Search the Community

The youtuber VAOS recently made a video about his experience building (and launching) a moon base in KSP 2, with many bugs he found and improvements he thought could be made included. I thought the devs might want to see this video because it includes many very valid criticisms of the game that many on this forum appear to also express.

For Science! Update started off with a blast and I was eager to play it upon release! Once it released, I loved it instantly considering it levels the Game up to not only a sandbox simulator but to a full-fledged game playthrough! However, despite the many awesome and fun moments I had with this update, I feel like there is a lot of work to polish the new Science & Mission Mechanic alongside the already implemented tutorial system which I really wanted to talk about for quite some time now. First, let's start off with the Tutorials, I am personally not very good with Kerbal Space Program itself; I couldn't really understand how to create a rocket properly and usually ended up having stacks of them not launching from the pad or barely making it into orbit, let alone past Kerbin. And despite the help I got from the in-game tutorials, it did not significantly help as much as online tutorials. The section about rocketry feels obviously lacking, sure it mentions how a rocket works and the types of engines and other space components, but it does not help on how to make a proper rocket or at least understand how to make one for any specific task such as landing on the Mun or Eeloo. This can also be accounted for orbital mechanics; it leaves questions in my mind such as: "How much do you need to slowly turn your rocket over the horizon?" "Does it apply to every rocket? If no, how do I know when and how?" This is normally a major obstacle for new players like me (Kind of, started in 2016 but never really got past the Mun in KSP1 and never properly learned rocket design) because it forces us back into the drawing board by watching a couple of tutorials made from the Internet, although it isn't any bad either, it reinforces the fact the in-game tutorials really need more work. In summary, using this experience of mine, I would really like more tutorials about rocketry and an improved version of how to put your rocket past the atmosphere and prepare the steps for an orbital maneuver. Secondly, let's continue with the Missions in Mission Control, The Missions itself aren't bad, I actually found it as huge upgrade its original counterpart in KSP1, but it definitely needs more polishing. The first noticeable flaw I encountered was the mission briefing themselves, they seem way too centered on a specific scenario (mission briefing specifically) and less dynamic, by example, your ship ends up in a catastrophic failure when doing a specific mission, you absolutely do not get any major consequences rather than the loss of a crew, which normally under the default game difficulty, usually just respawn and probably also a couple of science points that you might have lost. I really wish upon a system where the missions actually do not cancel themselves when failing them, but give negative consequences such as more flavour text signifying the gravity and effect of the situation but at the same time balancing and incentivizing the player to keep continuing. Secondly, if your rocket launches, completing the first mission, and immediately goes to the atmosphere, I would really like it, instead of going again back to Mission Control and then going back to the ship to complete the second mission after the first, to simply have some way or form to complete both missions when you've done both already through one rocket launch at the start. To simply brief this, Mission Debriefing should get a separate system when the player fails the mission and you should be able to complete two missions at once without needing to go back to mission control to track the second one which went available thanks to completing to the first one in one rocket launch. Next, the Science Mechanic, which is the one here with the most need of polishing, I could also say the same for this one, the new Science mechanic is a massive overhaul to its original counterpart in KSP1. However, it definitely needs more polishing and balancing to make it less of a "Simple Magic Click and Reward" button which actually loses the value of it being a "Reward" as it gets too easy. I noticed the reports did not really have any unique flavour to them compared to KSP1 where crew observations and utilization of science equipment had unique flavour text depending where you did them (Also make the flavour texts larger and readable :D), I would actually really like if they weren't all generic and had an interesting one. I also found it quite boring when all a Kerbal can do and is meant for in a mission is simply to steer a Rocket when it's out of signal with KSC, do flags, generic crew observations and surface samples. I really wanted them to play a role on organizing Science like KSP1 rather than one magic click and it's all stored. Kerbals should perhaps have the ability to take the science reports or surface samples and store them in the Command Pod or Science Juniors. Both elements, describing flavour text and the further usage of Kerbals, would really incentivize the Player to do more frequently EVAs and learn more about science itself generally through flavour text, with some funny element in it considering Kerbals are Kerbals Anyways, apart from my feedback on how Science Points are acquired and Flavour Texts, Science Points should really get some sort of balancing because unlocking technology feels way too easy and feels really less of a reward. Maybe decrease science points on more generic tasks such as crew observations and regular planet scans or any other thing those science parts can do. Alternatively, increase the cost of the technologies in R&D. In conclusion, I would really like more flavour for generic scientific tasks and further usage of Kerbals alongside balancing on the ridiculous amounts of Science Points you'd get from 1 mission. Thanks for reading my Feedback and Suggestions if you have come this far down, I really want to hear what others think too!

After playing around in the For Science update, I have really noticed that with aircraft tech, you are given most of the parts needed for a design, but lack a few key pieces for it to completely encompass an aircraft. Let me explain: The initial node on the aircraft tree hands you: two cockpits, a jet fuel tank, two landing gear types, an intake, a wing and a stabiliser. Yes, it is possible to create an aircraft, but I can't escape the feeling that parts have just been omitted or placed in other areas that do not make sense. Simply being given a nosecone intake instead of a radial one, for example, severely limits the craft you can design, meaning it must be placed at the front, or on the sides with more fuel tanks to connect it to. No tail piece, not even the Mk A like in KSP-1, means you are basically forced to stick with a rear-jet arrangement. Yes, you can make an aircraft, you just cannot make one effectively that comes with pieces I would of thought would be included as standard for an aircraft design. Moving on to the Mk-2 modules. We acquire these in tier 2 of the tech tree, which makes sense. Two cockpits, a jet, medium landing gear, airbrakes, a short and medium variant of Mk-2 fuel tanks, a wing and a nacelle. Again however, noticably missing is things a bicoupler, or even a small-medium Mk-2 adapter, meaning you still can't really finish off the design like you could in KSP-1 with two engines at the back, or a singular, or connect it to Mk-1 parts. Confusingly, these are all placed three nodes along. Last night I was trying to design a Mk-2 plane after unlocking the node, and could not for the life of me figure out how I was supposed to add a tail to it or finish it off without unlocking those other nodes first. It just feels extremely out of place. I know the point is to slowly progress to better, more specialised tech, but this really just feels like punishment or forced omission for the sake of it. The point should not be to have to unlock every other node first before designing something, it should be to be able to work with what you have in a fair way of progression and use that tech to progress to other tech. I contrast this to the Rocket technology, which is very well thought out (for the most part) You can easily progress along, visit other bodies with the parts you are given at the right stages, there is room for creating interesting designs. For aircraft, it just feels like things have been placed so far along that you would think to be standard for making even a basic design. How I would improve this: Mk2 Bicoupler/Adapter > Mk2 Jets XM-G50 Radial Intake from HAA > Light Aviation LY-05 from Aerial Drones > Light Aviation (why we have the landing sticks but not nose wheel makes no sense to me) Tail Connector A > Light Aviation Tail Connector B > Precision Aerodynamics Don't even get me started on the Mk-3 parts and their placement.. that's another headache I will get around to >.> Feedback, discussion is welcome as always. - Rachel

