Kerbart

Check if the orbit should be retrograde

Wait, that box is showing the vessel name? Who knew?

I know this is a subject solidly beaten to death, resurrected, beaten again, burried 10 feet deep with stake through its heart, necromanced, driven over by a bulldozer, regrown into a new Kerbal, and so on, but... It's the Kerbal Space Program. Not the “Planet Kerbin Space Program.” It's easy to assume the Kerbals already have experience with probes and unmanned flight, they just want to put Kerbals in space. Even inside that program there's some room for probes — relay satellites, early surveys — but that's not why the program is there. It’s to put Kerbals in space, front and center. The emphasis on Kerballed missions in KSP2 supports that. Feel free to use a modded tech tree that puts probes first. But to me it feels like suggesting a marathon can be completed much quicker by using a motorcycle. Yes, of course you can, but that’s not the point, is it?

Those are actually good points. I agree that after ten months of Sandbox, the For Science release is like water to a person lost in the desert. Tech tree pretty much demands unlocking everything, the game would be more interesting if the player is forced to make exclusive options (say Apollo/Soyuz/SpaceX crew capsule styles, even if they’re technically interchangeable). It’s still the “go place, click science, unlock unrelated tech” mechanism. Missions that unlock specific tech with specific tasks would have been nice. It's not super easy to fix that though. If your science instrument readings determine what you can unlock, you’ll still get the “go to crater X to unlock Y” mechanism. It’s just a bitless obvious but after unlocking half a dozen nodes it’ll be really obvious. Unless those readings are no predetermined. But then the game can become an exercise in frustration as non of your experiments is giving you that one reading you need to unlock docking ports.

If I get this right, you mean perpendicular to the build orientation? Because you can flip the build orientation between vertical and horizontal in the VAB (or switch buildings in KSP1), but you have enough experience to not mean that (but I do mention it on the off chance you do). I agree that we do miss parts that allow “building out” —hinges, etc, although even those in KSP1 didn’t work quite satisfactory because they were geared towards (robotic) motion and not really stiff enough to fold out to a static position allowing for large forces.

I was lazy! I’ll admit, I even have it on my personal keystrokes webpage, together with ⅗ and ⅞ but opted for a cheap typesetting trick instead. Shame! Shame! But I did use curly braces instead of straight quotes, so there’s that.

They're essential for building craft that resemble what we see in SF movies. I think there's a good chunk of players who enjoy that. In that sense they're relevant. From an efficiency perspective, yes, a total waste. Once we have robotic parts they'll be more relevant, as it's more practical to use them. But that'll likely be DLC and far over the horizon.

We’re all thrilled on how the game has progressed since EA. And while congratulations to the team are in place, that is a pretty low bar to pass. As a group on social media—and I suspect that extends to the Discord and Reddit communities—we’re biased about the game though. The Steam Charts tell a more sobering story. After nearly 2 weeks, KSP2 usage has dropped to the level of KSP1. The rate at which the stats drop seems the same—if not steeper—as when after EA release the game had a similar number of recorded players (early March). It's tempting to blame the holiday season for that, but with more time available player count tends to go up and the KSP1 stats confirm that. So, assuming the numbers don't lie and are indicative of the popularity of the game: A lot of players have downloaded KSP2. Either bought it or pulled it out of their mothballed archive. Interest in the game is still there, although only half of what it was at EA Over the course of 2 weeks, the player count dropped nearly 2/3 So what does it tell us? Probably nothing we didn't know already: The game is better. Much better. But it's far from good, Science mode is much more exciting than sandbox, but in the end it's basically the same as in KSP1 but with better visuals and a challenging tech tree; it gets old quickly There's still a collection of Old Bugs that is annoying. Yes, some of the Rage Quitters are gone, and many are happy about the unnatural stiff rockets, but orbital lines still disappear, engines still spontaneously throttle up, the VAB is still a bug fest, and so on As to be expected, new features have brought new bugs, especially around re-entry heating to a point where many consider playing without it A roadmap update will bring a boost in the stats. I'm sure T2 is delighted about that. The reason it took 10 months to get here is because of a lot of technical debt. There's still a lot left and not suprisingly it increased now. Given Intercept's promise to deliver the next update “much quicker,” I wonder where we end up with the stats. A roller coaster ride of new players joining and still casting the game aside, because objectively, it still leaves a lot to be desired from a stability point of view?

