Dakitess

DV calculus were already very questionable in KSP1 with no repeatability even on very simple builds. I have numerous cases about it, like simply changing from Engine A to B and then reverting to A, DV would change sometimes... It's for simple builds. For "complex" (like, just advanced, nothing terrible, really), it won't ever show correct numbers. KSP2 is even worse in every part : it makes the DV totally unusable while mods does it correctly (mostly) for years and years on KSP1. I don't get it.

Hoooo so cool, the guy who wrote the whole program of OptiGT just released an English Video to showcase its use !! It's not the article and I've not seen it entirely but I can already bet that you'll be amazed

I really don't even know what could please me about that colonies content. I guess I want it to be challenging as well as beautiful, aesthetic. To be able to finetune the colony on a very specific place, like leaning against a cliff partially with the launch pad overhanging over a canyon. The kind of aesthetic and terrain adaptability we've seen in the original trailer, that's it. But since the actual terrain is miles (sorry, light-year) behind what we saw in the trailer, the lightning and colors so weird, the physics not quite on point, etc, I don't see how we will end with some very basic quasi-flat station with some buggy overhang pillars tentative that will float a some meters above ground, missing the shadows, or not fitting the ground textures definition, etc. Yeah, quite pessimistic about it, since Terrain and Aesthetic is what I consider as the top priority for KSP2 and it's nothing to say that it under delivers a lot.

Hey AdiYoP, thanks for your interest ! Unfortunately, yeah, the team is moving from a website to another one and it's manual, so not all the article has been transferred so far and I can't reach the original article as I am no longer part of the team. Sorry, I'll reach you when it's back

It looks really nice indeed ! How many FPS do you have with which kind of PC ?

I'm afraid it would look really bad and would only be some kind of very rare specific location, not a credible terrain feature that you'll try to find by yourself. I would love cave as well, but as something that I would randomly find or look for, not these very messy easter egg, very badly implemented, with different shaders, different lightning, different textures, etc. Terrain tech in KSP2 is so deceiving, this is exactly what I was expecting the most and what actually bring the less

I did not try SSTO Ascent Path in KSP2, but what you describe is a bit different of what we have as an optimal in KSP1. In KSP1, using Rapiers Only, most of my SSTO has a very simple optimal path to orbit : SAS ON, proper take off, nose at 1° above the horizon and... That's it. It will accelerate very strongly at low altitude and the rotondity of Kerbin will naturally and very progressively raise it up without any input, thus without sacrificing any sudden AoA change. I tend to Lock Prograde past the 8-10° above the horizon to avoid the nose to get too high and it even improves the last minutes aerodynamic, when all what matters is to get as fast as possible in closed cycle. That's all. Sometimes I have to "Power Dive" : take off, climb gently at 1-2°C above the horizon until I reach 2-4km, Mach Aerodynamic barrier would prevent me to go faster : I lock prograde, thus falling nose down my velocity vector, so that aerodynamic is as good as possible, to help the Rapiers kicking past the 400 m/s. Past that point, it will continue to accelerate and you're good to go, without adding another(s) Rapiers which would represent drymass, just because of the Mach barrier.

I've wrote a bunch of Tutorials and Missions for KSP1 and I like to alternate between : - Construction tutorials : your first rocket for instance - Navigation tutorials : manoeuver nodes for instance - Specific skill tutorial : RCS placement and docking for instance - Milestone missions : to the mun and back My KSP1 global tutorial was planned with theses chapters : 0) Presentation and hands on KSP 1) The basis of rocket design 2) Lift-Off, orbiting and Gravity Turn 3) Manoeuvers Nodes and basic transfer 4) To the mun and back (1st Milestone to exploit the 3 previous tutorials) ---------------- 5) Design a station and its modules (introduce the docking and thus the RCS placements) 6) Rendez-vous and Docking 7) The logic of interplanetary Transfer 8) To Duna and back (2nd Milestone to exploit the 3 previous tutorials) ------------------- 9) How to build and control a basic plane 10) How to build an SSTO and the ideal path to orbit 11) The atmospheric Reentry 12) To Laythe and back (3rd Milestone to exploit the 3 previous tutorials) ----------------- And I did not get any further but we would have some Advanced Rocket Design (aesthetic, performance optimization, etc), Advanced Orbital mechanic (Oberth effect, Bi-elliptical rather than Hohmann, Gravity Assist, etc), Buoyancy and boat crafting, etc. I wish we had something like this in KSP2, with more intermediate missions, more distincts chapter, some repetition, etc.

