tstein

Yes I feel that there is indeed a shoehorning of the game (and of the expected users) in the explorers category. For me that is utterly boring. I already stopped playing the game again because the mechanical challenges are already too few. I prefer a single system with 2 moons and great deep mechanics that 9999 unique planets with shallow mechanics.I cannot care less for colonies and almost nothing for interstellar, the same way I care nothing for the hairstyles of kerbals.. KSP2 is still as of now targetign to be an inferior game to KSP1, I just try to be optimistic they change it a bit.

I would prefer if the game gave us CLUES and we coudl pin point it ourselves. Missions markers are , imho one of the wort mechanics ever invented in history of gaming.

I still dislike it. I dislike any downgrade of game complexity that created meaningful challenges.

People are still ignoring the measurable fact that the heat generated at 68 km is almost same as the heat at 40 km This is completely WRONG. The heat due to drag shoudl be a logarithm function of height but it is a lineat function with a very big B component.

No I would not mind if it was only one planet, but I am not a selfish person and I recognize that there are people that have other targets in the game. Would be very nice if most people were able to look outside their own little boxes of interest and understand people have different focuses in this game. Having lots of parts maek the game more fun, becuase makes the engineerign challenge more complex since it is harder to make a rocket or as few rockets as possible to collect all the science. Sure woudl be nice if the shapes and masses of the experiemtns were significant to help force some engineering decisions.

But that is what YOU and a part of the players care in the game. The travel the reentry. That for me is BORING. I care only and ONLY for the ship assembly and tryign to circunvent restrictions. The more tools and things I have to try the better. People need to realize KSP players are not a monolithic type.

Again, under your logic why to have more than 1 planet? Why to have more than 1 Engine? Sincirely that logic makes zero sense. Under our logic, it is better to SCRAP Science COMPELTELy, because why to even have 1 instrument if you can have zero? Seriously. No I do nto agree it is an illusion. IF science gathering with different instruments is an illusion then there is zero reason for the game to exist. We should have 1 premade rocket that we select it and fly everywhere. Your way of thinking is the anathema of my way of seeing the game. Supension of disbelief is critical for a game to be good and the several instruments did help on that!

Unless you add oceans and underwater compelx exploration where you can find treasure chests hidden by space pirates!

That is not so much the problem. problem is at 70 km zero heat at 69 km I am toasting

But we could have several instruments that you cannot fit all on the same ship. For example if a drill required too much space and mass to be sent alognside a atmosphereic analysis tool unless you used clever construction, that woudl be interesting. I woudl have added DOZENS instriments (but that use space, nto like the termometer in KSP1) that woudl push you to use your brain. How to protect thsoe instruments in reentry? Make that if they are nto well palced they lose their data. Also make that you cannot push the instruments to inside the ship trough clipping. I did had the illusiont hat I was collectign different data, because the data had meaning semantic wise. barometer feels like somethign that makes sense to know if there is or there is nto atmosphere in a aplent. temperature is somethign completely different and make sense in much more environaments. Soil samples are also very obviously different.

Under that logic why to have physics? why to have reentry heat? why not have unlimited thrust? Limitations are ALWAYS what makes a game a challenge and fun comes from challenge. INf act for me unlocking of parts behind experimentation is DUMB. The only part that made sense in the career was exactly the economics. IF I coudl I woudl play acareer mode where sience only get me MONEY and prestige and all advancements I get with MONEY. Unlocking a new engine because I got a sample of moon soil makes zero sense and feels dumb for me , IMHO.

N never made my rocket climb so fast for starters, so I had no problem during ascent. But aerocapture is simply impossible now, even a subtle one that would demand a dozen pass by is impossible.

I had to up to 68 km. At 67.5 the ship burned to a crisp.

Something I noticed is hat atmosphere density scaling does not feel right in the heating department. At 68 km atmosphere should be very faint, but a 2500ms vessel already starts to burn very fast. I think the main gripe people are facing is related to that, the heating scaling up with atmosphere height needs some tuning.

