BudgetHedgehog

Another point is that even if the arrival planet is at the exact same plane as Kerbin and you leave directly going perfectly 90 degrees, you may burn slightly too late, or early, or too radial in or out or whatever. You use less fuel burning from Kerbin but that's because there's no room for errors, it has to be precise. It's not unusual or bad to need to correct things half way (the fulcrum of the seesaw @5thHorseman mentioned) in order to delay or expedite your arrival to be at the right place at the right time. Even if you get an encounter directly from Kerbin, halfway is the best place to fine tune your approach, to get the entry angle and PE you want, or get a gravity assist from a moon. Doing that from Kerbin would need minuscule amounts of fuel, a fine touch of the throttle, and pinpoint accuracy. Much easier to wait and do it in deep space where the margin of error is larger to accommodate for your manual and mechanical inputs.

Thanks, I'll give the MM way a go - not clever enough to properly replace it with Part Tools so if it doesn't work, I'll just leave it. Thank you!

One thing I'm fond of doing is putting a manoeuvre node right where the orbit intersects the land, then pulling retrograde until it starts wiggling out and the velocity has been zeroed out. You then have a rough idea of how much speed you'll need to kill and a rough time when you'll hit the surface - it's no suicide burn and it's far from the most accurate method (the time to impact node will change as you burn, the terrain on the map isn't the same as the terrain in flight view), but it's a decent enough approximation. One that's worked for me for ages, anyway.

Unity is only associated with shovelware because there's a free version to use (as KSP I believe originally did). Unity is a great engine that many high-quality games from AAA devs and publishers use (Cities:Skylines, Cuphead, and Hearthstone are the big ones that come to mind) and as @DStaal said, the problem's more a fault with KSP itself rather than the engine - I remember them referring to spaghetti code more than once.

@DemonEin Wanted to ask you - is there a way I can easily replace the life support screens with a standard MFD? I don't have a LSS installed and it'd be nice to have another screen to use. (Btw, not experiencing the lag here, everything runs just fine)

As far as I knew, that was the latest I'd heard about microtransactions in KSP2 - totally understand that I may have been mistaken though and if what you've said was posted on the forums here after your interview 2 weeks ago (notwithstanding your excellent post-interview comment), I can only apologise for having missed it in all the hubbub around KSP2 in general. Personally, I interpret that differently, hence the initial comment - I see ruling out 2 kinds of MTX as ruling out 2 kinds of MTX, which is why I'm glad to hear you had asked for and received clarification regarding them as a whole. I hope you can see that this stems, ultimately, from a different point of view and knowledge of the timeline. The second paragraph you quoted here (I can't figure out formatting, but it starts with "I asked them specifically" ) was, I believe, edited in after I saw the post. Had it been there at the time, I wouldn't have written what I did. Having read that now though, no, I'm no longer worrying about something I don't need to, thank you again. Agreed - I don't want to be the source of misinformation and I'm glad to have been corrected If anyone wants to respond to specifics, feel free to DM me (while microtransactions would be an absolute KSP2 blocker for me, I think whether or not they'd be implemented in the first place is veering off-topic).

There's a fix a few posts above you (the model directory changed a few version ago which meant RPM was trying to load something in a folder that didn't exist):

Me posting all the times they've said the exact same wording as in the pic seems a bit redundant, given the above. I was just saying what was made public last time I'd checked - them ruling out MTX of all kinds, full stop end of, isn't something that I was aware they'd done, or if they had, it wasn't well publicised. The pic was just the first result from searching 'microtransactions' in the KSP subreddit, you can find the exact same wording on all press releases from around whenever that was (21 days ago, apparently). Not accusing them of lying, just having been economical with the truth. However, with what you've said above, it has put my mind at ease and I thank you for that. My info was 3 weeks out of date, and I am sorry about that, but I don't think that warrants biting my head off like that. Seems you could have just said "I specifically asked them and the answer was no microtransactions at all." to begin with, but ok. No, I mean, for example, putting it in official FAQs that were posted on Facebook, subreddit, forums... Whatever, you've said your piece, I've been corrected, thank you. EDIT: Also, I'm aware your comments are edited after posting.

That's not ruling out MTX, that's explicitly ruling out certain kinds of MTX (e.g. directly buying a planet pack or texture variants etc would be just fine - its not a lootbox, and it's not in-game currency). I can appreciate you have closer access than me but considering the above statement is quoted verbatim every time its asked by someone that isn't you, and T2 doesn't have the best reputation in this area, I hope you can understand what I mean. Edit: if they have ruled out MTX of any kind, it would be wise for them to say so publically - I know I'm not the only one with reservations.

I agree with your post in general, but on this point, they haven't ruled out MTX as a whole, just lootboxes and in-game currency. Don't get me wrong, not having those things is way better than having them but if it were as simple and as clear as "no microtransactions", they would be saying that.

Wanting the same level of interaction with the devs already that we ended up having with Squad is obscenely premature - half of the interaction comes from the players which, in KSP2s case, have nothing to play. Unless 'interaction' is a byword for 'the devs being here to answer every question asked of them' of course, and I can't blame them for that - let them have a few surprises for us, at least. They said they'll be here Soon (TM) , I've no reason to doubt that and I've no reason to doubt they'd ignore the community once they are. Patience would be a welcome virtue for people chuntering from a sedentary position.

