Kerbart

I'm not smart enough to figure it out based on that sentence. @Mister Spock perhaps clarify: You were a docking shaolin in KSP1. Docking would take 3 minutes real world time, spending .1 units of mono prop. But you forgot all of that. What was the trick again? Same docking shaolin. You can still do it like that in KSP1 but how on earth do you do it in KSP2? After rendez vous you're just trying random things and it's not working And so on Docking is counter intuitive. Yes, move towards the vessel you want to dock with, but if that's from a few km away you don't want to do that too slow. Because different velocity means different orbits and those will eventually result in the exact opposite of what you want to achieve. There's tons of good advice here but it would help if we know with a bit more focus what exactly it is you are struggling with.

The navball monumentally blows in this regard. It's very hard to see the target and velocity markers in the first place, or distinguish them.

Does it has to be the ship the rover originated from or can you use another probe to return the sample?

Based on the lack of innovative content and the trend early on, that's what I feared would happen, and it does. As you say, hopefully this will be an incentive for the team to know that interest in the game will go up when they deliver something new, and will stay up if it's really new. And it will decline when it's same old, rehashed. You can see the price tag back in the steam chart too, by the way. The wave pattern is cleary synced to free time in the US timezone, with the top when most US players are playing, and bottom when they're not and the numbers are made from "the rest of the world." Assuming buying power/disposable income is stronger in the US, the willingness to fork over $50 (or the equivalent adjust to local price levels) is a lot less outside. That's at least my theory why the fluctuations in the KSP2 graph are bigger than for the KSP1 graph. I don't mind the looks but the 2-color scheme doesn't work for me. Give me back SAS rings with yellow-black warning bands, batteries that look like batteries and in general parts with metallic bits whose color doesn't get overwritten by the color scheme. I don't want to use the word lazy, because (to paraphrase Oddball), “those are, like, negative vibes, bro.” The streamlining is not a bad thing as it takes some of the drudgery out of science, but unless we see an expansion in the future it certainly feels minimalist. I liked the Breaking Ground science where you set up a seismometer and then slam something into the surface. I was hoping for more of that. A sentinel and a DART mission, orbital surveys to find monuments, that mind of stuff. Let's hope that colonies will bring some truly new things to the table. I suspect it'll be a lot less innovative than we hope for. But at least the game is noticeably improving now.

Using RCS for translation is usually associated with docking. In turn, unless one is, let's just say, unorthodox, docking is done by making the smaller ship dock with the larger ship. Pray tell what behemoth sized ship you have that is the smaller one that needs mainsails as RCS thrusters?

Yes, at least we understand each other here. The less technically inclined think it's important their interstellar ship, en route for decades, needs to spin around in a matter of seconds, but we realize that at ships that size, the crew at the far end of the ship is going to pass out from g-forces if you try to spin it in less than half a minute.

It's harmless — check out this thread for more info:

When you say too much/too little... based on what? Effort required? Tech tree progression? The need to visit too many/not enough biomes? For the casual reader it looks right now as if you’re saying “I don’t like it because I don’t like it.” Adding some rationale adds weight to your suggestions and opens an avenue for a meaningful discussion.

The term “frosted” while suggesting winter and frozenness(?) can also refer to a glass texture, and would probably address this. So you'd have the Frosted Fields and Frosted Barrens or something along those lines. One can even argue that these are historic names based on telescope observations, and kept, while it's not frozen, it looks like it's frozen even when it's glassy.

The ask is for “more planets so we have more places to go to.” At the same time, the current system is made up with planets that form a decent representation of what we have in our own system: The inner planets with clear equivalents A gas giant with many moons A ringed planet Any additions would have to add something that is missing, I don’t see value in adding “yet another ___” and while some may applaud it, most of the players won’t, I assume. So the question then becomes “what is currently missing?” For instance: An asteroid belt, perhaps made from procedural generated asteroids. I'm not sure how it would work out performance wise, but it would be a great educational tool to show that it's really not the densely populated boulder field the average SF movie makes it out to be An Oort cloud where comets come from. Real comets in the sense that they have more going on than the ones we see in KSP1. But they move fast in highly elliptical orbits A second gas giant but with some added challenges. Like Jupiter it has high radiation, rendering antenna's close by useless and causing equipment to malfunction. Throw in an Enceladus-style moon (I know it's not a moon of Jupiter) where you can gather science by flying through a volcanic plume and maybe some picture opportunities for cool shots of one moon passing in front of the other. I don't think adding more for the sake of adding more is the way to go, but adding other experiences is. Whether that should be stock or mods is a different story, but the base game should at least have the option to be able to add planets in a mod (I know nothing about modding planets so I'm not sure if that's an issue or not)

Agree, I've done a couple of 20 km drives in For Science. I did encounter some rollovers but I suspect that was just due to terrain, they didn't seem like the "random" 1000m glitches I encountered before.