The one thing I can say against the wind proposal is. wind, with exception of hurricane level ones, is a very weak force compared to the aerodynamic forces of a rocket plunging trough atmosphere at 800m/s, so might be a lot of work for something that affect you only at very start of ascent. IT coudl on other hand be relevant on descent, specially on other planets with dense atmosphere.

That a thousand times. I agree that very likely the interface was tested only within the kerbin SOI. To make a transfer, specially an assisted one is hellish hard with the interface we have now. I would say so frustrating that it stops being a game and it becomes a fight against the interface.

Never ever for me. Maybe also depended on the difficulty setup for the campaign. But Contracts rarely paid me enough to cover over expensive ships. I had to keep working to make things cheap exactly so I woudl not have to do tourist missiosn Those were just for bail outs. I reached Duna and EVE doing just 1 or 2 tourist missions. There was the challenge, took a logn time Without the economics, I just strap a crap-ton of rockets and I lost the interest in the game in less than 1 evening, that is how long took me in exploration to reach Duna using brute force... and get bored since there is zero challenge in game.

Yes I realize it is still an incomplete game. Just pointing things that prevent me from having a long dedicated experience with it and make me return to KSP1. KSP2 will be a success when very little people have a reason to return to KSP1 and quality of life stuff is a good part of it.

Only if you reloaded/reverted/ If you played Iron Mode style (each failure cost money) it very fast becomes an issue.

Under that lien of thinking then you also have unlimited coash in your real life. You just need to work more more and more! To have renewable sources of income does not remove the value of economics. It still pushes you to make efficient ships, in order to save money and do less tourist missions. I still feel the game became very very dull without anything to push you into doing more efficient designs. 95% of my time playing KSP1 was increasing efficiency of my designs , to be able to reach my milestones with less money. One important aspect that I notice escapes in most conversations is that there are multiple types of players. Some want to see cool and beautiful things, some want to fight with the rocket piloting, they want their challenge while they fly. Some want to explore. I , I am of one type that do not care for ANYTHING of that. I care for the engineering and struggle for better and smarter designs.

They do snap. I had rockets snapping yesterday. They just do not wobble at normal operation paraameters. It is a HUGE improvement.

I played a few hours yesterday and I reached another point where I feel compelled to stop playing and wait. While the game improved a lot the usability in space is so vastly inferior to KSP1 that I cannot continue. 1- Cannot set maneuver nodes inside SOI of other bodies 2- Cannot cycle easily focus on other bodies 3- No detailed maneuver node adjustment tools (makes planning missions a pain) 4 -no Warp to enter/leave SOI 5 - No way to disable directional SAS (make it just keep ship stable) without disable and re-enable it completely) (btw the new SAS indication is vastly worse than the classic one, uses too much space for nothing) 6-> no fuel priorities control. Make very hard to make smart ships that can keep discarding parts here and there for economy. 7- While I know it is an intentional decision, I still feel as the game lost so much without economics. Even exploration now is basically an exercise of make it bigger, never of make it smarter. I have lost one of the main reasons to try to tweak and improve my designs. These stuff make playing a struggle and nullify any chance of fun (when compared to KSP1). I hope improvements on navigation are made in the near future. The number of bugs reduced drastically and that is a very good thing, but the game needs some fixing on "conceptuzalization bugs".

I faced same issue for hours.. inside the game the first setting sub menu has the language. It is in a menu that does nto seem by name to be related to it.

I would prefer we just add a slider on each aerodynamic part names Ablative protection. that icnreases protection at mass cost. Better than adding extra pieces that will be anoying to lay and will just tax the physics system. Just embed the armor in the parts where they make sense

REgarding that image, what hurts my brain is k/m/s that is not km per second that is kelvin per meter per second. Please use correct nomenclature. km/s the / means DIVIDED and K multiples meters in km.