kicka55

Reported Version: v0.2.0 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Windows 11 | CPU: i7 6700K | GPU: 1080 | RAM: 16 GB DDR3 Hey guys, so building a fairing can be a nightmare if you want to be precise with it. It seems like the control gizmo remembers your last action and repeats it when you do something else. Like when I pull the gizmo apart for more width and then pull it up, it still increases width by one increment. This also prevents interstage fairings it seems. I can create an Apollo style interstage fairing but it is very tricky. You have to remember that it will snap one increment further when you press check so you have to take that into account. Make a slightly larger fairing than needed and then it will snap to the right size after. undefined - Imgur.mp4

Much great stuff here BUT please give us an option to tone down the blue haze a bit (Especially up close and below the craft when flying high). I like a more contrasty look of the game from before but with haze in the distance. Alternatively a contrast and saturation slider could maybe do. Similar to what we get with TUFX on KSP1. Thank you! PS. This also has benefits for video because YouTube does not like low contrast video. You get all sorts of really bad compression artefacts. And doing post processing after the fact ruins the UI. In this day and age looking good on video / stream is as important as ingame. If you need an example for a highly YouTube optimized color profile check GoPro colors.

We've seen some For Science! gameplay footage floating around YouTube that was presented at the creator event. Why wasn't that gameplay sneak peak shared with the entire community? Will that still happen?

Here an advice as a long Kerbal early access supporter: Don't release the update 2 days before Christmas.

Reported Version: v0.1.4.1 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Windows 11 | CPU: i7 6700K | GPU: 1080 | RAM: 16 GB DDR3 When you build a plane and try to use control surfaces as flaps by just deploying them, they deploy in opposite directions and you can't make them deploy otherwise because if you invert one, both invert. So the workaround is to break the symmetry. Can be considered a bug I think.

Reported Version: v0.1.4.1 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Windows 11 | CPU: i7 6700K | GPU: 1080 | RAM: 16 GB DDR3 Reproduction: Build any craft and fly it outside of Kerbin's sphere of influence. Ideally a close flyby around the sun. Try to thrust while using time warp. Not worky! Evidence: i.imgur.com/2QJg5bA.mp4 Included Attachments: .ipsImage { width: 900px !important; }

Reported Version: v0.1.4.1 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Windows 11 | CPU: i7 6700K | GPU: 1080 | RAM: 16 GB DDR3 Some unintentional mishap led to me floating above the surface of the Mun with just one landing leg. Suddenly, I noticed this weird behavior: When I keep opening and closing the landing leg using the G hotkey and the leg pops into place, the vehicle gets a small bump of rotation. I mean I'm not a physics expert but I think that shouldn't happen. And then, after the craft did a 180, it reverses direction!! That's when I knew something's strange in the neighbourhood! We gonna call: bug busters! Video Evidence: https://i.imgur.com/WVGJGVV.mp4 edit: I now tested it with all landing legs and wheels and it affects all except the small wheel LY-10. Not sure if it's not affecting it at all or if it's just too little for my big craft.

ty!

That's exactly what happens in timewarp. Vehicles pass through each other and even through planets sometimes. If someone mods anything it's considered a cheat so people can cheat mod anything anyways. They can simply turn all rigidity up to max in the config for that matter to have 0 wobble.

Reported Version: v0.1.4.1 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Windows 11 | CPU: i7 6700K | GPU: 1080 | RAM: 16 GB DDR3 Pretty simple issue that could be purpose. However, I find it very annoying having to empty every single fuel tank I copy when I only use them for structural purposes. i.imgur.com/LNlMdMB.mp4 Included Attachments: tankbug.mp4

Nothing ever is easy but they already have this function for timewarp. In timewarp the craft changes from physics simulated to non physical. Even with engines on now in KSP2. In KSP1 they only managed that with physical timewarp - which does not exist in KSP2 anymore in space (only in atmosphere).

