Search the Community

You know Tim C Kerman, a memorial to the KSP2 dev who sadly passed away. What if instead of a pilot he was an engineer? It would be slightly cooler because he was a software developer in real life, and that's sort of kind of like an engineer. Also, we already have two pilots, so why not give Bill some company in the engineer's room of the astronaut complex? Rest in peace Tim Cox

A lot of people have been frustrated with the way the game handles craft files, there is a lot of confusion around the differences between workspace save names and vehicle save names. The developers have talked about this and are not satisfied with the way it is coming across to players. From what I have gathered from interviews and such is that the original idea was that vehicle name is the name you want it to be called, but workspace name is for you to be able to save versions of the same vehicle. So you can have different workspace saves for V1.0, V2.0, V3.0 ect... having a name for each can allow you to recognize what was added each time or what was changed. Anyways it was made to have a separate save for each time you need to improve your design. This is how the craft file saves work currently: As you can see if I had many more versions of this ship (I just made this craft to explain this post) the screen gets very cramped and seems wasteful. Also it isn't shown in the save but I named the vehicle name "My Ship" for all of these but it just shows the workspace name. Another thing to point out, It puts them all in alphabetical order instead of order they were created, you can see the "design process" throughout but they are placed randomly in the craft file folder. This could be done so much better. Now I think the idea behind the system is great but the implementation is lacking as stated by a lot of the community. My idea to improve this system is to instead of making a new save space for each implementation, it would be a drop down with the vehicle name as the base name and then the drop down will show each workspace. It would look something like this: I don't know how to make something legitimate so please use your imagination. It would pretty much be something that looks like a single craft file above that would have the vehicle name and image/date/time of the most recent (or selected default version) and then you could click a drop down on it to reveal all the workspace names/ versions of the craft in the drop down you could also set which workspace you want to be your default load. The idea would be if you click the large image vehicle name then it loads your default workspace. I think this would be the best way to go about organizing all the craft files while keeping the functionality of getting to save multiple versions of a craft without changing its vehicle name It should also let you rename your vehicle names and workspace names

Can we make the camera speed be separate from the scroll to zoom speed? I like to move the camera fast but I like for my zoom to be smooth. Within the game I have to choose one or the other, I would like a setting to control zoom speed separately. My camera jumps each time I scroll and its jarring and takes away from the cinematics of the game. Thanks

KSP1 In KSP 1 the UI clearly gave feedback to the player about precision control or docking mode being enabled. This is done with colour (blue pointer instead of orange), and an entire new tab for docking that displays information about your craft relative to your target. Normal: Precision control Docking mode Docking & Precision KSP2 KSP 2 has no feedback other than this small pop-up when enabling docking mode: For the rest, the flight UI gives no indication that the flight controls are behaving differently than normal. The UI always looks like this: UI for docking mode: Suggestion I want to suggest something like the following. Note this is just a suggestion, the devs will be able to do this 100x better. Precision mode: Docking mode:

I’ve seen a lot of talks about the science gathering in the For Science update. From what I can see, the discourse comes mostly from the science gathering feeling less personal than it did in KSP1. This of course is from the fact that now we only have to press one button and then all the science is done at once without us having to look at each part and feel like we are the ones doing the science and not just a robot that knows how to do this all. Many have suggested that we just go back to the way it was done in KSP1 where you have to select each individual science part to do the science. I however, feel like that is not the solution to this problem because there was obvious frustration with that system as well, and it would be foolish to say it is not convenient to have the ability to do science so simply. I would like to propose a solution to the science collection debate. I would suggest that the science button on the left side of the screen does not instantly do all of the science experiments available, but instead opens a special menu (maybe combined with the science results menu) that would have all of the science modules sorted with buttons to do each experiment. Kind of a special parts menu where you get to feel like you are the one in control. It keeps the simplicity and convenience of not having to find each and every part but also lets you feel the personal connection to the Kerbals doing the experiment. I think this change would achieve all that the audience is wanting from the gameplay of taking science while also improving on KSP1’s method. I hope I was able to explain that well, I am not good at UI design so I can’t make any photos to explain.