So I saw this post and I think OP there has a point, but I have my own take on it and at this point, I think it's worth making a new topic. So KSP1 and 2 both have exploration in the sense that they have a great big sandbox for you to travel around in, but I think an "exploration game" is a game where exploration is 1) interesting and 2) challenging. And neither KSP1 nor KSP2 had interesting or challenging exploration. Now, don't get me wrong, both games are challenging. That's a fact. But exploration isn't. Go to Map view and you can see everything in as much detail as you realistically ever will. Yeah, you can't see every rock on the Mun, but it's not like you can do anything with those rocks. And yes you can't see every hill and valley, but none of those hills or valleys are dramatic enough to matter to picking a landing site and you don't get science for exploring deeper-than-average valleys or higher-than-average hills. If you've ever played Minecraft and finally found an ice spikes biome after searching for days and mapping every ocean in a 1K block radius, you know what the joy of exploration is. It's the joy of searching, scanning the horizon, hoping to see what your looking for. Rationing food, creating outposts, running out of resources and having to return home only to go out again to search more. That's exploration. I've never felt that playing KSP, not even close. Because I've always known exactly where I was going, and pretty much exactly what I was gonna find. Now, there is no actual need to have exploration be a major feature in KSP. But I do think it's something that could raise KSP2 to the next level and create a kind of joy and challenge that we have so far not been able to experience. Below I've listed some general ways that I think it would be possible for KSP to incorporate exploration in a more meaningful way. I'd love to hear what you guys have to say about it. 1) Reward variety Minecraft actually provides a reason to go to a desert or a jungle. Different resources, different structures, different locales to build bases. It's not just that deserts have more loot than jungles, it's that they provide different value. You can't get pandas from deserts and you can't get cactus from jungles. KSP1 and 2 both suffer from all biomes being essentially the same. At best you might get slightly more science from the poles or from a monument, but that's not an exciting difference. If, instead, you could make a munar discovery that allowed you to build a special new type of engine by gathering a sample in a specific region, that could be an actual reason to explore. It's a reason to be excited that you finally found a munar valley so you can finally build that probe exactly the way you want to. Even something as simple as unlocking certain paint styles by visiting certain celestial bodies would give you some reason to go to some of the less visited bodies. Rewards that are just science or money become stale when you have lots of both. Rewards that are non-fungible, that are actually unique, those can be really inspiring. ideas for adding this: Samples from certain biomes give you non-tech tree discoveries, e.g. a new compound found on the mun unlocks a special side-mounted engine or a smaller more powerful satellite dish. Samples from Certain biomes unlock special paint jobs for rocket parts Samples from Certain biomes allow you to upgrade certain parts. e.g. the Reliant engine gets an ISP boost because of asteroid debris found in a munar crater. Samples from Certain biomes advance the kerbals understanding of the universe, allowing you unique abilities. e.g. you can now use all maneuver capabilities without a pilot (I know it isn't in KSP2 yet, whatever). Please keep in mind that while it may sound dull to have to go to a specific munar biome to unlock a particular paint job, some of my subsequent ideas might help with that. 2) Variety in Challenges Right now there is an element of tedium to going to each biome on the mun. You can see them all from orbit so you just have to do 5 identical missions landing in different spots. They are all essentially the exact same mission, and that is pretty tedious. Something that could spice things up is providing different challenges for different biomes. Ideas: Certain parts of Duna have major windstorms that blow you to and fro Other parts are very rocky and therefore difficult to land flat in. On the mun you could have basins in the bottom of caves that can't be flown to but require a speedy rover. You could have munar sand beds that are spongy and therefore easier to land on. Certain areas on the Mun could have a ground covering that messes with the ranging meaning you can only use sea-level altitude and not height from ground, making landing more challenging. Even features as simple as steep mountains mean you need to either execute a high-precision landing right on the peak, or make a craft that won't slide down the steep face. These kinds of unique challenges are a nice compliment to unique rewards. If you want a special engine, you have to design a special craft to overcome a unique challenge. It also means that landers cannot be as frequently re-used. You actually need to re-tool your ship for each new destination. 3) "Randomness" in environment Something else that is difficult is that you can see the whole mun in stunning quality immediately. You always know exactly where you are going to land from the start. Having some kind of fog-of-war where you can't see the landing site in detail (perhaps it's all pixelated) until you either scan it with a satellite or get close enough would mean you would need to be prepared for the unexpected. Combined with the variety above, it could mean that you need to build really adaptable ships, or do preliminary scouting, both of which would be exciting and rewarding missions. Another thing that could be done is adding features that simply do not appear on the map view until they are discovered. So perhaps you can see a crater, but you can't see if there is a meteor remnant in the middle, so you need to do an expedition to find out. And then if there is one, you can unlock a unique part or a science reward or whatever. This would encourage people to build a lander with a rover that can go explore. More detail on this kind of stuff below. I should note here I don't think a random or procedurally generated map would be a good idea. Rather everyone should have the same Mun, but you just can't see details of it in the map view until you actually map it. 4) Rules and science connecting environments and informing randomness Something that takes exploration to the next level for me is when you know that there are rules governing your exploration. For example, a Minecraft Savanna will always border a desert. And Ice spikes are often found near cold oceans. So when you are looking for a desert and you find a savanna, you can go around the perimeter, and when you are looking for ice spikes, you can get excited when you see a cold ocean because you know you might be close to your quarry. Being much more science based, KSP2 has an even greater opportunity to do this. On the Mun, give some mares asteroid debris fields on their borders that can be scanned for a chance to recover pieces of a meteor. On Duna have mountains form ranges where some mountains will, on close inspection, turn out to be volcanoes that can be used as a source of geothermal energy. This is the reason you might build a serious all-terrain rover, one that can challenge Duna's mountains to efficiently scavenge them for Volcanoes. Or perhaps it may justify you building a Duna plane with high-res cameras and sensors so you can fly over the mountain ranges hoping to pick up heat signatures. These kinds of connections mean players can get excited at finding a large thing that they can explore, searching for a small thing. And that is the sort of exploration people can really get invested in. It's a problem that is possible to solve with brute force, spending 1000 hours in EVA, but encourages creative problem solving. Creating mega-rovers and spy planes that can automate the tedius tasks. I think that these sort of additions could make KSP2 a true exploration game that rewards and encourages the development of a huge variety of vehicles to overcome equally varied challenges across the galaxy. I don't purport to know exactly how such features would specifically fit, but I hope this is a direction the devs give consideration to.

