byaafacehead

@Spicat Looking at the other posts, I think my bug might be separate/unrelated. My ship maintains a proper orbit, but the focus and trajectory line gets bugged.

I mean, that's a definitely gripe I have as well! A lot of the map camera/UI still needs work (don't get me started on maneuver nodes). Here's the relevant bug tracker for that particular issue, if you want to give it another vote...

Reported Version: v0.2.1 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Win10 22H2 | CPU: AMD 5600X | GPU: RX 6700XT | RAM: 32GB When reloading my craft, I had an issue where the vessel is nowhere to be seen and while nav ball and UI are present , there's no attitude control. The engines can be throttled and hear sound and I see fuel/dV so that seems to work. When switching to map view, the craft icon is still shown but it appears to diverge from the trajectory line. At first I tried reloading, and this sometimes would work. I also just tried going to the KSC and then tracking station and controlling the ship again, this worked as well, so thankfully it seems its more the ship is ok but somehow the player control is bugged. Screenshot of ship view, map view, craft and the save file. (Don't mind the goofy design ) I did have one part of the craft spontaneously explode, I think due to some part clipping, no idea if related or not. Included Attachments: LaythePlaneLauncherFULLSEND.json LaytheP45k.json .ipsImage { width: 900px !important; }

I'm just trying the laythe mission with a space plane, though I need to design and launch a return vehicle for the crew/surface samples.. was waiting for the most recent patch to do the actual landing (and see if my plane even works lol) I have just been able to get consistent with capture gravity assists using laythe or tylo and that's helped a ton on dV. I have had mixed luck with AlexMoons calculator. Either I am missing something obvious (though I have tried a bunch of things!) or KSP2 drifts from KSP1 over time, so by 80y it's basically unusable. For now, I just eyeball it. To clarify the main issue is the predicted phase angle being widly different from the actual ingame planet positions on the day specified. So it's not departure angle or more minor details which are messing me up.

Reported Version: v0.2.1 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Win10 | CPU: AMD 5600X | GPU: RX 6700XT | RAM: 32GB When at KSC, you can switch to different buildings directly via the esc menu. However I think the VAB and Tracking station are slightly bugged for me. When in the VAB, you can't switch directly to Tracking station, and the Tracking station you can pick the Tracking station (less annoying but still seems like a bug). I included a screenshot of mission control as an example of where the menu seems to work properly. This bug has been around since at least v0.2.0 Included Attachments: .ipsImage { width: 900px !important; }

It was noted in the latest (1/25) KERB bug tracker, but just at a 'reproducible' level. I did see another post regarding workaround for the bug: you can manually open the save file and cha ge the craft state to flying. Sorry, don't have theink handy but you can probably find it by search

If you have ever tried Simple Rockets 2 (Juno), most parts are procedural, including engines. So its handled that way, though in a bit more complicated fashion. If I recall, it's chamber pressure (higher pressure means better efficiency and thrust but is heavier since the engine is thicker to handle the pressure). Throat width, where you can trade off between thrust and Isp, and then the bell, which optimizes ISP for mass (as well as suiting better for atmo vs vac performance).

I have had this too. I time warp to the suggested time and sometimes the planets are so far off (like 270° instead of 90°). I think the KSP year 1 = KSP year 0 got changed so they match, but I still check that too. I think my campaign is 100 or so years in

Looking forward to trying this out on Tuesday and seeing the full patch notes

Its funny seeing this thread and other threads which say the exact opposite, that science should be far more interactive. Devs probably will be a in a good spot when both sides are mad

There are less science parts, but I am saying the one which exist are more differentiated from a gameplay perspective. For example, the thermometer, mystery goo, pressure sensor all are basically just: go to biome, click run experiment. So those redundant "go and click" style experiment got lumped into Science Jr. The other experiments have additional constraints, like survey time, power requirements etc., which is better gameplay-wise then a large number of parts which all functionally work in an identical way (that's not fun, just tedious). You press one button to start all of these experiments but you have to think out how to make a craft which can meet those constraints. Though I would be happy to see more sci parts released for further variety.

+1 for the vessel info (especially the Big Chonker mission) And clearing debris. I set the 'persistent debris' down but it didn't delete what I had, so maybe that's just a bug..

I wonder if there's a way to dig that out of the save file?

