates.

I'm enjoying it still, and sending probes out to take a peek at the Planets and Moons. Lack of gameplay options isn't a major hurdle, but that and bugs means I know I'll want to start exploring 'properly' once thing improve.

Thanks for your help and advice everyone. I think my best plan is 'new build' before too long, and just plod along with what I have until I do it. The game runs 'ok' in space, but the 'novelty' of 3FPS when launching things or flying around Kerbin is wearing a bit thin now . Edit... Took the plunge and got a 'recommended specs' machine knowing it will last me a good few years . Holy cow the difference is HUGE, I'd got accustomed to KSP1 chugging quite a bit too, so to play in actual 'real time' is taking some getting used to.

Would it be possible to include a Kerbal's name on the Helmet? (The "Kerman" bit could be omitted of course.

Thanks , very much appreciated. My PSU is... Sea Sonic SS-550HT Active PFC F3. As for budget it depends really on what's compatible and available at what prices. Don't want to spend an awful lot if I'm thinking of upgrading the lot in a a year or two, but if a GPU upgrade is viable and keeps me going for longer then I can consider. Probably looking at around £500 absolute max. New PC at recommended specs is around £1700 minimum. RTX 3080 is about half that (is it even compatible), but if I'm spending that much on GPU alone then why risk any compatibility issues anyway? RTX 3050 around £300, which looks interesting. Is my basic system good enough to warrant a reasonable GPU upgrade? Gut feeling is probably, but I'm no expert.

A very minor issue, but confusing all the same. Whenever Time Warp reduces due to approaching the selected point on the orbit or a manoeuvre node the warning always says '. . Due to Proximity to Celestial Body' and not the actual reason (approaching manoeuvre or selected 'warp to' point etc).

Currently the labels in the VAB 'Part Picker' only give a single size/format indicator... XS, SM, MD, LG, XL. This doesn't indicate the 'plane' formats (Mk2 & Mk3), nor does it show the 'other end' for adapter type parts, without looking at the pop-out description. Can we have multiple and other sizes and formats indicated with labels too please?

My current specs are... Quad Xeon W3550 @3.07 GHz 24 GB RAM GTX 1650 1080p (27") 550 watt Power supply It runs KSP2 rather better than I feared it might, but naturally very very sluggish on launches etc. RAM and CPU don't appear to struggle, but (4GB) GPU maxed out as one would expect. I want/plan to upgrade the whole thing to a 'recommended spec' at some point but would rather wait a year or two... Is there a suitable, and worthwhile, GC upgrade that I can simply plug in as a direct replacement now to tide me over for a couple of years.

I'm a little surprised LS is not on the plan. I was hoping for a rudimentary implementation in stock at least. With difficulty settings and/or on off toggles of course. It's certainly something I think should be represented in some way. But still...

Personally I'm not as enthusiastic about this as many of you . I found the robotics, as implemented in KSP1, much too fiddly and glitchy to be practical for a lot of what I wanted to do Craft would dance around and destroy themselves simply because I had a connection through a single piston etc . So I tended to find I couldn't trust it to behave when I needed it to and found it more trouble than it was worth to me. That said, it did (in theory) open up a lot of possibilities and there were many fascinating creations from a lot of other players.