Potential Improvements for Kerbal Space Program 2’s Re-Entry Visual FX By IsaQuest, a KSP 1/2 Modder and 3D Artist With Visuals made in Blender What works, and what doesn’t The core system for the mesh that the effect is applied on is fine and is actually a very good system. The main problems are only in the visual rendering of the effect. There are two main problems with the most recent re-entry effect: The effect is very static, which makes the effect look almost glitchy and wrong, and the effect has very hard edges, making it seem less like hot plasma flowing and more like a solid object. "Effect is static" Source: https://x.com/KerbalSpaceP/status/1727445482476351655 The main section of the current reentry effect looks very static. This was a recent change, as the effect shown in the Reentry Heating Effects Dev Chat was much more dynamic and chaotic. The solution here would be to move the effect up and down the plume according to a random factor and adding some vertex displacement, like the original version of the effect. Source: https://youtu.be/pXkabuiVjFg?t=147 "Hard Edges" The most recent version of the effect has some very hard edges. This can be fixed relatively easily* with some Fresnel-based falloff. Fresnel is an effect usually used to emphasize reflections near the edge of a surface, but here, it is used to make the edges of a surface fade out. Here is a demonstration of a reentry effect with and without Fresnel falloff. Without Fresnel Falloff / With Fresnel Falloff (Made in Blender) This can also be applied to the sparks that come off the effect as seen in the X post, which will make them much more natural. Source: https://x.com/KerbalSpaceP/status/1727445482476351655 Closing Notes Thank you for taking the time to read this! I have thought about this for a bit, hence the late posting time. *Please note, I am not a shader programmer, I am a 3D artist. I do not know how hard this will be to implement into the current system, and I do not know if it will even work properly because I do not know how the system works. Hopefully this does give some ideas to the development team on how to improve the reentry effects. Keep going at it, devs!

SpaceWarp 2.0: Help Us Shape the Future of Modding! Dear KSP 2 Modding Community, We're thrilled to have grown alongside you as the SpaceWarp modding API project evolved from its inception in version 0.1 as a simple mod loader, to a community-driven modding API in version 1.0, to where we are now. Your continuous support and feedback have been invaluable in making SpaceWarp better. As we look to the future, we're excited to announce that we are beginning work on SpaceWarp 2.0, a new chapter in our modding journey! Learning and Growing Together Our journey through 1.x has been filled with learning experiences. We've listened to many of your suggestions, and have recently introduced some significant updates, such as: specification versions - allowing for major changes while still keeping older mods compatible, codeless part mods - to empower non-programmers who want to make KSP 2 mods, Lua support - for simple scripting without the need to learn C# and .NET, experimental support for the official mod loader - to help us prepare for the future. Those are just a few of the new features that SpaceWarp has seen added during the 1.x development cycle. Your valuable feedback has helped shape SpaceWarp 1, and we're grateful for that. SpaceWarp 1.5 - A Smooth Transition Before we dive into the details of SpaceWarp 2.0, let's talk about SpaceWarp 1.5, the next transitional step, and the last update in the 1.x series. We are going to mark all APIs that will be removed or changed as deprecated, and introduce their replacements, giving you a sneak peek of the changes coming in 2.0. That way, while your existing 1.x mods will continue working in 1.5, you will have enough time to prepare them for the major update ahead. Preparing for the Future We hear you loud and clear – KSP 2 modding shouldn't have to be tied to an external mod loader when there’s an official one on the way. That's why we're working towards making SpaceWarp fully compatible with both BepInEx and the currently unreleased official mod loader. That way, your mods written for SpaceWarp 1.5 and later should require only minimal changes to support the official mod loader once it arrives. SpaceWarp 2.0 - Modularization and Flexibility One of the key architectural differences in SpaceWarp 2.0 is the shift towards modularization. As the library has grown over the past few months, it has gotten to a point where a single project containing all the very diverse APIs and features is simply not sustainable anymore. We want to make SpaceWarp more flexible, so it has enough room to grow in the future without unnecessary complexity, in both the development phase, and in the integration, testing and release phases. Here are just some examples of the module structure we're considering: SpaceWarp.Core – The core mod contract and everything necessary to make a simple mod load in-game. SpaceWarp.UI – Including app bar buttons, UI skins, and other UI-related functionalities. SpaceWarp.Game – Abstractions of game APIs, enabling seamless interactions with many parts of the game’s code without having to worry about game updates breaking your mods. SpaceWarp.Audio – For handling of audio-related features and functionalities. The Right Approach We are currently considering two different approaches to the modularization of SpaceWarp: Approach 1: The Modular Monolith: We would split the SpaceWarp modules into individual projects and .DLL files, while keeping them all part of a single mod, single version, and single release zip. This approach maintains the current setup for end users and modders, keeping SpaceWarp as a monolithic, but not as tightly coupled library that covers various functionalities. The separation of concerns into multiple projects within the SpaceWarp solution will enable easier code management for contributors. Approach 2: Modular to the Max: SpaceWarp would be divided into separate smaller mods, each with its own swinfo.json file, versioning, and independent releases. Modders and players can then selectively use only the modules they need, improving customization and reducing unnecessary bloat. Community contributions to specific parts of SpaceWarp become more streamlined, as contributors can focus on individual modules without affecting unrelated components, making it easier for multiple people to work on many distinct parts of SpaceWarp at the same time independently. *For the sake of transparency – this is the approach that we are currently leaning towards the most, but we want to hear your opinions! Simplifying Installation for Players We understand that ease of installation is crucial for players. While approach 2 (Modular to the Max) brings with it more complexity when it comes to user experience when installing SpaceWarp, we're exploring solutions to mitigate this, such as always providing an always updated all-in-one download option for those who prefer simplicity, or the possibility of only installing the core SpaceWarp mod as a lightweight entry point, which will then prompt you to either download the modules your mods depend on manually, or even download and install them for you. We Value Your Feedback! Your opinions matter to us! We're building SpaceWarp together, and your insights are integral to shaping its future. We'd love to hear what you think about the two approaches we've shared: Are you more inclined towards Approach 1 (The Modular Monolith) or Approach 2 (Modular to the Max), and why? How do you think we can enhance the installation experience for players? Do you have any other suggestions for what you’d like to see in SpaceWarp 1.5 and 2.0? Please share your feedback here, or in the KSP 2 Modding Society Discord server, where the development of SpaceWarp and most KSP 2 mods takes place, for a more real-time discussion! Join Us on This Exciting Journey! SpaceWarp 2.0 promises a more flexible and future-proof modding experience. Thank you for being a part of this journey with us. Your contributions and feedback help us make SpaceWarp better every day, and we hope that we can all help the KSP 2 modding community one day reach the inspiring heights of its predecessor. Let's shape the future of KSP 2 modding, together!