It's actually really not a big deal if it stays as is, indeed. I don't care too much, I just find it not very good, and it feels way too forced, so it can be better for sure. But it might be the least of the priority, clearly, and we can totally overcome it : it does not mean that it should not be mentioned as something to improve / correct

This, a thousand time. I really "hate" this kind of forced humor, everywhere, anywhere, all the time. It does not serve any purpose, it's annoying and quite puerile, because of repetition. Yeah haha okay, coffee, haha, I got it, hehe, addiction, so fun, and Kapibaras, haha look at their big nose, lol, it's funny, it's big, and they go to space, or perhaps, or we don't know, but whatever, Kapybaras, and coffee addiction, cause we all love coffee and all are addict to it, and it's fun, just like big Splosions, always, way more fun than actually succeeding a mission, don't get too serious, c'mon, it's a game, crashes are fun, and eclipse as well, haha, Jeb crashed its face on the ground and still live. Lol. Yeah, sorry for the rant. Regarding the topic, I did not watch the tutorial except the Gravity Turn one, which is very good as a very short "basic" which does not teach everything step by step. I think it's the best Tutorial format, a 2 minutes animation that won't go in Gameplay details, so that the community then handle the 20minutes long docking step by step tutorial. It ensures that tutorial actually don't ruin the Die and Retry aspect of the game, the proudness to succeed by ourselves, while in the same time giving just enough information about physics and global advices to not feel abandoned. It needs to be declined with all the Tutorial topics that we usually looked for in KSP1 : manoeuver nodes, RdV, docking, interplanetary transfrt, aerobraking, Gravity Assist, landing, but also some Craft design tutorial, about RCS placement, CoL/CoM, optimization, and so on.

This presentation, and especially the visuals are stellar, for real. Really really nice. As an occasional Orbital Mechanics / KSP teacher in Engineering High School / University, I've been trough all theses explanation in pretty much the exact same order, but with about 3 to 4 hours courses content, detailing every aspect of it and using KSP as the perfect support to learn and feel how it works. I'm clearly not at the point of doing that kind of visuals which are very helpful and well thought ! It's a shame I'm such a bad drawer haha.

I don't understand what could be the problem in KSP2 if you're handling that perfectly in KSP1. Where do you struggle more, what do you find different ?

Yeah 1.3 is really the lowest TWR you wanna have. To suit some RolePlay crewed mission for instance, this is what I do. Otherwise, best performance is around 1.8 to 2.2 depending on the rocket (sounding very aerodynamic tiny rocket can get way higher as an optimum). It really changes everything. Can be hard to find the sweet GT spot though, 1.4 to 1.6 is the easier. Really, forget about that "drag" losses, they are so marginal if you're doing a proper GT (which is optimal regarding Drag) and if your rocket is correctly designed, i.e. without an atrocious fairing or something else. Even though, you can still do a GT and win a lot, you'll just have to adapt and do a "round" GT, not an agressive one, to get a bit higher than you would than with a proper design. By the way, here is my tutorial about Gravity Turn. It's in French, but you all know what I'm talking about :p It won't sound as "pro" as other, regarding the audio and so on, I'm not a Youtuber, but i'll humbly admit that I consider this video as one of the most comprehensive regarding this topic.

Thanks haha

Yeah 1.3 is really the lowest TWR you wanna have. To suit some RolePlay crewed mission for instance, this is what I do. Otherwise, best performance is around 1.8 to 2.2 depending on the rocket (sounding very aerodynamic tiny rocket can get way higher as an optimum). It really changes everything. Can be hard to find the sweet GT spot though, 1.4 to 1.6 is the easier.