Dr Mayhem22

Curious to know what the community opinion is on vehicle workspace saving. In KSP 1 it was nice to simply name a craft, save it, and click save every once and a while to commit your progress. In KSP 2, you need to name the vehicle, which may have many workspaces beneath it as you make changes. Every time you commit changes you need to go through the full save-as workspace system, renaming and checking you're in the right workspace/vehicle. It's, as far as I can ever reason, an intricate solution to a problem that never existed. You would have to name vehicles under different Mk. version numbers (or any convention you preferred) in KSP 1, but it was the same saving system every game has ever used, and as a result easy to use and did everything anyone could really need. KSP 2's feels incredibly contrived. So the question is, what do you think of it? Should it be reverted or are there people who really enjoy the new system?

Yea something is bugged here but unrelated to O.P.

I had an odd problem: I would launcha spacecraft, and after a certain time (I wasn't sure if it was time, altitude, etc.), the camera would proceed to... change. The craft accelerated rapidly ahead of the camera, but the camera continued to follow the craft (or at least try to do so). Essentially, I watched blankly at the air as the craft raced towards space. I could still follow the craft if I zoomed out the camera to the point at which the craft was barely visible, and all but impossible to click. To add to my woes, I was able to get the craft to accelerate up to some 10 kilometers per second in Kerbin's atmosphere, at which point the craft would trace a giant circle in the sky. After wrestling the navball for several minutes, the craft finally began to descend towards the ground and, upon contact, the camera clipped through the ground to show the "black hole" inside Kerbin. Keep in mond that this was a reocurring problem, as in, I couldn't launch a craft without having it occur. I toyed around with uninstalling and reinstalling mods until I have positively confirmed that Real Chutes has caused this issue. I would assume that this mod is conflicting with one of the following mods, but that is just my best guess: Enviornmental Visual Enhancements (E.V.E.) Ferram Aerospace Research (FAR) Astronomers Visual Pack (BoulderCo) Kerbal Engineer Redux Romfarer's Lazor system All of these mods are widely used presently, and a catastrophic bug such as this renders this mod, the catalyst, unuseable. My best guess would be on a conflict with Kerbal Engineer, seeing as the issue popped up right around the time I tossed the device on my crafts. Again, I'm not certain it was one of those mods, but regardless, I would like to install this one. My question to you would be this: Do you have any possible work-around im mind? If so, what? Is this a known bug, and is there any current implementation to *squish* it? Thank you for your help, even if you don't get back to me on this.

I don't know what I was thinking when I typed interstellar. Yes, I meant interplanetary or intrastellar. And I didn't mean that this would be avery 5 seconds it would happen, I meant it as every once and a while on your journey to another planet this could become an issue. And if rocks in space are commonly thrown into the sun, couldn't journeys to mojo or something just have a higher probablilty of this being a thing? As in, Your proximity to the sun would adjust the probablilty of this occuring. Yo ucould use an equation like P=(D(1/T)^(T/426.08))/1000 Where D is the distance from the "sun" in meters, T is the time of the journey in days, and P is the probablilty of it occurring. This is just an example from 2 minutes of tinkering, so it is probably a bad formula, but -- ah whatever. Guess it was a bad suggestion.