With the power available to computers today the game needs much better accountability for part damage. I should know when the failure occured, where it occured, and what the stress forces involved were at a minimum. This information should never be unaccounted for or erased from the log in any way. Amen.

As we wait for the game to become more stable, I wanted to bring up the topic of story. While the main focus of this game should be creativity and a realistic space simulator it’s always important to have a reason to explore beyond just landing on new planets. I feel it is one of the main things the previous game lacked. I know the devs have ideas and probably a few things already in the works in regards to story with a few of those being already hinted at in videos and models found in the files. However, It’s important for the story to not simply be just Easter eggs, but actually be something interesting that ties the world together and drives the player to explore other planets and star systems. The closest thing that comes to mind is The Outer Wilds which is a masterpiece with this concept. (If you haven’t played it, play it now) I will not spoil it here. If the devs could capture at least 10% of what The Outer Wilds does with its way of story telling and driving the player to explore planets for the sake of exploration and uncovering a mystery, it would make this game much more engaging and may also entice a wider audience. It would help planets not feel like barren lifeless spheres but like they have some mystery to them, something to uncover and some reason to be there. It could even tie into mining and resource gathering like “the player must drill down beneath the monument to learn of the xyz to and understand the next step” Adding the story into other science tools such as signal systems, telescopes, terrain and thermal mapping systems etc as well would be expected and an exciting experience. Imagine getting a strange signal from a distant planet or star system you need to triangulate. Now you have to setup sensors on different planets to get a fix. What if mapping the planet with SCANsat revealed something undetectable to the naked eye? Need to build a rover to get there Find a strange mark on the planet? Turns out material analysis shows that the dirt is not native to this planet. Wonder where it could be from. Things like that, but have them tie together into a deeper mystery, not a simple Easter egg. Thoughts?

In general I have been supportive of the game after launch, I have not criticized things that will surely be fixed by the devs.. it's all part of the EA process. This feedback looks past the technical issues and the lego building aspects of the game. Assuming the first EA release had no bugs and performed well.. what is there to explore in the game? Well, not a lot. The celestial bodies look good when seen from far away / high orbit, which really makes them unique and interesting. But when you get closer the terrain is not great. It will probably be improved with higher resolution textures and more polygons when the performance budget will be available. Anyway, I have done complete visual orbital surveys of all the planets and moons searching for anomalies or special terrain features that stand out. I have found very few. It seems that, at least for now, there is not much creative content in the game. I don't see reasons to hop a lander or drive a rover or fly a plane around looking for interesting stuff. It's just not there. You basically have 1.. or maybe 2 interesting and unique things to see on each planet or moon. Other than that, yes there are some biomes like craters, hills, valleys, mountains. But there is nothing special there, no interesting scatter, no fascinating natural objects. The planets and moons feel as barren and empty as KSP1... for now. And this is a surprise because the devs always said in the feature videos (paraphrasing): "the planets are great, everyone's gonna love the planets".. "exploration is a much bigger motivation now" .. "some of the things the creative team is cooking up.. it will blow you away" etc. It just feels like a great waste of space, with no real reason to go exploring over the next hill. There should be more "wow" moments than just arriving at a nice looking planet with beautiful music and landing once. Hopefully more content will be added (the Duna and Tylo anomalies are very high quality and the Vall place is very interesting). Also: please limit the camera zoom-out when in low orbit. We can basically zoom out and move the camera close to the ground anywhere. It kind of spoils the fun of landing and roving. The zoom is limited when landed, I think this should also apply in low orbit.

This is a pretty simple one. Give me a way to tell KSP2 to "stay in its lane" and keep its save data in the game's install folder, where it (at least in my personal opinion) belongs. I have 1 save game, with just a couple dozen vehicle (attempts, with little success due to bugs) and I have nearly 250MB of data in my %appdata% now. I can easily see this growing since the breakdown so far is about 50% crash data, and 50% game saves a 1 vehicle workspace is about 4MB of JSON data and a save file seems to contain a primary file between a couple KB and 6ish MB and then a set of four autosaves at 4MB each for a total of about 25MB of save data for a game with no active missions and just some junk I cant delete so I expect this to significantly grow in size with active missions, as it appears to be keeping the entire vehicle hierarchy in the main save in addition to any individual workspace files. (I'll update this if I manage to get multiple things into space and save without crashing so I can tell if the file size increases correspondingly) Crash data for this game is at a little over 3MB per crash, and the KSP crash reporting currently has 39 crash report files. Which feels pretty close to the number of times the game has crashed to desktop on me. So I expect this folder is just growing without any limit, which I have no issue with in normal circumstances, but given how many crashes I have in 27hrs, thats less than 1hr per crash, this will likely grow to a significant size and cause issues with my main user "windows" drive. My C drive is not my biggest drive, never has been, its often my smallest. Ive got media files on HDDs, project and asset file asset dirs on larger SSDs I can easily drop into a new machine if anything happens to this one, and a more expensive M2 PCIe NVME drive for the stuff that needs high IO like my development environments so the compiler can pull all the small files together, etc... and spread out across all of these are steam libraries with the location chosen based on how I feel... tiny 30MB game, chuck them all on the spinning rust, they arent big enough i care, large game I rarely play and dont mind the load time, sure HDD again, game I like and want to be able to open quickly, maybe on the SSD, game I want to load as fast as possible or hate any interruption while playing, maybe that gets a place on the expensive high IO NVME... I gave KSP2 a spot on that NVME drive, but it seems to want to put its data on my slower windows drive... and fill it up with crash reports. This is silly. I dont want yet more junk in %appdata% If I delete KSP2, I want to delete KSP2, that means all the data gone, not taking up extra space somewhere else. Having a hard coded one true directory where every version of KSP2 puts save files, feels like it will cause issues with conflicting files between different versions of KSP2 once we have updates and start having to deal with things like Mod compatibility between versions of KSP2 Early access = lots of bugs, lots of bugs means lots of crash reports, lots of crash reports mean filling up my windows drive, don't fill up my windows drive. %appdata% isn't %tmp% (not that windows is particularly good at keeping %tmp% clean) don't fill it up. Just give me a place in the global config or something like that, where I can say "data files live in the game directory"... or better yet, make that the default behavior, because the current one doesn't make sense for a game that expects to have a modding community in the future. The current default will either need workarounds to avoid conflicting save file versions between multiple copies of KSP, or its going to cause problems... or a different save directory can just avoid the issue entirely.

