EnderKid2

I must introduce you to our Lord and Savior, the ∆V map.

a probe could definitely get there I think. If you have the communotron 16, that has the range to get a signal to Minmus if you have tracking stations tiers 2 or 3 which you have as you're playing science mode

Go into it as blind as possible, but if you get stuck, ask for hints on the subreddit. They're good at nudging you without spoiling. Back on-topic, I can see how procedural design is not ideal but our sample size (of one star system) is low. Perhaps Elite:Dangerous is right and 90% of what we find are bland balls of ice or rock or gas giants.

Not "The Outer Worlds", "Outer Wilds" They're entirely different games.

Would be cool if they could somehow get some permutation of Elite: Dangerous' Stellar Forge generation system and have an entire galaxy though no one's ever gonna get more than a few hundred LY out

would be nice to get some sort of augmented reality "utility overlay"/"night vision" which shows your ship(s) in fullbright and, if you have the relevant sensors, the ground and surrounding objects in wireframe/pointcloud

thought experiment: single-part rigid-body ship, no crash damage, timestep of 1/10 of a second for simplicity (though this will also apply if our craft is allowed to deform) t=0.0: craft is heading at the ground at 100m/s. It is 10m above the ground. t=0.1: craft contacts the ground 100m/s = 10m/0.1s t=0.2: we have 2 options now: 1. unconstrained phyisics engine: Craft velocity is set to 0m/s, a change of 100m/s in 0.1s, or 1000m/s^2. The craft correctly stops at the ground and all is fine. t=0.3+ Craft velocity is 0m/s, craft is sitting on ground. 2. constrained physics engine (set to 100m/s^2): Physics engine calculates that an acceleration of 1000m/s^2 should be applied to the craft and thus its velocity should be set to 0. "error checker" says "oh no you don't", and applies an acceleration of 100m/s^2 to the craft instead, setting its velocity to 90m/s (a change of 10m/s in 0.1s). t=0.3: craft is now 9m below ground (moved 9m in 0.1s). Physics engine calculates that an acceleration of 900m/s^2 should be applied to the craft and thus its velocity should be set to 0. "error checker" says "oh no you don't", and applies an acceleration of 100m/s^2 to the craft instead, setting its velocity to 80m/s (a change of 10m/s in 0.1s). t=0.4: craft is now 17m below ground (and so on) You see, sometimes extreme accelerations are required for realistic physics.

issue is that acceleration clamping is going to clip you through the ground because while the max acceleration of a bare engine might be hundreds of Gs, an impact with the ground could be thousands.

Means it would still be useful for slowing down upon entry to a system...

there's going to be some level of spin where the spheroid is very oblate but net acceleration toward the center at the equator is still positive.

What if it's spinning really fast?

of note, the arrow on the 250m/s part means that you could theoretically aerobrake using Duna to scrub off that velocity but lining up the entry and everything to then intercept Ike is a bit tricky.

We can warp fast enough that days take a fraction of a second, and probably will have even higher levels of warp to handle the years required to travel between systems, Waiting an hour isn't an issue.

IRL you're never going to get the COM and COT exactly aligned. People move around, fuel drains, wind applies forces, manufacturing tolerances means the thrust vector of the engine is a fraction of a degree off from ideal. That's what SAS is for. Also from your concern with the vertical position of the COM, I believe you are subscribing to the pendulum rocket fallacy.

I think Trajectories and some of the lower-level VTOL assists from TCA (like vertical and horizontal velocity control) should be integrated, unlocked as you progress.