Is carrying a methalox tank for RCS purposes any different from carrying a monopropellant tank?

The vernier RCS thruster delivers 12 kN of thrust. You need more than that?!

I would assume that the devs don't make decisions on a single statement, but do want to see depth to it. If that depth comes from a discord discussion, they'll take it; if it comes from here, they'll take it. Random example: font colors. What will be ignored is "the vessel name is in an ugly color. Change it!" On the other hand "the vessel name is displayed in neatly the same color as the box it is in, the lack of contrast makes it impossible to read" will likely result in action. In the same way, a statement regarding game mechanics like (and I'm making this up) "Science is pretty much stupid, just get rid of it" is equally opinionated and lacks substance. I do think that the fast paced nature of discord will result in a few responses—either in agreement or not—while such a subject on the forum will probably launch a discussion with lots of valid points on either side, perhaps going along for 8, 9, dare I say even 10 pages (as unlikely as that number sounds I have faith in my fellow forumites). I'm sure the dev team would do something with such a discussion. In the end it's not the location but the content that gives weight to a discussion. Now get off my lawn!

It's a bit difficult to discuss since we're in physics La-La-Land here. The “shrapnel” has minimal penetration power as it has absolutely no mass. Unless we pretend that it can. Once we're in the realm of “supervillains with unstoppable weapons” the outcome is quite predictable, when we're calling the weapons unstoppable. On the other hand, modern army units are modern army units. By itself, maybe not. But in a modern combat environment it's very unlikely they wouldn't call in air support, artillery, mortars, and so on. “But imagine it's only them and they only carry guns.” The reason units don’t carry everything but the kitchen sink around with them is because they do have support. That allows them to afford walking around relatively lightly armed and be mobile. In the end the outcome is defined by the constraints you come up with. Make the super weapons really super weapons, and handcuff the good guys, and the bad guys will win.

We were quite discrete about it, but you had to bring it up... Just kidding!

Technically, furthest distance or any of the other ones would happen at least once a year as well... it probably doesn't matter that much, it's more how they relate to each other.

Not really. The first video has the helpful caption of "watch what happens" so after looking at it for two minutes in which nothing happens I kinda gave up. Here's a tip: if you expect people to take 10 minutes to listen to you story, make it worth for them. Tell them what the bug is. "This video shows how it takes two minutes for things to explode without a heatshield", "this video shows it takes only 30 seconds with a heatshield" and so on.

It's tempting to call anything you don[t like a bug, but that doesn't make it a bug. Bugs (and I'm sure I'll get flak for my definition) are where the software isn't behaving as it was intended. For instance the root part heating up like crazy inside a fairing, that's clearly a bug. But this... that looks much more like the result of a decision that was made and doesn't work out. Should it work out? Remember, "it worked like that in KSP1” is not the most convincing response because the heat model in KSP1 wasn’t perfect either. I'm not saying this is fine; it probably needs fixing. But "heating is not working in a way players expect it to work" is an entirely different discussion than "a bug with heating causes x to happen”

Remember that we‘re not making train schedules, but rather an impression of what a certain velocity means. A baristochrone assumes constant acceleration, for this exercise you just need constant speed. For instance, to travel to the moon (300,000 km), you'll need: Speed seconds time 10,000 m/s 30,000 8h, 20m 50,000 m/s 6,000 1h, 40m For planets you can either provide a range (shortest/longest) or the median distance. Shortest would be the difference between the SMA, longest would be added together

Yes, that sounds like a better solution than frantically deploying them one-by-one with RMB while plunging to the ground.

I think it's especially relevant for rovers, and to some extend for rendez vous. Aside from realizing that 300 m/s is roughly the speed of sound (“fast”) the higher numbers are meaningless in the sense that it’s hard to relate to. But complaining that wheels are bugged because your rover can’t traverse rough terrain at 30 m/s is silly when you realize it’108 kmh (or 68 mph in mickey mouse units). In similar fashion you might not want to close in at that speed at close range. So maybe even more granularity at lower speeds and less at higher Also, consider throwing in travel time at higher speeds. How long will it take to reach Jool? Or a nearby star (which is guessing as we don't know how far way they are located)? That makes them far more meaningful.

The most needed mod! Thank you for making this. Take your time adding features. Having it in the first place is amazing!

“Some?” I'm not sure about that. Unlike the double-tap staging, chutes not deploying is inconsistent. Also, the solution is different as “trying again” doesn't work—or at least entails something different (making a new stage). The problem occurs when staging (not when not registering staging at the first attempt). It's not the link with space bar/button --> stage, but it's the stage --> chute link that goes wrong.

I used the Rovemax M1 wheels (whatever they're called now, the Apollo moon rover style wheels) and just turned the rover 90° on it's end to make it fit behind a heat shield. The parachute will land it on all 4 wheels. First time I did land in the middle of the lake. That was less fun.