Apologies if this has been posted before, but it would be nice to have the ability to have our AP/PE altitudes shown in meters. Having synchronous orbits set up with only km being shown is hard to ensure they are properly aligned and won't move at different speeds over several in game years.

On some bodies altitude/terrain details can be quite difficult to make out from orbit. Like, orbiting Vall I passed from Lowlands to Mountains and couldn't even see the mountain how ever carefully I looked... It's all a grey blur. Which is probably perfectly realistic, it's just not super helpful when trying to spot a good landing site. So I'm thinking some kind of map overlay where different altitudes show up as different colours/shades would help?

Launch Clamps should be a special part that forces the ship to be X meters off the ground at launch. Perhaps it could snap to whatever X is (5 meters, 1 meter, whatever) and then allow the player to type in a number if they want for some specific purpose. Also, Launch Clamps should auto-recover after launch. Now, if you don't recover them manually they fill up all launch pads and the game ends up launching from the boat dock - which is confusing the first time you encounter it for sure.

We got the sad news that the Ingenuity Mars Helicopter has flown its last flight today. After performing no less than 72 flights out of the planned 5 (!), being airborne for over 2 hours, and traversing no less than 17 kilometers, the Ingenuity helicopter (also known as Ginny) sustained damage to its rotor after losing communications with the Perseverance rover during the landing phase. It was the first powered aircraft to ever take flight on another planet, far exceeded expectations and paved the way for future robotic helicopters on other planets. I think it would be a great idea to honor its incredible achievements by rewarding it with its very own Discoverable in the game. KSP1 had similar easter eggs for the Opportunity/Spirit and Curiosity Mars rovers (see spoiler below). Having Ingenuity in the game would not only keep its legacy alive for years to come, but would also be a great way of getting people who aren't familiar to learn about this fantastic mission when they stumble upon it. Fly High, Ginny o7

