ILikeIke

This framing reminds me of the following math question I got wrong in a class years ago: An orchestra of 30 musicians can play a certain symphony in 60 minutes. How long will it take an orchestra of 60 musicians to play that same piece?

I'd live with it if it meant more frequent dev updates.

Reported Version: v0.2.1 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Windows 11 | CPU: i7-1165G7 | GPU: Iris Xe Graphics | RAM: 15.75GB I expected to visit the Mun arch to claim science points and progress in science mode. I was unable to visit Mun arch because there's a gigantic mohole-like hole under it for about half a kilometer around. I'm not sure how to replicate the behavior since the buggy element is the environment. I landed 7.9km away and walked to the structure. Included Attachments: .ipsImage { width: 900px !important; }

Nate & team, I really appreciate the candor here. Learning about your team's priorities, and its approach to setting priorities, makes it so much easier to play through the issues that inevitably come with releasing a game into Early Access. KSP 1 changed my life, and I'm confident that both it and KSP 2 will do the same for many more players to come. I wish you the best of luck in squashing these bugs, and many others.

Oh, it's totally corporate propaganda. I'd expect nothing less given that it sounds like ULA is being spun off. But it's well-written and does a good job defending the design choices he oversaw (even if, like Ozan, I don't agree with most of them). I thought the real value was in 'this is what ULA optimizes rocket designs for', in contrast to the small launcher market. This is particularly worth considering in light of the upcoming sale, and perhaps of interest to the RSS/RO and roleplay communities on the forum independently of that. To Ozan's point about LEO Centaur - I speculate that's gonna be the one for the CST-100 Starliner.

The CEO of ULA (Tory Bruno) put out this article about how launch vehicles are optimized. As somebody who works on satellite side of the industry, I thought it was really well-written, and had some cool insights about how "the other side" works. https://medium.com/@ToryBrunoULA/the-secrets-of-rocket-design-revealed-e2c7fc89694c

This is an awesome changelog. It feels almost like a different game. Thank you! The KSP2 development, QA, and community relations teams are clearly tough and competent (and I'm sure the other teams are as well)!

This was a very Kerbal explanation, which I mean in the best way I can use that term. I'm excited to see your take on the other solar systems as they're released!

Funny you should say that - 'kerbal' is how I would describe the gameplay experience at the moment (which admittedly isn't very helpful if you don't already know the franchise ).

I'm excited for procedural airfoils!

My old computer’s HDD just failed, and I’d really like to be able to play KSP 2 when it comes out on whatever machine I get. Would anybody care to speculate (or if you are more informed than I, share the actual current best guess) about what the Windows systems requirements are likely to be for the game?

I Like Ike

I just want to say thank you for sharing these designs. I'm really interested in mission architectures, and I'm particularly interested in your Design Reference Architectures, the trade-offs you make for them, and their intended use cases. I look forward to experiencing them with updated balance in KSP 1.4.2. Thanks again!

Is the Making History DLC required to play missions created by users that just use stock parts? If not, where can I go to learn how to add missions created by other users to my game?

Is this still accurate? I'm looking to use KSPTOT to do trajectory analysis for an interscholastic competition and want to make sure that I'm converting in-game time to IRL time properly (additionally, I'm concerned that the way KSP handles time may have changed in the past 3 years).