pandaman

Ahh. Now that makes sense. Thanks. It's obvious that aspect is still WiP, and needs some work. But it is the kind of thing I expected to be a bit more sorted out, even in EA.

I'm finding this confusing too. To me it seems as if you save a 'Workspace'. In which you have whatever assemblies and vehicles you want. And these are what show in the 'open' menu. What is the point of assigning a vehicle name too? Especially as, by design, workspaces are intended to contain multiple vehicles or assemblies anyway. And why, when I open a Workspace does it only give me the vehicle name and not the Workspace name? So... Why not save the Workspace as it is now and assign a name as desired. Then have the ability to name each craft or assembly within it. Eg. My workspace is called 'Mun Mission A' and contains three craft/subassemblies 'Mun X, Y and Z' So it is named and saved as only as 'Mun Mission A'

Do you get this happening with the stock craft too?

It shows as a full fresh download... or at least it did when I downloaded it just after release announcement. I didn't see a 'patch' option though.

I don't see this as a problem. Yeah, it may not be 100% realistic, but it's not that far off and certainly close enough for game purposes. I'm sure there are many other areas where these kinds of things are 'rounded for convenience' .

Hmmm. ... Probably not the 'Full Game' you have been predicting though .

Is that so? I thought the structural tube parts were more like empty fuel tanks, at least in the way they are implemented.

I'd say it's just 'different' to what you may be familiar with from KSP1. Try using more stabilisation and/or RCS. No doubt they still have tweaking and tuning to do too.

I found how to re-size them with the tab on the bottom right corner. But they would also benefit (along with the other UI elements) from being able to scale the font etc to get more info in the same or smaller space. A minor thing in the grand scheme of things. But it would enable the user to tailor things to suit their own preferences.

I'm in the 'Not a bad idea, but needs refinements' camp. If right clicking a part opened only the relevant section, with a button to open the full menu focused on the clicked part it would help a lot. The option to open the full, unfocucused, menu from the icon at the bottom is still useful though. It is certainly way too big for me, but may be fine for other users. Scalability is the key here. But I guess that's partly what this EA thing us about.

Something like this would certainly be nice. However the OP is suggesting an indication of the actual orientation of the vessel, not the prograde direction.

Got it. Thanks.

I think this is a neat idea. A 'satnav' type icon or thin arrow would work for this.

The key here is it's called 'playTEST'. That means it needs TESTING. As in 'we need to make sure this works as intended'.

Is there currently a way to move fuel between tanks? Nothing pops up in the Part Manager, which is where I'd expect it. And just 'cause I can't find one doesn't mean it's not there somewhere.

I'm guessing that colonies will need some form of LS or food production mechanism even if a very simple abstract system.

Sorry, but it never claimed to be 'finished product'. Yes $50 feels a bit steep for what we currently have, but that is a different issue. However, it does 'work', and it is certainly playable, as many others have proved far better than I can given my sub optimal hardware (but it is still playable).

Overall I like the new UA, sure it's 'different', so unfamiliar, but lot of the issues I have would be addressed by being able to scale things and move them like we could in later versions if KSP1.

But we don't know how long they had been working on them. It wasn't unusual for KSP1 to have next day patches either. But I suspect KSP2 is a different beast, and they really need to ensure that this patch works, and doesn't break anything else at the very least.

Whilst I don't disagree, they can only really release a patch if they have one, and even then they need to be sure it works and doesn't cause other issues. Frustrating though it is 'no patch' is better than 'rushed patch that makes thing worse'.

As a 'planning' tool. Checking if you can get an Intercept and getting an estimate of Dv requirements in advance. It's good it tells you that you don't have enough fuel though. Perhaps a 'planning mode' that isn’t related to a craft would be helpful.

So you want them to release fixes that don't actually fix anything? Apart from being very frustrating for us (including you) it would be a PR disaster. The only way to make it more stable is to release fixes that actually work, which means CHECKING them first.

As long as it scrolls to show the desired part automatically . It would be a real pain if you needed to find it yourself.

But only if those fixes are stable. Would you rather have fixes that work and don't cause other problems, or rushed fixes that sort of work sometimes but break other things because they didn't check them properly first? Yes, of course we all want fixes ASAP, but only if they do actually fix things. By not testing and checking it could be even worse.

I know there is 'speculation' about if KSP1 code was used, partly due to some of the same bugs re-emerging. Naturally I don't know but... Even if not, both games gave the same physics problems to solve, so it's not illogical that similar results could appear even through different causes. Eg. You have two cars that each have a tyre that deflates. One has a puncture, the other has a damaged rim. Both display the same symptoms in the same way (flat tyre) but the causes (and fixes) are quite different.