KSP2 is still in active development and there are several engines and fuel types yet to be added to the game. However, the methalox department seems to be pretty complete and appears to be largely the same as it was in KSP1. I’ve been comparing the engine specifications for KSP 2 and sadly found that they are just as imbalanced as before, if not worse. I think there are a couple of possible fixes, which I would like to discuss in this topic. In Developer Insights #17, Nertea wrote a neat article about engine design, in which the new approach to engine archetypes was explained: Deep Space for optimal fuel efficiency, when thrust is not that important; Orbital when you need sufficient thrust for some maneuvering. Sustainer for optimal atmospheric performance with good thrust. Launcher when you need maximum thrust. I think this is a great setup, which already provides a much better guideline for choosing the right engine. The same article also stated 3 design principles: Don't deviate from KSP1 for the sake of it. A methalox rocket in KSP2 should perform similarly to a similar looking Liquid Fuel/Oxidizer rocket from KSP1. Engines of an archetype have similar characteristics. Engines within a fuel type exist in a similar band of power, so newer or larger engines should not make older engines obsolete. Because these principles are not always compatible with each other, some choices have to be made. For example, the Rhino had way too much thrust for an orbital engine and it looks more like a sustainer anyway, so its Isp stats were changed to fit the sustainer role. For the orbital role, the Labradoodle was introduced. This makes for better gameplay and therefore the deviation is justified. In most other cases though, engines have been kept pretty much the same as in KSP1, even where change is definitely in order. In my opinion, the methalox category should just consist of a simple, balanced set of 12 basic engines. One per archetype of each size and nothing more . This is already true for the LG and MD sizes, but not so much for the SM and XS sizes: First of all: the Reliant is terrible. While the Mammoth II and the Mainsail put out about 2.5x the thrust of their sustainer counterparts, the Reliant only provides 20% more thrust than the Swivel. It also still lacks any thrust vectoring, which already was enough reason to never use it in KSP1. However, like with all launchers, its sea level Isp has now also been nerfed to below that of the Swivel, making it utterly useless. The second design principle states that the Reliant should be proportional to other launchers, which means that it needs thrust vectoring and its maximum thrust should be increased dramatically to about 550 kN. While the TWRs of orbital engines are consistent across all size categories, the Swivel and Reliant TWRs are a bit low compared to their larger cousins. Their masses should be adjusted to about 1100 kg for the Swivel and 2100 kg for the 550 kN Reliant. It’s unclear to me what the roles of the Thud, Twitch and Spider are. Being radial engines, it’s easy to attach a lot of them to a rocket , providing plenty of thrust. However, their TWRs are too low and their sea-level Isps too high to be considered proper launchers., while their vacuum Isps are too low to be considered good sustainers. I think instead of having dedicated radial engines, radial engine plates would provide a lot more versatility. In the XS size there are no launcher or orbital engines. One option would be to refit the radial engines: the Twitch could easily be repurposed as a launcher by nerfing its sea-level Isp to 255 and increasing its TWR to around 25. With 3- or 4-symmetry it already provides sufficient thrust, so its mass would be lowered to about 65 kg. Changing the Spider into an orbital engine requires a bigger overhaul: Isp needs to be 330/165 and TWR about 12. Assuming 8-symmetry (because Spider), its thrust should be cut down to 0.75 kN and its mass to 6.5 kg. As a deep space engine, the Ant's Isp should be adjusted to 365/55 and its TWR lowered to under 8. To keep engine ratios similar to larger sizes, its thrust should be doubled to 4 kN and its mass increased to 55 kg. Last but not least: the Vector is spectacularly overpowered. It outperforms the Swivel, the Reliant and even the larger Skipper in both thrust and atmospheric efficiency, effectively making all of them obsolete. Even though it’s unlocked somewhat later in the tech tree, it brutally violates the third design principle and therefore has no business in the methalox category. Advanced and specialized engines such as the Vector and the Dart need a different fuel and since hydrogen is already an existing fuel type, a hydrolox category would be an excellent solution. This would also be realistic considering the real-world analogs of the Vector and the Dart.

One small gripe I currently have is the lack of MK2 to small diameter adapter for methane-only fuel tank when building airplanes. There's a decent selection of methalox adapters so really just having methane and structural (e.g. no fuel) versions of those adapters would be nice, as currently the only option is to use a methalox with no oxidizer. Fairly minor but also seems like it could be pretty easy to add. Edit: also I realize tubes do offer a good "procedural" adapter solution for structural only. So definitely those are nice.

Pretty short suggestion post, there's currently no (good looking) option for a twin seat Mk1 cockpit, as your options are essentially limited to either: or Neither of which are particularly pretty, a twin seat stretched variant of the Peregrine cockpit would work wonders here for plane designs, something akin to the F-14's cockpit perhaps?

I had 2 ideas today for ksp 2 missions and I hope someone takes note of it haha: People miss having a reason for planes in the mission mode of ksp 1, and though the kerbinwide tour missions are sorta that, they don't really inscentivise planes as much as orbital-drop-podding. I propose a mission where you must fly to multiple locations around kerbin in order to reveal a mystery of what happened to the KSC from ksp 1, getting multiple fragments/parts of buildings around kerbin together, and when you complete it it adds maybe some kind of tribute to ksp 1 to the KSC or such as a cool bonus. Another thing would be to also show how kerbals live on kerbin (despite there being no cities). This would be having massive easter eggs of ventilation shafts from their underground cities, giant radar dishes and wind/solar arrays. Just to make it cooler More missions that require multiple steps. Missions that are "go to X location" then after doing so the mission updates and then says "also to Y" as a way to make things more interesting. This could also mean "bring 10 kerbals into orbit around kerbin, THEN wait 1 year without losing EC" so that people have to make more complicated designs. A bunch of other things can be done, but those are the main 2 things to expand missions greatly. Also missions to have to do with previous missions. Like put a space station in orbit, then a mission to add a new module to that space station or to make it so the space station has 5 more kerbals on it.