If only the game had some kind of mode where you are unconstrained in what you want to build. Anything! Like a kid in a sandbox!

Does the mission state they all need to go at once? Or is it just bringing ten Kerbals to the surface of Eve and returning them to Kerbin? Like 5 missions in pairs?

Yes that did the trick. Had some very interesting repercussions for staging, but I digress.

This was also at a velocity where heat should not be an issue. I'm not sure if the fairing is ignored or that it affects the heat flux of enclosed parts in some unexpected way.

Not just high altitude. i have an Okto2 consistently blowing up once it passes 10k on ascent due to overheating. Going maybe 500 m/s at that point. It's inside a 2.5m fairing, if that matters. Had to turn of heating to get it into orbit.

New players will mainly wonder if their boomsticks have the oomph it takes to go to space. I don't think they're throwing the game aside with a disgusted look an their face saying “can you imagine, this game STARTS with methaloc instead of kerosine?” For most, knowledge like that comes from playing the game, not the other way around.

And I don't think the tech tree should purely, only, and exclusively be tailored towards first time players. It's very important that the game doesn't provide extreme hurdles for first timers, but that doesn't mean that options should be not available for experienced players, who can have all kinds of reasons to pick them over liquid fuel engines. Even if some players don't see the point in it. "It's not needed because I personally don't want it" is generally a position that's hard to defend.

SRB's are still my goto if I need raw thrust. It's a lot easier to improve TWR with SRB's than with liquid fuel, especially if I don't need that thrust anymore when some of my LF has been burned up, and we're higher up with enough velocity to worry less about gravity losses. Of course, I could throttle down at that point, but I'd rather just run 100% throttle all the way with staging in between than managing thrust. Call me lazy. Designed that way, my launch vehicles also tend to be simpler.

I don't know about KSP2 but in KSP1 the wimpy HG-5 a;ready struggles as a relay around Minmus. I doubt it works all the way to Eve. Nertea mentioned that all antennas (antennae?) are relay antennas. Take a look at the range, if they're not rated for that distance they won't work.

Doesn't it just heat up the entire craft? Which could be also be interpreted as instant heat transfer.

Yes it does. I know because I haven't found a way to remove parts from symmetry in flight (if you adjust spring strength individually on landing legs you can straighten out a craft landed on a slope in KSP1, but I haven't found out how to do it in KSP2)

Don't be rude. If I have to assume anything it's because you're not sharing anything. Don't yell at people for "assuming" when they're trying to help but are working blind and you refuse to elaborate.

I agree that it looks a lot like we're here for advanced bug testing and not a lot else. @Nate Simpson perhaps do a video on how player feedback so far has influenced the direction of the game, outside bug fixing?

More mass, same cross section. That's not going to help you slowing down, It's going to help you maintain momentum From what I understand, engines are modeled as cones, I assume to reduce drag by "streamlining" the rear end of a rocket. Not only are you maintaining your cross section, you're reducing your friction coefficient That stuff mounted underneath the heat shield will heat up. And from what I understand of the new heat model, transfer its heat a lot quicker to the rest of the ship Engine + tank have substantial mass, so IF they heat up, the capsule is going to be a lousy heat sink for them. Meaning that once heats starts flowing from them to the capsule, it's not substantially lowering their temperature so that flow will continue A picture will at least give people a chance to see if they can reproduce the issue and elaborate on the problem. This not being your first rodeo might exacerbate the problem. This configuration might have worked in KSP1 but things have changed, so perhaps now it changed. Your design is likely solid, but the assumptions you based it on might be off.

On the left side we have people complaining that the tech tree is not realistic, the game should offer full access to all orbital data without mods, etc, etc "because of reality" On the right side we have people who want FTL drives and planets filled to the brim with (alien) artifacts, etc "because of gameplay" Neither side is right or wrong but all the devs can do in that regard is provide some balance. We have rovers on Mars and the Moon. We've been to the moon. It's a very desolate place and the current renditions of those planets in KSP are spot on. What exactly should we interact with, without robbing the game of its character of accuracy? I don't expect an answer to it, but that is why it's such a problem.

In KSP1 you have to activae tweakables in the settings In KSP2 it's in the part manager, ut you might have to twirl/unfold that option open to see the 6 axis options for RCS thrusters. When [;aced with symmetry you only have to edit one of them.

Would you mind posting a picture of saif craft during re-entry. On the off chance you're doing something to either design or orientation of the ship that the game doesn't like? At the very least we can learn from it.