Bej Kerman

KSP 1 and KSP 2 are following two completely independent development cycles. Updates on Intercept have 0 impact on KSP 1 and updates on Squad/Blitworks have nothing to do with KSP 2. Intercept never took ownership of the console version. If you really think so, feel free to link me to sources saying otherwise. The company mentioned in the post, Blitworks, and Squad, whom they were working with. T2 also owns them and Intercept, but they are not directly involved in the development of either game. Of course, but you're literally asking this to a post made by someone at Intercept, someone who will not have insight into a project Intercept never touched. You're free to ask Squad or T2 themselves but you won't find any good answers.

This was written by an old community manager and not anyone affiliated with Intercept. I'm afraid I am correct, and asking Intercept team members about a game they have nothing to do with is not going to get console players any closer to an update for KSP:EE.

At launch or near separation?

The new developer team has nearly nothing to do with KSP 1 and its ports.

That was only comedy for the first couple of times, beyond that is was just annoyance. Definitely not miss that crap. Remember when Doctor Who was being ran by Steven Moffat and everything sucked, but then Chris Chibnall happened and everyone was ready to forgive Moffat at the drop of a coin because "it was the good old days"? It seems regardless of TV show or game, peoples' critical thinking completely disappears when a new thing shows up and suddenly criticism of the old stuff becomes a taboo. Vl3d literally uses expletives related closely to frustration when describing the "cute, quirky charm" of KSP 1's problematic physics. Nobody misses wobbly rockets and I guarantee you that if they removed the stabilization options For Science gave us, we'd see a massive drop in players, because frankly nobody is playing KSP 2 to relive the stupid bad "but it's quirky" qualities of KSP 1. Sorry, but I've seen this discussion happen in too many fandoms and I just want to make everything clear, X doesn't become good because you think something's missing from Y.

Second only to Graggle Kerman

I have and I can back KSK up on their opinion here. Only difference between KSP 1 and 2 is that everything is being written with an actual style in mind rather than "what does the fanbase find funny this month?".

KSP 2 has this attitude as well. These are clichés I see all the time in larger sci-fi circles. The pantomime and bog-standard slapstick? I wouldn't call the jokes Squad came up with clever, and that same "awkward go-doer" attitude can be seen in KSP 2 as well - my favourite probably being the part description for the reactor.

Because there's barely any writing and proper characterisation, 99% of "KSP 1 had this and that" comes down to the headcanons people came up with. Even in promo material, they just made guttural noises a la Steamboat Willie and most of their character came from pantomime and bog-standard slapstick.

Again, you're writing your own personalities for characters that barely had any real personality, and citing that as a difference between KSP 1 and 2.

It definitely wouldn't. It'd be about as useless as the dV tool, that is, it'd be extremely useful, especially if your vehicle designs (and consequently their aero profiles) vary a lot. And even if physics was broken and aerobraking worked the same way for every possible combination of parts, it's not a bad thing to have a quick reference. There's also the matter that "only 4 bodies that have an atmosphere" is a statement which will not survive the entire planned development.

Certainly a lot more consistent in the tone, writing and art style.

Okay, then let me address the core of your post. #1, if you imagined Jeb and Val being so "in your face", then that was entirely your imagination as in-game they've got all the character of a cardboard box - unless you count part descriptions, in which case Val is non-existent to my knowledge and Jeb is implied to do business stuff in their free time. #2, the new VAB music is good and appropriate so I don't think it matters much that KSP 1 used what few appropriate royalty-free music tracks Squad could find. #3, it's an interesting idea, but depending on who you ask it's more fun to imply these from how your kerbals react to scary things than vice-versa. #4, whoopdedoo. #5, another whoopdedoo with little impact on the game itself. #6, This means literally nothing until you define "utter destruction and the fear of death" and elaborate on why you think this is absent from KSP 2, a game that also makes a big deal out of aeronautical trial-and-error through its marketing and in-game flavour text. #7, I'll concede that KSP 2's UI style is suboptimal. #8, Look at the top right corner of the parts list. That's where the part descriptions went. They're not gone. #9, Feel free to provide examples #10, where to begin... this is like giving Disney's Wish an extra 2/10 because they're using a new flashy logo. A logo that was mostly done by ILM, not Disney themselves. A logo that shows before the audience gets to see any of the work done on the actual movie itself. No, I am not giving KSP brownie points for a daft old logo, and I say that as someone passionate about motion graphics and graphic design. #11, Again, like #1, this is entirely your imagination because there's no difference.

(I find the current style quite adequate and appropriate)

You're complaining that they improved the UX? Like having to use the action groups to sidestep a haphazard UI was a good thing? Suit yourself, I guess. But the developers aren't gonna go out of their way to make things worse for the sake of appealing to the "jank = charm" fallacy.

Good for you. Parts don't become useless when one (1) player doesn't find a use for them.

Unlike fuel on a vessel that already has enough fuel, or a hab module on a vessel that already has enough hab?

So 4x the mass you'd end up with otherwise? And that is virtually irrelevant because there's a lot of players who do have a use for minimizing mass, so it's no good trying to figure out use cases for not using trusses. Not everyone goes for the "overengineer everything" playstyle where "just add more boosters" is an acceptable alternative to just using trusses

But that's dead weight or excess mass depending on the kind of mission.

(Congrats to Entropian, and anyone else mysteriously notified of linked content!)

Yeah, you're doomed because you're approaching in the opposite direction, so that's your own velocity plus the velocity of Laythe you need to burn off. If you've got any earlier quicksaves, adjust your orbit so you come round the dayside of Jool.

First link is not a web address and the second is private. It's easier to copy the screenshots and paste them into a tab with Imgur open, then use "copy image address" for the link to embed here.

Can you show your map view? I suspect you might not be orbiting in the right direction.

You could try capturing at Jool periapsis and using Tylo assists to bleed velocity.

In my experience, Jool is worse for aerobraking due to the speed of re-entry and thus the ratio between heating and drag being worse. That should be more than enough for a brute-force capture. What's your velocity at Laythe periapsis?