Hi, I tried KSP2 and these are my first impressions and suggestions. I made a list and divided into two parts the casual and the important list. So I launched KSP2 for the first time and my first thought was, can I run the game? And I could! But I have a GTX 1650 and it was ok I had 10-20 FPS and 60-ish in the VAB (low graphics, 1080) so here comes my first worry about the game: Can the devs optimise it so much that I can launch a 1k+ part rocket without lag and an ok FPS e.g. 30-35? And I don't know because if not then I don't know the interstellar travelling how will be achieved without a high end PC. I'm worrying about the noodle rockets because how would I launch a massive rocket if it's wiggling around I don't think this was a good idea to keep this feature. But yet I'm hopeful (good luck dev team ). And what I got for this FPS? A very good looking KSP2 and the graphics didn't get bad even if I'm playing at low settings. When I started playing I got into the VAB and started building a rocket to orbit. One of the first things I encountered was the controls and the green highlight lines those were quite annoying for me. I think if they would be thinner they wouldn't be annoying. The new parts are really good and I'm wondering what could I do with them when the performance will be better. And the engines were very nostalgic and I think later in the development they could get other forms like the engines in KSP. But I didn't like that the DeltaV calculator wasn't working properly in the VAB and didn't show me DeltaV / stage data. I hope this will get fixed soon. So when I finished the rocket I put it into the launchpad and watched the countdown I really liked it. And when it launched the sounds were very good too. But when I got into the higher atmosphere I encountered with a really weird thing. I couldn't turn my rocket trough the orbital prograde marker (I had a Mammoth engine and wings) but fortunately after I decupled it fixed (sometimes I couldn't decouple the fix was to change the decoupler into separator and back and constantly launching). And the gyroscopes were very weak. When I wanted to make the orbit I could pin the Ap and Pe but when I switched into the maneuver node they disappear it was quite annoying both of them because I could pin the Ap but not as easily as in KSP sometimes they just weren't appear. And the last thing I think maybe the communication e.g. about the recommended specs. Because the devs could publish this sooner and say that "Sorry the performance will be bad at day 1 but we will fix it as quickly as possible" or anything other then "we take your feedback very seriously", something to calm down the community. And I'm still excited about the game and would like to hear about the coming updates just a bit more. Overall I thing the KSP2 can be a really good game if the performance get better and some quality of life features get into the game. I say good luck to the developer team and I hope they can fix the game. Important list: -Performance -TWR -DeltaV Tools (from KSP): I would like to see my TWR and DeltaV on different celestial bodies. If the celestial body has atmosphere then what are my DeltaV stats. And TWR / stage, and not just the first stage's TWR. -Auto struts -Controls in the VAB: I miss the KSP controls from the VAB because it's really bug me that I cant scroll for moving up and down (It's really helpful for rocket building) and the new method is really slow (but it might be a bug idk), the SHIFT+ Click to drag the hole ship and the CTRL+ Z. -Parts manager: I don't like the new part manager. It's a god idea but in action it isn't working because it's too big and hard to close, when you have 30+ parts the game freeze for a sec to open it and hard to see through. Casual list: -Maneuver, remaining DeltaV and burn time: In the maneuver window I would like to have a "remaining DeltaV" row. Because I don't know from a white line that how many much I have to burn. This can be under the "Required DeltaV" line. The other one is the burn time because now this appears when I start the burn and this is a bit late when I try to do very small maneuvers and I reduce the trust of the engine. This can be under or above the "Start burn" line. -Transfer window: I think that some transfer window features can be implemented to the game. Particularly the time indicator. This would show the time when will be a transfer window to another planet . You could open this window and with one click you could add the time to your alarm clock. I think that this feature is enough, I don't think that we would need so many numbers, stats etc. -Trip planner start changing: In the VAB we have a trip planner thing and this is great but I can't change the "From" body to another planet or moon. This would be important when the performance get better. -Fairing building: I encountered with a bug a lot this bug is when I take off the fairing and put it back it disappear. It wouldn't be a problem if I could build a fairing with 5 clicks but with this new system the fairing building is slow, hard and complicated. I think if the old building method would be enabled with holding e.g. SHIF and if I want something more precise I would use the "stock" new method. -Gyroscope strength: I don't know what you've (developers) done with gyroscope strengths but I feel that they are useless when I want to steer a bit bigger rocket and this is good in some way but I think it would be great if this would be a setting and I could adjust the strength of the gyroscopes. And it could change with the stock settings (easy, normal, hard). -Docking: I think the lowne lazy method of docking could work but an interface like the docking port alignment indicator mod in KSP would be the best. I miss this from KSP because whenever KSP got an update I don't dock until the mod was updated (even if I could ). In my opinion this is a very important thing that needs to be implemented soon because it helps with docking A LOT. In the game it can be e.g. a part of the probe system from some point and obviously the Kerbals have access to it or it can be a device that looks like a camera that enables this feature. -Cheat menu: The Alt+ F12 is a really important part of KSP if I want to test something e.g. a probe system, a lander, a rover, recording a video etc. I think it needs to be implemented. -Alarm Clock: This is originally a mod for KSP but later it was implemented into the base game and I think that because of the multiplayer and the fact that now the time works in the VAB I think this is an important feature to don't miss anything. Including the transfer windows. -Maneuver tool: -More maneuver: I don't that this is a bug or not but if I make a maneuver I can't make another one on the modificated path. I think it would be good to have more. -KER: landing place indicator: This is a feature of Kerbal Engineer Redux and I think it will be helpful when you want to land on a landing pad of a colony. Before colonies it can be helpful but not often. -Big xenon engine: I think that if the nuclear engines got a bigger form I think that the xenon engines deserve that too. -More rover parts: This might already be part of the development but I would like to see some new and old rover cockpits. -First person: I would like to see the old cockpits with the new interior and the new cockpits interior -Noodle rockets: I don't think this was necessary. The solution could be to apply automatically Auto struts.