An issue I've seen brought up quite a few times is that changing the science/mission rewards multipliers in-game after having already spent science points potentially results in your science going negative, due to having spent more science points than earned with the new multiplier setting(s), multiple people have reported this as a bug, however dev comments seem to point to this being intended behaviour: To clear things up, it'd be nice if the game could give you a warning when changing your science rewards multiplier, to notify you if your science is going to become negative with the new multiplier.

*disclaimer*: this is going to be a very long post concerning the science gameplay, my experience of it and the things that I think would make it even better. I might cover subjects already talked about in other topics, but everything being somewhat tied together, I feel the need to draw the big picture of what science could become. Before the main piece, let me say that "For Science!" was really what I was waiting for (in terms of features, progression, challenge and fixes / improvements) before going back to the game after early access release. The team did a amazing job and made KSP fun again for me despite the remaining issues and all the work still needed. So much so, that I've officially beaten my KSP1 playtime and gone way further into the game! A - Science should be more educative I feel there is a missed opportunity here. A big part of KSP is learning interesting stuff and getting a grasp of how things really work (in a delicate balance between a realistic enough simulation so that you get the concepts but fun enough that it doesn't feel like a real rocket scientist job nor qualify you for it ). For context, in KSP1, I personally hated the mystery goo because it felt to me like the "unrealistic" / "sci-fi" experiment. So, while I get the idea that having a science part for each kind of sensors (thermometer, barometer, anemometer, ...) might be too much, I would really like to have some "real" (in the game world context) data show up. So yeah... you can tell me the "Science Junior" is a bundled weather station that does several type of experiments at once and give me a fun and yet interesting text reports attached to the overall experiment, but please: Give me real sensors and instruments (seismograph, spectrograph, radars, lidars, ...) and give me the numbers / data that goes with them because I would love to learn the range of temperature on the Mun, how big the earthquakes are on Pols on the Richter Scale, or how hard the wind blows on Eve... or Jool! Make me learn what kind of other interesting experiments and data real world scientists are after! B - Science could be more immersive I think it would be more immersive, more interesting and more challenging if science was better tied to gameplay in addition to being a currency. Let's say at the beginning of the game we have only sparse and imprecise data on the planets and moons (less than we have now in the tracking station) : First we could launch and run the first experiments in Kerbin low orbit and we would learn the Kerbin inclination (about that... it would be nice to able to see the inclination of planets in the map with a line going through the planet, the equator line, and our current angle relative to one of them), then do the same in high Kerbin orbit and learn if a Geostationary orbit is possible and what the Altitude and Speed needed are, and those informations would be permanently added to the map (or to "The Science Diary", see below). A bit latter down the line and I want to go to Eve. Now, I could go blind, or I could send a probe with the proper experiments to learn what the temperature and pressure are to select the most appropriate parts for my next mission, and to see if my Kerbals would survive the trip. Time to go to Jool? Maybe running that radioactivity experiment would be wise before sending that big ship (if we had environmental hazards for sensitive electronic or needed to shield Kerbals from high levels or radiations *wink wink*). Wanna go on Eeloo? Oh, did we forgot to tell you? We only have a rough estimate of it's gravity, it's in the range [0.05-0.2], maybe you should send a probe with an accelerometer to measure it before trying to land Kerbals on it! This kind of mechanics would have the added bonus to bring the opportunity for more missions both to guide the player in what experiments serve what purpose and also in its overall exploration of space. C - I need the "Keri Diary of Science"! Ok, all those experiments are greats! But there is a lot of different types, lots of biomes and lot of bodies (the astrophysical kind, not the Kerbal kind... although... ). I'm tier 3 and I'm starting to get lost on what I did and what I didn't do. Doing a mission in KSP takes time, and there is a lot you can do, so doing a mission to realize half way through it that you've already done that experiment in that very place is a real bummer (and one reason to get bored out of the game). So, what we need is a journal to track our progress, plan our missions and re-read those reports we forgot to read because we where so happy and eager to clic on that "send" button! It could be a panel that can be deployed in the tracking station when checking a body characteristics. It would contain a section for each kind of "place" (high orbit, low orbit, atmosphere, surface, undewater), an entry for each kind of biomes, and sub-entries for each type of experiments. Some of them would be grayed out or invisible so we don't get any spoiler beyond the obvious ones (high and low orbit would always be presents, atmosphere would be visible for the obvious one like Duna or Eve, experiments would not be visible until you've unlocked the corresponding parts, biomes would not be visible until you have encountered / entered them once). They could also contain a picture (so you know how to visually identify the biome once you've unlocked it). And of course, once the experiment has been collected back to KSC, it would display the report/results. It would also have the added benefit to motivate the completionists into even more missions and game time \o/ (though I suspect the hardcore ones are already tracking all that by hand ). And it would do so, even if the science points where not