Klapaucius

I was out for an evening drive doing some exploring. I tried to climb these stairs, but at the moment I just go through them. I'm hoping, like the parking garage ramps, that these will be useable in the future. By the way, the modeling looks great here! Bob could, however, climb the big gantry: I was hoping to put a rocket next to him, but unfortunately, the game considers anything at all near the launch gantry to be an interfereing vessel, so I was unable to do so. I could put the rocket there, and then have Bob walk up again, but it would be nice to have the area more narrowly defined.

After next week, when life slows down a bit, I am hoping to go through all the landing challenges and catch up. But, for the moment, I thought I would post my last attempt at Dres. Does falling through it count as landing? Note my altitude...

As I stated in the initial post, I have already checked these.

Not sure if this should be in tech support, but it is forum related--not game related. I do not seem to get notifications of people I am following--who tend to be the developers like Nate and forum folks like Dakota. For example, Nate's "Taste of Science" thread was posted 15 hours ago, and I only stumbled upon it while browsing, despite having logged on early today and following him. I checked my profile settings, and I should be getting immediate notifications, but I never see the little red bell light up when they post. Does anyone else have this issue?

This was great. I usually skip through videos, but I decided to just watch this all the way through. I almost cheered when you got it, and I loved you were able to land the other plane afterwards. (In the current game state, I call that a successful landing).

Somehow this survived entry from orbit around Laythe. It did not have chutes. I have no idea why, nor do I know why it is floating vertically.

I love being able to timewarp while doing a burn. What a difference on long missions!

Thanks for the reasoned response. But I wonder if people really need to express their feelings all the time. And if so, can't they do it without being abusive? I think we have come to accept far too much rudeness as just part of life. "Telling it like it is," has become a eumphemism for behaving badly; it is far too easy to be a keyboard warrior. Alas, I am not sure they are. Without getting too much more off topic, @Nate Simpson, I've put over 100 hours into KSP2. I've had many frustrating moments, but I have had moments of glory and wonder. KSP2 has its big bugs, but even in its infant state, it has expanded from KSP1 in many ways. And I am enjoying NOT dealing with certain frustrations from the first game. I'm looking forward to how this develops.

It is not tired. Nate is an employee of Intercept, and I guarantee you he will be shown the door if he is not careful in what he posts. Furthermore, it is one thing to say, "I'm disappointed in the communications, and I would prefer the developers acknowledge the shortcomings we have highlighted," vs "yeah we launched a stinking turd." That may be how the poster feels, but for many of us, that is no longer constructive or helpful criticism. It come across, as @jost noted, the writing of an immature person. I've had my share of frustrations playing the game (and a lot of fun, too), and I have put those into bug reports. I understand that many folks feel the game has not lived up to expectations. That is fair, though from all the comms that went out before release, I was not too surprised by its state. What I, and I think many other members of this forum are finding fatiguing is the lack of dignified discourse. You can disgree. You can submit criticism, but it can be done in a non-abusive way that looks to the issue, not the person, be it Nate or fellow KSP players. For example, I think @ShadowZone has done an exemplary job in his videos, taking a reasoned approach--calling out issues, but looking at the big picture in a constructive manner. Has the KSP2 team done everything right? No. But I have seen enough over time to know this is a group passionate about this game. These are not Wall-Street traders--they are fans who want this to work. We can either help them achieve that with useful contributions, constructive feedback and some moral support, or we can get on a soapbox and curse at the world. This forum has traditionally been one of the internet refuges for me: a place where people share, geek out and help each other. I hope it returns to that.

I really enjoy these posts. I don't manage to see everything, and I don't do Discord, so having a forum highligting community creations is wonderful for me. And, it is always nice when your own creation gets a shout out. There is a lot of creativity out there manifested in a myriad of ways: creativity in engineering, in design, in missions and in producing some stunning replicas. There are also some screenshots that are lovely simply due to their composition. I truly hope this stays a regular feature in the same way that we always have threads of the month.

It is inconsistent for me. I have a craft where the action group will open bay days and toggle the engines, but it will not toggle the ladders.

It was interesting she figured out that they will create lift once they are debris.

The improved version: Craft file here: https://kspbuilds.com/build/13fcc076-4d65-4359-b6d4-7efc55

The rover has reached a state of sublime perfection... I call it Thing 1. It prefers low gravity environments, so I downloaded the Lazy Orbit mod and test drove it on Ike.

The trick is to use decouplers and then offset them. In the image below, you can see the decoupler attached to a cargo bay. That whole thing is attached to the larger structure. Once decoupled, the rotating assembly is free to move, but still collides with the axle (which is just a medium fuel tank). For the rover, I did it a bit differently, but the same principle applies. The two Z-375 cargo bays are attached to the smaller trusses. The trusses have been inset and the cargo bay rings have been pulled very far forward from the trusses. The axle is attached to the large rocket motor plate by some small fuel tanks with stack separators on either end. When staged, the tanks and separators fall to the ground, and the rover rests on the axles. Of course, there is a lot of friction and the whole thing is loose, so it does not take much for the entire thing to come apart. I've hyperedited it to Ike using Lazy Orbit and it works a lot better in low gravity.

I finally got the mod working. 678 m/s at 698 metres above sea level. It ran out of gas right here. It looks way cooler in the picture on the bottom.

Continuing messing around with axles. Here is a very slow and inefficient rover using dumpling tanks for wheels:

Continuing mucking around with alternative axles, I wanted to see if I could make a functional rover. If we apply the term functional loosely, I think we can call this a success. It does come apart as it approaches 7 m/s, so it will not win any races. Back in KSP1, my company K.R.A.S.S.H. Industries (Klapaucius Reliable Air, Space, Sea & Hardware) called this the SLIPS system (SLow, Inefficient, Pointless).

Welcome aboard! Or back :-) I really wish more folks took this approach. I have found many frustrating bugs, but I have also done some incredible things. With each patch, the game gets better. I'm having a good time despite the setbacks (which for me, mostly occur in the VAB). I hope my feedback is helping the developers, and I am enjoying seeing the process. Despite the naysayers, I believe this game will really shine in the long run.

Since The Kerbal Space Program is my favorite game, technically anything I build qualifies.

My attempt:

Inspired by @ManEatingApe's "Catapult a Kerbal to the Island Airfield Challenge: Build a catapult, trebuchet or some other device that allows you to fling things, and then fling a large object with it. Bonus points if you hit buildings or get stuff on rooftops or in the radar dish. Since KSP2 is more limited at the moment, all you need to do is build a functional catapult and fling something (like a fuel tank). If your catapult is destroyed in the process, that is okay. You may launch from anywhere, and if you wish, you can make your catapult mobile to better hit the KSC. The object you fling can have a command module attached to it (I found that I needed that in order for KSP to stay focused on it, for some reason.) However, it can have no power of its own. You may make it into a glider if you wish.

I experimented with making a prototype amusement park ride, creating a system for rotation around an axle. It is rough, but it works (as long as it does not get going too fast).

I was experimenting to see if I could create an axle in KSP2. This is my first big experiment. It is a bit rough, but the concept works:

In KSP1, by holding down the shift key, you could slide parts away from their attachment points. In KSP2, you can do this, but the distances are very limited. Also, when offsetting parts, there are some peculiar behaviors as you get to the sliding limit, such as parts shifting vertically when you are only pulling horizontally. I used this constantly in KSP1, and am finding it increasingly difficult to work around the new limitations as I get more ambitious/quirky in my builds. It would be lovely to have that same functionality from KSP1 carried over to KSP2.