"Broken, but I love it." That's my review, left with a thumbs up on steam. Short, and simple. Here on the forums however, I'd like to go in to even more detail about my feedback at about 8 hours or so of gameplay. I'm also going to break this feedback up in to sections, Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats. (Threats simply mean competition and other issues that could threaten the viability of the project. Not actual threats.) Strengths * Visuals - Far and above KSP1 stock, and (while some would argue) at or at least on par with "Remastered" KSP1 (EVE, Scatterer, Parallax & TUFX) * User Interface - A strong solid start and foundation, missing some critical features but over all a clear and easy to read UI that seems to have accessibility for those like me with vision issues in mind. * Sound - A solid home run and absolute 10/10 here. Absolutely amazing sounds design in the UI, RCS pops, SRB crackles, tire noises, etc * Dynamic Music - Yet again, an absolute 10/10 home run here. The dynamic sound track changing music on scene change is just downright amazing and I want to buy the soundtrack please. * New Parts - 367 total parts puts KSP2's part count well and truly above KSP1's at 333 * New Parts: Proc Wings - Procedural Wings are here to replace dozens of "modular wing" parts and in doing so, give us even MORE creativity and power in vehicle construction. This is just an amazing addition. * Workspace and Vehicle Assembly - Far and above just flat out better compared to Stock KSP1, could use some work, and some better camera controls, but still a solid foundation. * Planets - What a giant step up! Axial Tilt? Actual rings? Ground Scatter on a per biome basis? Easter Eggs galore, and so much potential. Well done. Leaps and bounds above KSP 1. * The New KSC - Just amazing. The new KSC is sprawling and massive and just feels like a real life space center and campus. * Customization - Part coloring and customization is a fantastic addition. * Load Times - Another thing I see pointed out and also matters to me, load times are vastly improved. * VAB Updates - Part Manager, Trip Planner, Action Group Planner and Kerbal Manager, as well as the Change Anchor Part are all fantastic additions or overhauls to existing features. * VAB Updates Part 2 - Snap Mode updates, as wel las symmetry updates and orthographic view, all good changes and refinements. * Tutorials - These are adorable, and well suited for teaching new players, and young ones, getting in to space flight. * Aerodynamics - Fantastic feeling new aero, love flying and gliding planes. Weaknesses * User Interface and User Experience - The UI is missing several critical features and functions, The most disappointing of which, for me personally, is the Dv tools app in KSP 1. You've given us a trip planner, but that trip planner is lacking critical features such as allowing us to calculate Dv based on body, atmosphere and more. This needs to be in the game sooner rather than later. * No KSPedia - Massively Missed Opportunity that needs to be in KSP 2 to reach feature parity for UI/UX. * No Missions and no Mission Builder - Another massive missed opportunity. * No scenarios that are not based in tutorials. * The Kerbolar System was Not Expanded - Another opportunity here to add planets akin to OPM and bring in analogs of the gas giants and pluto. Sad to see the same kerbol system without new worlds to explore. * Water - Buoyancy issues, water rendering issues, parts floating and parts sinking and no way to tell why... the water looks pretty, but it's going to need a lot of work. * Missing Thermal parts and thermal dynamics at launch - This was a mistake. This is a CRITICAL part of spaceflight and the absolute wrong decision to make. It should have been a priority to get in for 0.1.0 including radiator parts that we're missing from KSP1. * Even without science mods and science parts, we're missing the basics of Kerbnet including comm net lines, and planet scanning features that make exploration even more fun and rewarding by sending out mapping probes to find landing spots and easter eggs. I have no idea why this was left out, and if it's coming back or not, https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/KerbNet - Get this back in the game please. * Orbital UI/UX - There are a lot of issues here with maneuver node planning and ui elements not showing more clearly intercepts, approach distances, etc. * No Custom Flag Support - Please get this back in, it's crucial for player identity and connection with the game. * Lack of Ease of Access in regards to Craft Sharing - This needs to be looked at as well, sharing craft is tedious and needs to be integrated into the steam workshop just like KSP1. * Noodle Rockets - This is a CRITICAL issue that needs to be the single largest priority to fix and it needs to be fixed in the first post launch patch. We shouldn't have to resort to day one or day to mods to fix this. Large vehicles are very unfun to fly and struts seem to do nothing. This is heartbreaking to see back in KSP2 after the lessons learned from KSP1. Auto Strut needs to be back ASAP. * SAS - The SAS bugs out incredibly often and causes lots of flight issues. * Total Control Input loss - this happens far to often and destroys the gameplay experience. * Terrain Mesh issues - Floating Scatter, Kerbals Floating in the air above the terrain, and scatter sprites are broken. * Flight Camera - The camera is unfortunately completely unusable at times, bugging out, or just failing to respond. Opportunities The opportunities here are massive. We know that with Orbital Vehicle Construction, Colonies, Delivery Routes, Interstellar Travel to new star systems, multi player and dedicated in-game mod support... we stand to see this game not only grow to meet feature parity with KSP1 but surpass it in terms of stock supported content. Building this game on a new architecture will see KSP 2 becomes the Skyrim of space modding, surpassing it's predecessor in mod functionality. The modding and community engagement aspects at play must not be forgotten about or underestimated. I might be biased as a community manager for several games over my career, but you're on the right track with your community engagement on the forums and social media. Threats (Things that could hurt KSP 2 as a project.) * Price Tag - This was a mistake. It's incredibly high for an EA game and has no doubt cost a lot of sales. I worry about the future of the project if sales targets and goals aren't met. * Lack of Communication before Launch - The communication we got was good, but we simply needed more open communication from the team. I hope we get more as we move forward * Direct Competitor - Other direct space flight simulation games are coming to market and releasing out of EA and competing with KSP 2 by offering better features in some areas. * Not only is the Kraken not slain, it's back with a vengeance and I would argue worse than KSP 1 at its current version and this can end a gameplay session outright through frustration. I think that's about it from me, and while I might have more, I think this gets all my points across. Overall, I'm happy, excited, optimistic and hopeful. The future is bright and I look forward to another grand adventure in KSP2. Working on KSP 1 was the entry point and absolute highlight of my career and I got to meet wonderful people, in Mu, Harv, C7, Nova, CptSkunky, Marco, etc. Talented, lovely, dedicated people that gave their all to KSP 1. I see that in this team, a group of people who truly care and I wish for your success in every possible way. I'm glad to be along for the ride again as a player and lover of KSP and a lover of space. -RC