useful anymore to their progression because everything is unlocked. It would be also nice to have the ability to map the biomes like what the "Orbital Survey" mod do (and maybe map other things like "illumination" to find those places in semi-permanent shadow or light for our future colonies, now that we have axis tilt!). Also, surface waypoints/markers please! *pleading* D - Various things in unspecific order: I think the "robotic arm sample" and the "Kerbal sample" shouldn't have the same value to have an incentive to send Kerbals (think a vial of dust vs a bag full of rocks). Overall I haven't really felt the need to send any Kerbal in space over robotic missions (aside from when a mission asked me too and between tier 3 and 4 with the 1st version of orbital lab) . I'm sure some will make the argument that it is realistic, but I feel like sending Kerbals in dangerous situation is part of the fun, and the approach "robotic" first as pathfinders and "manned" next as more thorough exploration feels better. Now, I suspect this might be addressed with colonies and then later with resources. In the same spirit, I think there shouldn't always be a robotic version of the experiments (like the diving bell), or there should be a big tradeoff (like with the robotic version of the orbital lab) either in resources (electricity, number of science points, ...) or weight or volume (maybe the automated version should sometimes be bigger). Also, the robotic arm needs to be smarter (or configurable) in the way it can deploys to do the sampling so we can give him vertical orientation for example. The orbital science lab should at the very least have a separate "deploy" option, so it can stay deployed and resume experiment immediately when triggered. Ideally, I think the orbital science lab (especially the habited one) should be able to buffer more than one experiment at a time and automatically resume progress when switching biomes. Otherwise I don't see how you could ever do the Kerbin's "beach biome" for example. I get the idea to unlock science parts progressively (incentive to make more missions instead of only one big "mother of all experiments") and to scale science points given by experiments according to difficulty/reachability. But the tier of first unlock should also play a role in the points given. Having 16 points for the radioactivity experiment on Kerbin when at that point in the tree any unlock is in the 1.5k range feels utterly useless. At least something in the 80-160 range would make you feel like it would help you gather the points your are missing for the next unlock. Kerbol (the star, not the sytem) needs some love guys! I was really disappointed to have my cheap (can't get too close without radiators *wink wink*) "Parker Solar Probe" not being able to gather any science, even in low orbit, with the "Science Junior". Also, I'll say it there: with it's static surface and lack of solar filaments, Kerbol is visually... underwhelming, compared to what many other games can achieve regarding stars. Having the atmospheric science part makes me hope for either Inflatables Parts (for balloons and airships) and Rotors/Propellers (like "Ingenuity" on Mars). I like the automatic transfert / cloning of science experiments & samples, but I personally fix the limit at "while I can imagine the manned capsule having inside storage, those probe core sure does feel like they have internal memory for reports but doesn't feel like they have a container for the physical samples". Thus I would advocate for "Sample Container" Part that would be needed unless you have a capsule / cockpit. Also, regarding transfert. I know it happens through port docking, but let's say I'm flying a tiny drone in Duna atmosphere to gather the atmospheric samples, then flying it back near my return rocket with Bob waiting there. I could "eject" the probe core and have it being "parachuted" down near Bob (instead of having to dock a mini airplane onto a lander which is... much harder). I didn't see any option that would allow Bob to retrieve the experiments from the probe on the ground. Did I miss something ? E - Prospective: Science complexity & balance Ok... this is probably going to be the more controversial subject, and probably something that should only come in the distant future or in a mod (if ever). And don't forget that many of the arguments (around balancing some aspects of the game) that I will make here, might be addressed through colonies and resource gathering further down the line. I think it would be interesting to add complexity that could be tied to specific Parts / Experiments in the mid to late game in terms of experiment timeframes and coverages. In term of timeframe we could have: Short term experiments like what we have right now, Surveys like monitoring temperatures over a full day / night cycle or a full orbital revolution. It would bring specific challenges like being able to power something up for a full Mun day/night cycle or having to keep a permanent CommNet connection with Eeloo for nearly 20 years (assuming survey reports are too big to be stored in the vehicle and need to be streamed back continuously). In term of coverage we could have: Single "on the spot" sample like what we have right now Multiple outspread samples with minimal distance between them like putting 3 seismograph running at the same time in the same biome with a minimal separation distance of say 100km to do some kind of triangulation or having to collect 10 samples in a concentric circle around your first one in order to have reliable data and validate the experiment. It would incite players to be creative with rovers or efficient lander designs you can send in batches, etc... Full (or close to it) surface mapping of bodies or areas (ex: 80% of a specific biome) like a lidar survey that would require players to have a satellite in polar orbit or a specific orbit like the equatorial ridge of Dres. Of course you could match timeframes and coverages for even more challenges! That's all folks! If you read this, thank you very much for taking the time, you are one brave soul ! TL:DR : Science is great but could be even better! More educative / instructive, better tied to gameplay and engineering challenges, with proper tracking and planning, and finally maybe a bit more challenging.