This is exactly a frustration I have. Well summarized, especially the SOI bubble. Completely agree precision maneuver needs a detached editor. Hopefully Tuesday's 2.1.0 update helps a little

Not having robotics too, that such a great system in KSP1. Though I get near term there's more pressing priorities for KSP2 development, but I hope something like that makes it in the game in the not too distant future

Having that in Juno (Simple rockets 2) is really great.. especially for making more absurd crafts (like doing shortest time to orbit Sprint-like rocket(

I sort of justified having the reliant and swivel be worse than the others, as starting engines they are a little more primitive. After the very start, you get to unlock other engines which are all a bit better and balanced among each other. Similarly, in my mind side boosters are nice as supplemental engines but perform a little worse than an optimal stack design, as you can just use them as a lazy slap-on fix for improper twr. Though having them as more useful primary options does sound nice. XS class I aslo think should be different, as you primarily are using them for small probes, landers and satellites. I don't know of it makes sense to have XS launchers. Not necessarily disagreeing with your suggestions but just some thoughts there. I do agree the vector is kinda crazy for it's size, hydrolox is really interesting idea. Thoughts on the larger nuclear engine? I find its insane isp makes the smaller one very niche as even with a single large Hydrolox tank, the isp gain makes dV more using the larger engine, just because it is so efficient.

Nice to see several rows crossed off!

One thing I want, is the ability to click the trajectory (to add maneuver node or warp to) which is shown with SOI of a body you haven't entered. For example: I am in orbit around Kerbol after doing a transfer burn from Kerbal and Duna. If I want to create a maneuver node (let's say a capture burn), I can't focus on Duna and use that trajectory line that's shown, I have to use the line that's projected way out around Kerbol. KSP1 you could just use the line. Also I liked KSP1's precision maneuver system where the controls for the node are in a consistent place on the screen (not stuck onto the trajectory line). I actually wish something similar existed for VAB for the rotate/translate tool.

One small gripe I currently have is the lack of MK2 to small diameter adapter for methane-only fuel tank when building airplanes. There's a decent selection of methalox adapters so really just having methane and structural (e.g. no fuel) versions of those adapters would be nice, as currently the only option is to use a methalox with no oxidizer. Fairly minor but also seems like it could be pretty easy to add. Edit: also I realize tubes do offer a good "procedural" adapter solution for structural only. So definitely those are nice.

Reported Version: v0.2.0 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Windows 10 22H2 | CPU: AMD 5600X | GPU: AMD 6700XT | RAM: 32GB Making a space plane, and the methane air breathing engines are mounted onto wings with methane fuel tanks. These wings are attached to radially mounted decouplers. There's also stack decouplers on the ship. All are set to not crossfeed. However delta-v shown in construction and flight uses all methane on the ship with the air breathing engines. Furthermore when flying, the methane is consumed, requiring manual rebalancing of the fuel tanks with the resource manager. The issue seems maybe related to radial mount/symmetry though I haven't tried enough to really tell. Included Attachments: .ipsImage { width: 900px !important; }

Just FYI: as you say, if you start in a biome then leave it it stops the experiment. But you can resume it if you re-enter that biome. Its annoying for the orbital survey as it takes a couple seconds to start (real time, regardless of time warp level so definitely buggy), but it's possible to get most science, as long as the orbit has some long patches of the biome. Needs multiple orbits and is tedious so definitely needs improvement..

It has worked for me, then broke on craft I have used.. which is very annoying. Did a realtime 4 hour burn as a result.. until I see ion engines aren't going to bug out I have stoppped using them

My 2 cents.. I like how they did science. I definitely think it can be improved. But for OP's criticism and some of the other ones I saw when skimming through: There's a dedicated button for science reports where you can see the flavor text once the science is obtained. The science parts are more unique and differentiated (some take time/electricity, some are awkward sizes). KSP1 had stuff like mystery goo which I think is great but it's better to have that lumped into Science Jr. I do think having a persistent place to view old science reports would be good, and if the game a some "fog of war" at the start for certain things it might be interesting. Like slightly off topic but related: planet synopsis could add more useful details like atmosphere height, maybe that could be obtained from science measurements. Though honestly little things like that just make the game more complicated without a big benefit to actual gameplay. So I think if science experiments could be kept as easy as they are now, but have some more UI to show and highlight what's being measured and make it a little easier to see and review flavor text, that would be great. But largely I think science is done well (aside from obvious bugs, which there are a few annoying ones)

(Just cause I got super confused when googling this earlier ) FYI for anyone seeing this now: the KSP2 year is now exactly the same as KSP 1 so no need to convert.