[Tutorials] are great. The onboarding is well designed, the animations are funny and beautiful. I enjoyed the learning experience through the Training Center system. I also like the P.a.i.g.e voice and the text is direct and clear. [Sound] the music and sound design is amazing, very good work! [VAB] the little ball that appears when attaching parts is very useful to determine 3D position (it's great) [VAB] I like how the camera re-centers on a part, after moving it, when right-clicking. [Simulation Mode] I like how the faint RGB pixels look [Parts] the procedural wings make it less intimidating to try to build an airplane, they're awesome I like the vibe and idea of a Kerbal Operating System Interface on top of a realistic looking world The parts look amazing. 10/10 The new craft coloring system is very cool for creativity and making a design feel like it's yours The plumes look very good, I like how dynamic they are and how they vary with every engine / booster The terrain reflections in the Tracking Station for celestial bodies like Eeloo, Pol and Minmus are eye candy. Dres, Mun and Duna look very nice and realistic. I enjoy how the new KSC is set up, it feels good to drive and fly around The way information is structured around the navball is intuitive, I like how the 'tapes' feel and I really like the subtle transparency of the navball cluster. I really like how the clouds look when seen from below sometimes, they're realistic but dreamy The new cinematic trailer is beyond words. Epic, marvelous, funny, emotional! Great cinematics, my all time favorites! The KSC Buildings Overview menu (the white transparent one) is eye candy, beautiful and modern (also the clean look of the Training Center using the same style) The Tracking Station menu structure is compact and logical The trees are beautiful seen from up close The kerbals walking and running animations look natural and funny at the same time. I think Jeb just scratched his butt and farted. LOL Actually now that I'm looking more carefully.. I really like the way the kerbals look.. with the cartoony head inside a realistic helmet and suit. I actually think the kerbals look great! Physics warp is very stable - I drove a rover and walked a kerbal and also flew an airplane at 4x speed without any issues. Combined with precision controls.. flying at 4x feels as natural as flying at 1x. Really great job! I think this is one of my favorite features so far. I don't think I can go back to flying at 1x. LOL I'm fascinated and a little intimidated by the (number of) camera angles.. there's a lot of diversity: some are very cinematic, others are made for racing. I enjoy how accessible the time warp controls are - I tend to use them with the mouse now rather than with the keyboard. And having a Pause button is GREAT! I like that the max distance we can zoom out of a craft feels like it's smaller than in KSP1. This way the craft is always in view and it feels less cheaty when looking around. The trim indicators integrated in the navball cluster are very useful! After playing for some hours I feel like most of the bugs I've encountered are cosmetic and easily fixable. I'm enjoying the game (especially flying airplanes). It's nice that actions now apply to all the parts in the symmetry. I like that the struts are more realistic and break more easily. I find it interesting that the fairings feel like they have weight and can do real damage if not deployed correctly. I like how massive the planets feel when orbiting them.. I think it's because of the higher level of detail of the terrain seen from above. I love the fact that now we can stage while in Map View! Landing on Eve is one of the most beautiful experiences I've ever had in KSP. What a masterpiece! Later edit: After also landing on Duna I am in awe. This is art. I like how tall and steep the terrain is on Dres. The planet has become one of the most interesting in the game now due to the rings, tilt, canyons, mountain range. And the rainbow lighting effects underwater. Also the incidental lighting from celestial bodies thanks to the new planet shine system. And really like how eclipses of planets with atmosphere look. Pol looks amazing when close, probably the celestial body with the most interesting terrain. The anomalies on Duna, Tylo and Mun are very high quality objects. I think the lore is going in a fascinating direction.

Hi KSP2 Teams ! Congratulations for the Early Release of Kerbal Space Program 2 ! We are Kerbal Space Challenge, our association represents most of the French Players, and we organized a big survey in August 2019, after the official announcement and the truly amazing Trailer, a piece of art. Our survey took places in 2 phasis, one being the collect of all the features that the community had in mind (3), and the other one to rephrase and regroup all theses features in a new form (4) : everyone was then able to rank the top10 of the most awaited features and we had a whopping 121 participants and more than 1000 features ranked, among about 50 possibilities ! We are glad to share this with you with a proper translation of the original article that was published on our website and in which you will find the results (1), as well as the original data in an excel file (2). We hope that you will find some trends to make the game grow in the best direction possible, and we are already planning on a new survey to see how that evolves now that the game is in our hands ! Don’t hesitate to jump to the synthesis table at the end of the article, but the rest might still interest you I give it right now, embedded in this post, but there is far more to explore in the results ! Do not hesitate if you have any questions, of course. We look forward to organize and collect from another survey based on the first feedback from the players on this EA ! Regards, Kerbal Space Challenge Team Sources : Translation of the Original Results Article gathering all the conclusions, by the time of August 2019 : https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ta8gRoK-BL8wIi62ueHt5JwOzHUxzzuRKuA72jwZScY/edit?usp=share_link Translation of the Excel File gathering all the data extracted from the two forms and some formatting for the article as illustration : https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dYtbz6gNaS9FQZ65lFxonhIplUWATWLr/edit?usp=share_link&ouid=101705157396145708729&rtpof=true&sd=true Original First Form to collect the features ideas : https://kerbalspacechallenge.fr/2019/08/24/quelles-sont-vos-attentes-pour-ksp2-donnez-votre-avis/ Original Second Form to rank the features : https://kerbalspacechallenge.fr/2019/08/26/ksp2-votez-pour-les-features-que-vous-desirez-le-plus/ Original French Results Article gathering all the conclusion, by the time of August 2019 : KSP2 : résultats de vos votes, les features les plus attendues de la communauté KSC ! – KerbalSpaceChallenge

I recently hit 55 subs (I know biggest channel ever,) But I have been getting a more than usual amount recently, I wonder if it's anything to do with what I make. So I was curious, what do you wanna see in a YouTube video? Right know there is four things I think I need to work on 1. Uniqueness I feel like I want to make my channel unique, not videos you would find on Matt Lowne or Stratzenblitz. I also want to try to make each of my videos unique. Of course that's hard to do on a consistent scale so I think you would sacrifice consistently for uniqueness. I feel like it's important to be unique or else no one will wanna watch you 2. Quality This one is a little hard to do but I think my videos need better quality with them. Do you agree on this? Of course I am looking for feedback so here is a good set of videos to judge my channel and give feedback

Hello there, I was wondering if it would be possible to implement cubemap support for planets into an update at some point. I really would love to see this, since the DDS format (a texture format used by most if not all unity games) has a max resolution of just 16k. This works fine if your planets are kerbin sized, but when you have bigger planets it can look somewhat stretched. With cubemaps in theory you could have textures up to 64k in resolution in addition to having no stretching at the poles. this would allow for much greater quality and clarity in the textures of larger planets. Thanks so much for your time. Here's an example of what I mean. For anyone who may not know, cubemaps allow for this kind of clarity. but currently this is done by a mod called RVE64K for RSS using a workaround, so it doesn't load properly when not in orbit or in the map view.