You could do this with treating the craft as 1 part or something. Don't need to simulate all parts when you're not actively playing it. I assume solar and heat play a role in that too but there have to be workarounds to not strain the PC too much.

big news when? ;P

Bug? The stock small nose cone (for the smallest plane tanks) does not work with this mod. It doesn't get the appearance slider. Restock collision?

You mean this right? Non-cylindrical. The boosters have a cone shape. Cone = Non-cylindrical. In KSP you had to stack tanks of different sizes and then surround it with a fairing. The added weight would represent the loss in structural efficiency. The benefit of this design is lower drag and maybe easier separation because of the low center of gravity of the boosters.

Overall I like the answers. Obviously can't agree on everything 100% but these are minors gripes that don't really matter. What I wonder and what I believe many people get upset about is the development speed. It just feels slow compared to other games (even KSP1) which regularly add new content. What are the biggest bottlenecks in developing KSP2? Is it the number of developers? Making tanks non-cylindrical also adds weight because it's not optimal from a structural standpoint. It's a trade off you have to live with unless you want KSP2 to cheat. Other than that making surface decouplers and less thick bases sounds like fair criticism.

You can just use procedural fairings if you want to make it look like some soviet rocket. Maybe your suggestion should be to make fairings not only go up and wide, but also side to side.

It could be an automated solution with the option to do it manually. The more mass you stack on top of a tank the more sturdy the lower ones get. Maybe also take TWR of the engines into account. And of course with too little sturdiness on the tanks they would not just wobble but rupture at some point. Give each tank a property of pressure and a property of sturdiness. Modders could then even add more realism by making sturdiness a function of temperature etc. And you could be min-maxing by reducing the stock sturdiness. And in order to not lose compareability to other player rockets it of course needed visual ques like visible structural supports on the outside. That would probably be the biggest challenge. How to implement it in a funny way that it fits into KSP while still being somewhat realistic. Just thicker tank walls are hard to visualize on screenshots.

1. I think the main problem in KSP is that if you stack 20 tanks they are all the same. In reality bottom tanks are much thicker and more sturdy than upper tanks. A solution I would be happy with in KSP is if you add a new tool that shows all the rocket nodes, and by clicking on a node you can enhance the strength of it by adding mass to both parts connected to the node. Maybe it sounds simpler to implement than it is but I'd really dig that. Not sure how beginner friendly that is but you could well ignore this option until you grow into it some day.

I think generally you just have to get into the mindset of an indie developer like Felipe. Just one guy with no big corporation in the back when you talk to the community. I know it's hard but at the end of the day people just want to communicate with people, not some politician talk fluff. That's how social media works. That's why Elon is that popular.

I'm not talking potatoes, I'm talking machines that run games like No Man's Sky on Ultra in 150-200 fps in 1080p. KSP2 has nowhere near the graphics to justify its current performance. 720p, 1080p, 1440p have almost no impact on performance either. Normally you'd expect huge jumps especially on the GPU.

I wish there would be more concrete statements about how much you guys expect performance to increase over the coming months. I know it's hard but a ballpark of what's theoretically possible on that terrain would be great. Are we talking 30-40% or 300-400%. Because even doubling fps won't make it playable for min spec right now. It drops to single digits frequently on any resolution and we're talking small sub 50 part rockets. So that's even a 1000% increase that would be required under certain circumstances. That would be the first early access in history to make such performance jumps so it is very hard to get the hopes up on that one.

I'm not quite sure how you can asses that from the screenshot? He's just showing off the effect that's probably not properly implemented in the game yet. Just some debug menu toggle to toggle it on/off probably. I also think having nice heating effects like that from an artistic stand point far outweigh any realism aspect. I want my rocket to visibly burn when it's flaming hot.

I love KSP with thousands of hours in it and I hope I will also learn to love KSP2 in the future. I'm sitting at min specs right now and it's rough. 100% GPU usage just looking at the KSC menu screen at 24 fps. What is your benchmark when it comes to performance? What particular fps targets should a spec reach (GPU and CPU) to make the list for minimal or recommended? Do you have particular scenes or craft? How many parts? Would be nice to know, thanks!