MarsUltor

The upgrade is provided automatically in the form of an update… if you bought the ps4 version, download that version on your ps5 from the store, and it automatically upgrades to the ps5 version once you fully update

I would really love for you to cite a source that would suggest one to believe that parachute certification is going to exceed the cost of command pod manufacture. Like you said: Which would suggest that, based purely upon manpower, R&D, parts, complexity, etc, the command pod must be more expensive than any parachute.

As with everybody above, this seems like a confusing problem... that said, after you stage your engine (and throttle up), does the engine info box (whatever it’s called) say “flameout” or (I don’t remember the exact wording) “no fuel present”? Because on your staging menu (the column on the left of the screen), it indicates that your engine has 4008 m/s dV, which means the engine is “seeing” the fuel.

Unless I am mistaken, they should be in the decoupler menu. They appear as white cylinders.

Considering the amount of stuff in it, and the big additions to gameplay, my guess is some time in the late spring... if we’re lucky... that said, nobody knows, since the porting is outsourced to blitworks, and they don’t seem to provide updates.

This statement is a bit tone deaf, considering it appears that this guy seems new to the game, and is struggling to get into orbit; “the right initial conditions,” makes zero sense to somebody that is struggling to get into his first orbit... especially if he is ( I am assuming) playing career mode, where the launch clamps aren’t even until level 4. And, unless you’re a savant, a new player is not going to know how to make a “well designed rocket.”

To amend this statement... is generally pretty easy, as long as you have control surfaces to control your trajectory, otherwise, you’ll just keeping on accelerating in the direction you launched... reaction wheels can also be used to control your trajectory.

Yeah, I’ve had this happen a few times... one of my favorite mission types is recovering kerbals and debris, but every once in a while I’ll select the mission and it disappears once entering the VAB... what’s odd is the kerbal (or debris) still exist in the tracking station, and I can recover them (if I choose). However, I recover no reward for this recovery (aside from the free kerbal).

I’m sorry, but do you need to ask this between every PC update? Blitworks ports the game to console, and there is absolutely no expectation that they would work on the same timeline as squad... while I’d love to get this update as soon as possible (I am also a console player), the greater issue is stability... between the last couple updates, I tended to get more bugs, not less... so if the extra time helps squash some of those bugs, especially the ones that corrupt saves, I’d be all for the wait. Also, we just got the “shared horizons,” and “moar booster” parts, and whatever update the drain valve was in... we also recently got the “maneuver mode” feature... i, too, would love more part, but be happy with all of the new stuff we just got.

So helpful, I would have never thought of that solution... many thanks!

First, let me preface... I am on console, PLEASE DO NOT TELL ME THERE IS A MOD FOR THIS, because I can’t use mods! I have constructed a few small SSTO space planes, which I am able to get to orbit, but when I make larger crafts and switch from airbreathers, in atmo, to rockets in vacuum, the CoT of the rockets is off just enough to keep me flipping. Is there a way to get the CoT indicator in the hangar to show the CoT of a given engine (or set of engines), instead of showing the combined CoT of all the engines?

It’s not a bug... the fairing closes differently following the update... if you want to close the fairing around a fuselage part you have to “end fairing,” or something like that (don’t have the game in front of me), there is no more “close fairing” option unless it is to close it to a point (at the apex of your craft). On console it seems to be a bit finicky, but if you’re patient, you can eventually get it to close properly (I did an Apollo-style mission yesterday, and it took a few tries to enclose my MEM and service module in the fairing.

I think you’re getting a little off point, regardless of how I recall electron physics... I provide a literal example of the need for relativistic recalibration IN SPACE TRAVEL, and you counter with “it’s all relative... electrons in wire...” I’m sorry, but you’re example continues to be bad, considering my example is on topic, whereas yours has no real bearing to space travel.

To be fair, electrons are a pretty bad example, since there is no example of Newtonian physics that can reasonably apply to their behavior... if memory serves, Newtonian physics and quantum mechanics are largely incompatible.

I just remember one of my physics professors saying anything over 0.1c makes Newtonian physics break down... granted, I haven’t thought about this stuff since university, more than 25 years ago... and if it’s an issue for gps satellites in geostationary orbit, seems like it’d start being an issue at high speeds, far distances, etc

What?! Half the speed of light will bring in huge time dilation. d(t’)=d(t)/(1-(v^2/c^2))^0.5 At 0.5c it’ll be d(t’)=d(t)/0.86!

I’ve been playing the ps4 version for just under a year, and while this port is certainly rife with bugs, it seems like some of us experience them at significantly different frequency. My game will certainly crash after every few hours of playtime, and many times those result in corrupted save files, but I have never experienced the lag issues you’ve described, and have been able to platinum the game... so it is defiantly possible to plan, and execute, large missions on ps4. May I suggest reinstalling the game? Or perhaps deleting some of the extraneous things you have on your console? That could help with performance issues... I am using a ps4 pro, and have downloaded both dlc’s. ... and, obviously, submit all of your crashes to the built in ps4 bug tracker...

I can’t tell you how badly I want KSP2 to be awesome and successful... but your “either-or” statement is not a truthful statement... so many delayed games have turned out to be garbage for some reason or another, and some games that have kept to the publicized release data end up good... granted, game delays are becoming expected and the norm, but a delay now does not equal a great game upon release.

Sorry to repost, but to bolster my point: https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2019-10-28-star-theorys-shot-beyond-the-mun-with-kerbal-space-program-2 The reason squad isn’t developing KSP2 is to continue support for KSP

Isn’t that kind of the point? If squad is not developing KSP2, and they do not appear to have any new games coming down the pipeline, it seems like continued support (and perhaps more expansion/parts packs) would be the obvious road; this is especially true if they want to maintain revenue, because it’d be reasonable to expect us rabid fans of the game to buy the expansions without question.

While there might be an early access version, March to April seems exceptionally optimistic... realistically, if they just pushed the game to 2022, my guess is the game will be out in 18-24 months (fall or Christmas 2022)... so, maybe if we’re lucky, in a year, but I’d guess if they’re gonna do an early access, it’ll be to beta test the multiplayer functionalities, which would probably only be a few months before release.

... not to sound like an ingrate or anything, but now that KSP2 has been officially delayed to 2022, I hope we get a little bit more than just “lights.”

While I agree, the game would need to either do a good job of explaining why certain fuels are better for particular missions, or provide some sort of “helper” mechanic that asks you the mission type, and optimizes the fuel for the engine... for example, a terrier is great on Duna surface and in vacuum, but I’d be willing to bet that there are fuel types that could be optimized for the Duna atmosphere... similarly, dense atmospheres like eve, would require a separate fuel type than kerbin, when using a vector, for example.

Sure... but so was duke nukem...

A little arrogant to speak for “all of us,” especially considering that is not the consensus of this board... To be fair... SPACE planes... whereas rovers REQUIRE friction with the ground to operate, they cannot operate “in space.”