Why is there no random space debris, projectiles, or general dangers in interstellar travel? By this I imply, is it possible to make it so that one is having a nice interstellar journey to say, eve, and on the way there, space debris is constantly hurtling next to or at him. Could it be done so that if it comes within x proximity of your craft, all time-warp halts and you have to deal with the problem. Should you choose to ignore it, the following scenario depicts the events: Jimmy is flying through space and wasn't paying attention. Some meteors were rushing towards his craft. Jimmy decided not to take evasive manuvers. Jimmy's craft was hit by a flaming rock. Jimmy's craft's tail section broke off. Jimmy was flying on one engine with low power. Jimmy Wasn't able to slow down in time and crash landed on Duna's surface. He is now stranded and cannot leave. I did include something about low power in that, because in its current state, power is wierd in KSP. There is no real concern about power, especially because you can just put a solar panel or more importantly an RTG and not worry about a thing. When your power drops to zero, you're basically dead, but what about before then. I also propose the ability to route power to and from critical systems. This would make it more important to place your power generation in safe locations. It would be something like, with everything on, you can only afford X% power to engines, depending on your power grid within the ship. But if you were to lose an engine, or shut off your SAS, you would be able to route Y% power to the engines (likely over 100%, like what some space shuttles are able to do), essentially making you go faster. Or say that you don't need to go particularly fast, but your ship is very unweildy, so you take power from the engines and route it to your SAS systems. These two suggestions would tie together to make interstellar travel in particular, but much of the game as a whole, a decent amount more immersive and a little less, "we're expecting a nice, turbulence-free, cruise at about X altitude, just sit back and enjoy the flight." I just feel like, if you have enough fuel once in space, you can make it anywhere you chose (I'm saying this in a very simplified way, I realise that you can't just have 9000 Rockomax Jumbo 64s and a 24-77 (the radial small rockomax engine) and expect to get everywhere and anywhere). Now, I wonder if this would be at all plausible ever in the future. The former portion of this would likely be far too taxing on the game if it were to use 100% accurate mechanics, so it would (if possible and if ever considered) likely have to be made so that, once the threat had been dealt with, it would be deleted from the game, as in, it wouldn't calculate the object's trajectory beyond that aformentioned X radius of the craft. What would you guys say to this? Is is remotely plausible, and would it help or hinder the game as a whole, especially if lose conditions (as mentioned in the 'already suggested' dev thread)?

Why is there no random space debris, projectiles, or general dangers in interstellar travel? By this I imply, is it possible to make it so that one is having a nice interstellar journey to say, eve, and on the way there, space debris is constantly hurtling next to or at him. Could it be done so that if it comes within x proximity of your craft, all time-warp halts and you have to deal with the problem. Should you choose to ignore it, the following scenario depicts the events: Jimmy is flying through space and wasn't paying attention. Some meteors were rushing towards his craft. Jimmy decided not to take evasive manuvers. Jimmy's craft was hit by a flaming rock. Jimmy's craft's tail section broke off. Jimmy was flying on one engine with low power. Jimmy Wasn't able to slow down in time and crash landed on Duna's surface. He is now stranded and cannot leave. I did include something about low power in that, because in its current state, power is wierd in KSP. There is no real concern about power, especially because you can just put a solar panel or more importantly an RTG and not worry about a thing. When your power drops to zero, you're basically dead, but what about before then. I also propose the ability to route power to and from critical systems. This would make it more important to place your power generation in safe locations. It would be something like, with everything on, you can only afford X% power to engines, depending on your power grid within the ship. But if you were to lose an engine, or shut off your SAS, you would be able to route Y% power to the engines (likely over 100%, like what some space shuttles are able to do), essentially making you go faster. Or say that you don't need to go particularly fast, but your ship is very unweildy, so you take power from the engines and route it to your SAS systems. These two suggestions would tie together to make interstellar travel in particular, but much of the game as a whole, a decent amount more immersive and a little less, "we're expecting a nice, turbulence-free, cruise at about X altitude, just sit back and enjoy the flight." I just feel like, if you have enough fuel once in space, you can make it anywhere you chose (I'm saying this in a very simplified way, I realise that you can't just have 9000 Rockomax Jumbo 64s and a 24-77 (the radial small rockomax engine) and expect to get everywhere and anywhere). Now, I wonder if this would be at all plausible ever in the future. The former portion of this would likely be far too taxing on the game if it were to use 100% accurate mechanics, so it would (if possible and if ever considered) likely have to be made so that, once the threat had been dealt with, it would be deleted from the game, as in, it wouldn't calculate the object's trajectory beyond that aformentioned X radius of the craft. What would you guys say to this? Is is remotely plausible, and would it help or hinder the game as a whole? Especially if lose conditions (on the 'already suggested' thread) are ever implemented.

When you save a sub-assembly, it only seems to have one connection point on it, even if there are several viable connection point locations. The game seems to do this also when you take off sections of crafts in general. Perhaps we could have the green connection orb display at all viable connection points?