I created a feedback report explaining the situation in detail. https://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/24853

Pretty much this: https://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/24221 I'm sure that I'm not the only one experiencing this, you can pretty much see this on every stream on twitch from time to time. I'm not the expert in Unity, but is there really no way this can be done? I highly doubt that.

So, KSP 2 just got announced and we are all really excited. I never expected this but I'm so happy they've done it anyway. Throughout the years feedback has been an important part of KSP's development, so let's start it off early. Now that the game is still in early development, I think it's the best time to already start giving feedback. I know two trailers aren't much, but the sooner we give feedback, the earlier the developers can choose to integrate it. I'll be the first: I hope the parts we've seen so far are place-holders for the final ones. Mostly because a lot of the parts shown which have been ported over from KSP seem to be the old models, which in my opinion looked a lot worse. I hope they will either port over the revamped parts or make entirely new ones that look even better and more realistic while still keeping a slightly goofy style.

Hello. I have just checked the KSPedia from the website and was wondering if changes are planned, as it feels like a very cheap placeholder at the moment. Based on the post by UomoCapra UomoCapra says "Now you won’t need to mess with the flow of your ongoing mission and you’ll be able to use your mobile phone or any other display to consult it via our website!", leading me to believe that one of the reasons KSPedia has been removed from the game was that it felt a bit inconvenient to be accessed while playing. Well, that's false. Having to open an app through the game was never a problem. And, just like when openning KSPedia through the game, if you do have to access KSPedia through your mobile phone you will also have to pause the game; the only difference is that you'll have to take more steps if going for second method. Ideally, having it both in the game and as a .pdf in the website would be better, although the first method feels more interactive and easier to access! Is the KSPedia app ever coming back to the game, or is this a permanent change? I wish this is only temporary and I do believe other players feel the same. At the moment the .pdf file is simply a very cheap compilation of screenshots from the KSPedia menus - showing even the Xbox controller button icons on the bottom. It would be interesting if it became interactive instead of a .pdf, plus with some section makers so you wouldn't have to scroll through the many pages trying to find what you're looking for. Was there any other reason for the app to be removed? UomoCapra says that it will be easier for the devs to update the KSPedia through the website (even though it's just a .pdf file). But this doesn't seem like a reason, especially when the PC version still has the app without any issue. It would be interesting to hear/read why it's been removed, listen to the community feedback before permanently removing features and saying wether it might come back or not. Communication with the community is always welcomed! Thanks.

Hello respectful community and devs. I bought the game recently and I am enjoying it. But there are rough edges around and I want to point them out. I did play through all tutorial scenarios to make sure I am just doing dumb stuff all around so I had some initial knowledge when I tried to perform different stuff. I am not off Kerbin just yet but I have quite a few successful orbital mission already. 1. Contracts. Really many contracts have unclear objectives. For example contract for testing parts like couplers or chutes do not tell you details like the part HAS to be activated using STAGING when all requirements are met. I spent quite a lot of time to understand that. Same goes for parts like engines that have a rightclick option for running the test. I had some problems understanding how do observation missions work as well as temperature/pressure tests and it was always an issue to spot required sensor in flight to rightclick it. Jokes in mission descriptions are fine but there should definitely be exact clear explanation for every objective. Missions with taking data on surface are really confusing until you have any means of travelling on ground like rovers or something. Landing a plane on this stage is even worse of a problem. 2. Planes Planes are really confusing in every possible aspect. There are almost no means of navigation. And the most annoying thing there is no autopilot. While planes are obvious tools for taking test data with "below" alt, getting to the spot is really confusing with no means for warping. KSP runway location is also a problem to locate both in map mode and in navigation. I had too big of an issue landing plane cause I could not visually locate the runway as well. So for now I just ignore planes while they can be really useful. 3. Map First and the most annoying thing is that KSP center is not visible on map. In both in-flight and from space center. I am sure showing KSP base on map with direction grid (like navball) would be great. Second problem is night/dark side. I find is rediculous that space program with that high tech all around can't see the planetary map from map view. And in-flight especially on a plane I just can't see anything like a blind kitten. Really not good at all. 4. Stability Launch Enhancer I am sure this one is meant to be used to stabilize rocket before launch cause sometimes rockets just fall due to wind or other stuff. But in my experience this thing only reduces launch stability as when it is released rocket experiences a major shake like one when physics ititialize before launch. For now thats all. This is not some kind of a rage post or something. I just tried pointing out weak spots from a newbie standpoints as most veterans are too used to all of this stuff to actually notice it.

just curious what everyone think of the market and platform since console joined the network (let's say ps2 or xbox1) market and update stuff + early access + etc. - do they offer enough typing help actually to share concept and idea - are they dumbing down the user by the lack of keyboard or or proper typing helper wich make sharing some sepcific kind of info a bit tedious i personnally tend to think console are not really in osmosis with the network aspect regarding that ... kinda a bit too much dumbly merchantile & play don't think on a few layers ... wich is bit counter productive regarding the current nowdays gaming market and interenet overall i ll be curious to read other feeling about that, not especially ksp related but more in general overall gaming market related UTF-8#q=ergonomics+layers+%26+various+kind+of+data+sharing https://books.google.fr/books?id=v8LrAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA652&lpg=PA652 . . .

I haven't made an SSTO in absolutely ages. In fact I haven't made one since before the significant aero changes occurred as I simply lost the ability to do it. That really had to change so I put my mind to it and over the last 3 days have designed and flown this mission in my spare time. First some stats: Name: Mullet Dyne Cross Wing (Variant 5) Parts: 86 (including payload) Mass: 43.155t Cost: 81,464 (including payload) Power: 3 x CR-7, 2 LV-N Mission Report - Click here Craft File - Click here So basically what I'm looking for is a bit of feedback if anyone wants to chip in. Since this is my first foray into SSTO's since before the major aero changes (although the design went through 5 iterations before I was happy with it) I've no real idea (beyond being capable of Mun/Minus return) whether I've got the balance, look, design, efficiency right etc. Feel free to download it and try it out, or just provide feedback based on what you see Thanks everyone! SM