rjbvre

Oh absolutely, I'm not arguing that there should be unknown planets or that we shouldn't know their mass and orbits (or other info that can be derived from them) at the start of the game. But even if we say day 1 is equivalent to about 1960, which I find more fitting, we still knew very, very little about most of the planets, and next to nothing about the moons. I am arguing that revealing additional info through exploration and/or science would be a realistic and fulfilling game mechanic. One that could easily be turned off in settings by those people who don't want it.

I agree with the basic idea of your post that it's possible and historical to know the orbits and sometimes the mass of planets fairly accurately without sending a probe there or using a space telescope. In 1769 we didn't even know that Uranus or Neptune existed though, nevermind their distance or mass. We hadn't observed Phobos or Deimos yet either so we really only knew the mass of Earth, Jupiter, and Saturn. 3 out of 8 is a far cry from all planets.

Docking is a primary purpose for RCS yes, but you missed mid course corrections, emergency maneuvers, and backup deorbit burns (there are others, but they really don't apply to KSP). My Eve return lander which I dock to a mothership would absolutely benefit from larger thrusters. And there are more scenarios than just larger ship/smaller ship. That mother ship I docked it to was constructed in orbit from relatively equal halves, both of which were sluggish and annoying to maneuver with current thrusters. Even if we leave out futuristic designs, and focus entirely on copies of current/past spacecraft we're left with ships that vary in mass over several orders of magnitude. Are you really arguing that one size of RCS thruster makes sense for this? Is there a gameplay benefit to limiting players like this? Do you think it mirrors real life spacecraft?

Are you under the impression that rcs is only for rotations around the short axis, or that any of us are currently building interstellar ships?

Good catch! I get the impression they're trying pretty hard to only show parts that are intended for release in trailers/footage. I was also pretty confused when I first saw those giant tanks.

The 70% scaling would make sense to me. According to the wiki article: While Earth entry interface is considered to take place at the Kármán line 100 kilometres (330,000 ft), the main heating during controlled entry takes place at altitudes of 65 to 35 kilometres (213,000 to 115,000 ft), peaking at 58 kilometres (190,000 ft). This would mean most of the heating should be between about 45 and 25km, with the most intense at 40. Unshielded sensitive parts no doubt exploding well above that. Almost all my re-entries have followed this pretty closely. I do agree that things quickly blowing up just under 70km shouldn't be the goal, but some people are arguing for things that definitely shouldn't be possible on here, which is fair enough it's a game for fun, but at that point you should change your own settings rather than the base game.

Agreed completely, the term Arctic stuck out like a sore thumb to me too. In game it's not ice. I'm guessing the reason they did this, or at least possible in-universe explanation, is for the same reason we still call the dark areas on the Moon maria, which is Latin for seas. It's what the Kerbals thought it was before they knew better, and serves as a tribute to KSP1.

Of course we don't need it, its a game. But several of us are saying it would make the game more immersive and enjoyable for us. We're talking about a feature that could probably be turned on and off in settings: you get what you want, we get what we want. KSP is overwhelmingly about our technology and space exploration. Almost all the celestial bodies are based on real life ones, most of the parts are functionally and visually clones of real life counterparts, and the progression of technology is basically the same with some differences for gameplay reasons. The fact that it has little green minions and funny names doesn't change that.

Is it too pessimistic to think the amount of time they spend somewhere is directly tied to the amount of users there for strictly pr reasons, and they're not actually giving that much weight to any of the suggestions on any platform?

That's all fair, and I completely agree about trying to teach mechanics that only become relevant toward the end of a long mission. The same issue applies to trying to design a plane for Laythe, thermal management at Eve or Moho, or even just how much electricity you get from panels at different planets. That's why I suggested an in-game "simulator" to test designs in different locations without being able to get science points. That's really another discussion and off topic though

I've had several times when the Cockatoo pod had enough monoprop for a simple orbital rendezvous, but the small RCS thrusters on a ship that size made it sluggish and annoying

I'm not being snarky, I honestly can't tell if you're arguing for or against. Those photos were taken decades after we landed on the moon with a scientific instrument we launched into space. We had no idea what Pluto looked like until 9 years ago even with Hubble. You bring up a good point, I didn't think of about the SOIs. My point stands though. Sure an efficient polar (not technically polar but easier to describe that way) insertion and correction might require similar deltaV to an inefficient equatorial one, but still quite a bit more than an efficient one. We're talking a system with the gravity of an ice giant and multiple moons. It's much easier to use the Oberth effect and gravity assists if you're already in the correct plane. I don't doubt you can use gravity assists to help with the plane change, and that would be another great optional challenge. Huh? It obviously wouldn't be the next goal after your Mun landing. It would probably come after a Laythe landing which itself would come after all sorts of orbital maneuvers. It seems like a natural progression displaying some of the actual things going on in the real world, not some playground of hypothetical planets scientist imagine in their free time. And if getting there is trivial to someone then I imagine the whole game would be trivial to that person anyway. I agree with this though, but it might be a false dichotomy. Mods might make the most sense for it

They will absolutely be using lots of their charge on scientific instruments and antennas. The Tylo rover is a great example. RTG is absolutely the right choice for it. On the other hand, early in my current exploration playthrough I saw that I had some great transfer windows coming up for Jool and Eeloo. I figured I'd make some probes for flybys/landers, but RTGs were way too far down the r&d path (which imo should be changed), and fuel cells and tanks would weigh too much. Solar panels and batteries were the right choice for that mission, and I got a ton of early game points. I agree completely, but one challenge doesn't preclude the other. Imagine if a Uranus analogue was added. Its axial tilt and moon's orbits are nearly 90 degrees relative to the plane of the solar system, with some moons also orbiting retrograde. Trying to plan a trip to one of it's moons would be much tougher than Eeloo. Not only would you need to time your launch for a Hohmann transfer, but you would also need to either time your arrival to enter the same orbital plane as the moon, or carry a lot of extra deltaV for the correction. Double this difficulty if you plan on returning. This would also have the ticking clock of RTG's running out of juice or needing even more fuel for fuel cells.