Having built a number of SSTO Spaceplane style craft of various size categories, all designed to dock in orbit to other craft, my main gripe is that the Clamp-O-Tron Shielded cannot survive ascent heating, it explodes around ~750m/s @ ~6km altitude, given that there is no integrated docking port for the Mk3 Spaceplane parts, I would assume that this docking port is what fills that part's niche but given it's current temperature rating, or the game's current heat tuning it fails to fulfill the requirements for that. To me, lower atmosphere heating seems correctly tuned, and the upper atmosphere is what needs work, so my suggestion is to raise the Clamp-O-Tron Shielded's temperature rating from 1200K to 1500K to match the Mk3 "Condor" Spaceplane cockpit it seems this docking port was designed for.

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!

So we all know that regions are currently pausing certain science experiments as they change underneath the flying or orbiting crafts. There has been talk that is a bug anyway, and that the regional part will be removed, but I think it could stay as it is with the following idea. This simple suggestion would be for the regions to have their own 'buckets' within each experiment so rather than pausing the experiment it just starts filling up the next bucket. As a working example - the orbital survey experiment around Kerbin will cover the 7 regions, each of which class as a different experiment. As you orbit conducting the experiment, it starts over water, so the generated science points start to fill the 'water bucket'. We can arbitrarily assign 100 points to each bucket, so we could say that the bucket gets filled up to 58 points, and then the orbiting craft goes over the highlands. Rather than pausing, it now just starts filling the 'highlands bucket'. Again it manages to fill 15 points and then it goes over water again and starts to fill the 'water bucket' again. Eventually, after many orbits the buckets will get full and will complete the experiments for each region. In a game where time can be fast forwarded, it would be easy to just send up an orbtiing craft, speed up time and all experiments will complete. I think this defeats the object of running the science so it could be that it only collects science when in no more than 3x time warp, or whatever number the desginers choose. The bucket idea can work for other region specific experiments. As a slight tangent, I also think that the science generated by orbiting craft should be non completing. The orbital survey experiment itself would be as once a planet is surveyed, they don't tend to change significantly, but there could be a science research exepriment (there may be one, I may just not have reached that point yet) that runs continually. Again there may be issues with time warping to generate science, so the same previous suggestion could be implemented.