Congrats man, well done! Yeah, the only thing I've found docking mode useful for is driving rovers as in it, WSAD doesn't use the SAS (so you don't pitch down when trying to go forward), I don't think I've ever actually used docking mode for docking in the thousand odd hours I've played the game.

Not sure how you've managed that - the download from GitHub contains the dll and everything you need, just merge the GameData folder from the zip with yours.

Do you have all the required dependencies? ASET Props Pack v1.5.0 RasterPropMonitor v0.30.6 ModuleManager v4.0.2 ToolbarController v1.8.2 ClickThroughBlocker v0.1.7.2

It's usually helpful to turn off SAS when the ports make a docking connection, otherwise it fights and counteracts the rotation needed for the ports to properly connect. You saying the angle was too great to connect properly means that docking was a possibility, my guess is the SAS stopped the crafts lining up to make it happen. Docking is difficult at the best of times but in short, you need to make sure your ship, the prograde vector, and the target port are all lined up on the navball. If they are, the magnets will lock on and then it's just a case of making the vessels line up. There's probably tons of docking tutorials floating around, I'm confident one of them will help you more edit: the yaw and pitch controls don't change, W will always point the nose down, D will always point the nose to the right. The HNIJKL keys are for translation forwards, back, up, left, down, and right. Attitude control (where the ship is pointing) is always on the WSAD keys.

This is when I would break out the offset tool to hide the decoupler, put the rover where I want it, and make it look like it's held in place with struts:

I don't believe it's confirmed, but I doubt orbital decay or (lack of) atmo boundaries will be a thing for the same reason they're not doing n-body physics - they want people to be able to put a vessel somewhere, or build a colony, and forget about it, knowing that it will still be there hundreds of years later. I hope it exists for vessels that have a PE below the atmosphere, it's where most of my launchers empty stages are and I like to keep a tidy LKO.

The annoying thing about the patch I linked is that as Minmus' flats are at the same sea level as the sea, there's some hellish z-fighting going on. Thankfully, @Gordon Fecyk made one that makes Minmus slightly bigger (increases the radius by 10m or something) so the flats and the sea don't flicker any more.

They are though - unless the engines and vacuum capable command pods grew on trees or whatever. But yes, the player can and does make silly decisions but they're yours to make. It's the difference between 'why would they build/fly it like that?' and 'why did I build/fly it like that?'. They can build rocket engines so they can build and pilot rockets - RUDs happen, mistakes don't. You can't build rocket engines but you can build rockets - mistakes happen, RUDs don't. Like I said, I've always seen it as a way to translate player mistakes and learning to a way that makes sense in a trailer. If I wanted to watch player built rockets crash while landing due to poor piloting, I'd watch peoples first attempts at the game on YouTube. If I wanted to watch kerbal built rockets crash while landing due to the landing leg collapsing, I'd watch the trailers. It's all failures at the end of the day, one makes sense as a game, one makes sense as a cinematic. Kerbals are smart but in an idiot savant kind of way, players are dumb but eager to learn - two sides of the same coin, failures are part of the experience either way so there needs to be a way for them to happen in both cases.

Tip for the plane change - launch at AN/DN node and do the gravity turn pointing slightly north or south (the inclination you're after is 6 degrees). Negates the needs for a mid orbit plane change entirely. Also, if you can land on the Mun, you can land on Minmus. And if worse comes to absolute worse, you can also get into orbit there from the ground just on EVA. Minmus is my favourite of all the bodies in the game, I love it.

On a technical level, the trailer is amazing. The substance is up for argument, but I was blown away by what the trailer actually was - great work from whoever made it. RE the explosions and all that - I've always taken them to be a stand in for player mistakes. In the game, the only time things go wrong is when the player makes it so (and they do, often. Anyone who says they haven't crashed in KSP is a liar). But having player mistakes in cinematics would, in my mind, be weird - in game, kerbals aren't autonomous and RUDs don't happen, but bad player piloting and design is absolutely a thing. Given that kerbals are a space-age and now interstellar species, it's safe to assume they have some kind of in-universe training - bad piloting and design can't be a thing or what's shown in the trailer wouldn't make sense. So, in a cinematic/trailer, the only way to show the idea of a failure in a game where the only thing that can fail is the player, is by having something that isn't the player fail - hence the RUDs and explosions etc.

Wanted to update you or anyone else interested - that config works absolutely fine, the 0.629 position is far too high on the model (guessing the -0.629 position was made and defined while the port was extended) but that's super easy to overcome or patch out. Thank you @Nertea, you've saved me a lot of headaches and entirely by the way, fixed a fair few other patches of mine due to my bad syntax! Much obliged

I like this mod. I built a mining lander for Minmus with it (also, can I add Mk2 form fitting radiators to the wishlist?):

It''s funny - literally about an hour ago, I was lamenting the lack of the plume expansions with ReStock. And along you come and save the day, you absolute hero. Thank you! Also, fifth, I guess.

Keep adding fuel until the TWR is 1.3. The rocket in your original post is about half as tall as it could be.