darthgently

I have not bought into KSP2 yet for a variety of reasons, some related to life in general, but the main thing that bothers me from what I've seen is the nature of the bugs. Just black boxing it from the outside many kind of scream of fundamental code structuring issues where what should be fairly compartmentalized issues seem to be fed by data and state variables completely unrelated to the current scene. Like how does KSC appear in space? (that has been fixed I think, not sure). But how does a body get rendered at all with bad colliders ? Are the colliders from the previous scene's body somehow overriding the current scene's body? Who knows? The degrading orbits is very concerning as it is so fundamental. I keep thinking that some rogue, but frequently used stretch of low level code, is mismanaging/mangling pointers or something causing the wrong orbital and collision info to be applied. Again, who knows? As you note, not enough communication. When the scent of desperation and of being overwhelmed is in the air on a dev team I think the best task is to step back and stop stomping out fires. Instead, take a day or three looking at all compiler warnings and runtime errors and making them go away. This forces one to peruse the code at a higher level and often getting rid of some simple compiler warnings clears up a cascade of issues

When a processes inputs includes its outputs roughly. Think stock markets and fluidynamics

From what I recall from interviews, radiators going to be much more important in mature KSP2 interstellar long burns and given the probable size of interstellar engines having the radiators procedural is likely easier than providing 10 more static plus sizes. I'm guessing, of course

The following is KSP1 relevant, but may apply to KSP2. On low grav bodies I dial spring strength down to 10% or less, and never go above 30% anywhere. Dampening gets maxed typically, maybe a 90% in low grav. Not rigorously tuned but seems to work out. Avoid high physics warp levels on anything but very smooth terrain

Once more, information I paid for in undergrad years has proven incorrect. And once again it is clear that Science, by definition, requires questioning. If it can't be questioned, it isn't science

I think it is merging into conning tower territory

Chaos theory is hard to apply

That is what I wrote. Was just pointing out it would be a cool effect for a translucent glass moon. But thanks for skimming nearly half of what I wrote, your efforts are appreciated!

If Minmus is translucent glass it could almost make sense under the right conditions when the flare is just below the horizon I suppose, and nice, but clearly a glitch if on all bodies Of course if it were too be used intentionally for Minmus it would need to look a lot different than as captured above

They have certainly proven the 3D printed rocket+engines concept, now they appear to be dealing with typical 2nd stage failure issues that all new orbital endeavors seem to slog through. So they've already surpassed BO, for example, in important ways, at a fraction of the budget

Uh, no. Why are you going there?That is the point. I don't think I'm seeing this right and the explanations are helping, but it is really unintuitive to me at this point.

But assuming that other previous exhaust had the same acceleration, why would it slow down? If it doesn't slow down, how is it "in the way"?

My thought experiment must be broken. I just can't see how any remaining pressure in the plume would somehow favor radial acceleration over axial acceleration and it seems like the hyperboloid requires any remaining pressure to somehow to be preferring radial over axial acceleration. And that is not how pressure works. What the heck am I missing? Finally, watching vids of F9 stage 2 MVAC at work, it looks like a straight walled cone. Granted, it isn't in full vacuum at that point, but dang near

That is what causes the straight walled cone is what I'm thinking, for it to be hyperboloid the pressure would have to be increasing relative to the decrease in pressure that must be happening with distance from nozzle. An acceleration post reaction would have to be occuring. Think of it this way; at what point in the process is each molecule going the fastest? As it exits the chamber or meters behind the bell? Once free of the bell it will not accelerate any faster radially than at that point where it exits the bell. There is no source of additional acceleration and a hyperboloid shape suggests additional acceleration.

https://spacenews.com/industry-sees-missed-opportunity-in-deorbiting-iss/

I don't understand the hyperboloid either. There is no energy being added so it shouldn't be accelerating radially. A straight walled cone in vacuum makes the most sense to my gut, with some pseudo-hyperboloid when the nozzle is directed at, and near, a surface in vacuum

Some interesting points made here https://spacenews.com/industry-sees-missed-opportunity-in-deorbiting-iss/

Is that a star icon or one of those SOI entry/exit concentric ring things?

Oh look, I found a shuttle craft full of tsar bombs and its guardian mothership is nowhere to be seen. What to do? Hmmm

Well dang. Full disclosure, I don't even run KSP2, but in 1 I've gotten rovers climbing some steep grades with lots of wheels. But I also dink with the traction control and suspension. It really looks like those wheels have a lot less traction than their footprint would indicate. Apologies for getting your hopes up and thanks for testing it out Is there anything you can tweak on the wheels? Especially traction control.

Each wheel has a motor. More wheels, more motors, more torque and horsepower

Moar Wheels. I usually have at least 8, sometimes as many as 16. They need use a lot of juice though

USAF inspired by KSP noodle rockets (not really, but might be true) https://youtu.be/V3aLdAB5jh4

Hopefully the multiple scrolling HUD messages can't trigger a seizure. It can only get better, it can only get better, ..

I would have bet $1M that this was so without this proof. And I don't mean that lightly as I would have had to borrow a lot of money to cover that bet. Next up: proof that Mercury is hot. Article is good read, thanks for posting