This is a graphical issue bug not 100% sure if it is a bug or an oversight though, please let me know. Currently in ksp 2 when you go into water there are special affects to audio and visuals, but as you go deeper that doesn't change as it would in real life and how it would in real life. In real life as objects get deeper into a liquid substance, light gets absorbed more and more into that substance, and also that substance gets denser due to pressure. The image shows how a torch deep underwater looks - illuminating what is ahead of it in a cone, but the environment is otherwise dark as the environment is not getting light from the sun. In ksp2, no matter how deep you go the environment, and your craft, is the same brightness, and lights (floodlights and otherwise) do not get the water-based light scattering that happens not only in real life but also in ksp 1 (with scatterer). This is disconcerting, and takes away from the creepiness and the coolness of deep water that was in ksp 1 when using buoyancy, especially since ksp 2 has awesome SFX for being deep underwater. This happens in every version of the game, tested on multiple computers. Example mage shows environment (from CVUSMO on discord) deep underwater past where any light should be seen without light generation, but no change happens to how water and the craft/terrain look. Finally also solar panels work perfectly fine within bodies of liquid underwater, when irl and in ksp 1 they wouldn't work as light would not reach them. This would also incentivize putting RTG's on your subs - a cool design challenge! Also more stuff underwater would be neat. Included Attachments:

It'd be nice if the impact indicator that appears when you're on a collision course with a celestial body also told you your impact velocity when you mouse over it, it'd make planning out landings and suicide burns a lot easier. Something like this:

I'd like to suggest the addition of a TARGET window (Picture in Picture) on the map screen. I find that when calculating the maneuver its hard to line up the target to see where interception happens whilst trying to manipulate the node it would be great to see the outcome on the planet or moon without fiddling about with the camera and icons obscuring the node. This could be automatically displayed when the node is created and a target selected.. or it could be an option.. it could also do a nifty split screen so when moving the camera when target goes off screen it does that nice sliced off screen effect..

Not exactly as it was before of course. But from everywhere I've heard they removed it in 2. I think it would be very sweet of the devs to give it a proper polishing and return it eventually.

With KSP2 performance on the rise, it'd be great to have a benchmarking tool in-game that could allow users to consistently test their performance across a wide variety of game scenes, something akin to GTA V's "Run benchmark tests" option in its settings where the game runs through a series of in-game on rails scripted scenes designed to test the computer's performance, gradually sloping up in intensity and then outputting the results to a log file, having these scenes be scripted and consistent would allow for highly accurate measurements of system performance to be taken and make it much easier for users to quickly tell if they can run the game, as well as what effects graphics settings will have on the game's performance, it'd also aid a lot with user-polling of performance data across hardware.

Allow us to have a fun little minigame to do. I know they played golf on the moon in Apollo 11 so its for realism purposes. Could be really fun for multiplayer.

I understand the team desire to cut down on single use science experiments but I feel like this has left the amount of experiments feeling rather barren. So I've made a small bundle of ideas for different experiments that could be done, keeping in mind the design goal of making all the experiments more involved than simple button presses. Telescopes! Artificial gravity wheels! Plane science! I hope you enjoyed reading my ramblings after having delved into the current For science! update. Thus far I'm halfway through tier two in a max difficulty ramp up save file (200% reentry heating, -50% science), and this came as a response to feeling like the current science system, while a good base, is rather lacking. I hope these are some fun ideas for you all to chew on! Have a lovely morning, evening, or night! ^w^ ~Sammy