Incorrect. Solar panels and batteries are still a viable and sometimes the better option. It depends on the mission. Do you need short bursts of lots of power? Solar panels and batteries are probably better. Moderate amounts of steady generation? Fuel cells, or if you spend the research points RTGs. Also now there's an RTG time limit which could penalize taking too long to get to further destinations. IRL there are probes going to Jupiter that will rely on solar panels (ESA's Juice and NASA's Europa clipper). Antennas cover the current system, but this would make the system larger. That won't be the same challenge though since it will be after you unlock interstellar and other more advanced parts.

Electricity generation/storage with much less sunlight, possibly better antennas for communication. Depending on the properties of the bodies there could be new challenges to explore it (small sphere of influence to target, a Uranus analogue with axial tilt, icy bodies with off gasing). All of this could be rewarded with increasing science points

For the most part no, that's definitely the weakest of my points. But it is adding an additional resource when pods already have monoprop. There's also the realism aspect. You wouldn't bring lox/rocket fuel for deep space attitude control. I know a lot of players don't care about that as much, but those of us who do should have the tools to play within those constraints if we want. We definitely need more parts for this

I would love this, one of my wishlist items is new bodies in the Kerbal system that are released as a surprise on day 1. Agree fully about the sense of discovery and that the chance to explore new bodies is a key motivation for a lot of players, not sure why people on here are so willing to disregard that. There are a couple issues with modeling more of the solar system though. If we add more gas giants, Eeloo's orbit wouldn't fit as a Pluto analogue without being changed. As stated above it should also probably make sense in terms of gameplay progression: what variety would they add to the game before going interstellar that going to Jool wouldn't provide, and would visiting them be the intended path before going interstellar? If gas giants don't make sense, I think analogues to Oort Cloud and Kuiper Belt objects would be fun. I really enjoyed the KSP dlc that had you launch a telescope to discover smaller bodies to go interact with. An Oumuamua analog would be really cool too. It could be a really hard mission to intercept, but would yield a ton of science points.

Verniers are a pain to set up on all axes, require methalox which nuclear (and more advanced) ships won't necessarily have, and can be underpowered themselves on the size of ships we'll be building. We definitely need some more RCS options

One of the devs stated goals is making it so you can just look at the bodies and intuit where and what the biomes are. It's not perfect, but it's much better than it was and I'm having no problem figuring them out from orbit. All that's really needed is the science checklist from ksp1 to keep track of your experiments: no doubt this will be added. A lot of people are forgetting that a lot of important game design won't apply to us, it'll be for first time players (or for us veterans in the new star systems). Making it a "fuzzy ball" absolutely changes the gameplay. Imagine a first time player planning their first trip to the Jool system and wanting to land on Laythe. Sure we know that's it's primarily an ocean world with a substantial atmosphere, but a new player would have no clue (wiki articles notwithstanding). Currently they can just look at it in the tracking station and see all that without ever going there (or studying it in some other way). If it's a fuzzy ball at first without much data available they'll have to study it (go there and do science) to figure out how to plan their mission. They also get the reward of discovering all the cool details about the moon. KSP is no doubt primarily a rocket building/flying game. At close second it's about exploration and discovery. Some of gamers' favorite experiences are the first time they get to explore a game world whether it's Subnautica, Skyrim, BOTW, or whatever you're personal favorite is. Sure discovering the Kerbal system might be wasted on us veterans, but that's still a huge part of the game for newcomers. And the gameplay decisions made for the starting system will apply to the new ones, which is where we can get our "playing for the first time" experience.

Cool insight, I wouldn't have guessed that. I meant more in terms of when we learn basic info about them and how. Even just what bodies are there, orbits, volume/mass. There's gotta be some kind of progressive unveiling of those systems. It would be really disappointing if on day one you can just open up the map and see everything

I'm noticing a similar pattern. My cpu doesn't seem to like maneuver nodes going through multiple spheres of influence either

Absolutely, that would be great. I'm hoping this is really just the beginning of science too. I'm starting to wonder more and more how they will deal with the fog of war with the new star systems, and if it will ever be applied to parts of the Kerbal system.

I'm fine with it too if that's the direction they go. I will add though that I've been reading most of the flavor text from experiments I run, and a lot of them hint toward or downright state what resources are present in different biomes. Orbital surveys also mention how difficult it might be to land there. I get the impression science isn't just to unlock parts, but to transition players into the next steps on the roadmap: colonies and resource gathering. We're going to need info to decide where to build our colonies. It makes sense they're putting more dev time into the core gameplay than some niche science mechanics (I say this as someone who would enjoy many of them).

Haha, there's definitely been a change in tone from 1 to 2

It's not ice