Meecrob

Lol, well, I might be weird here, but I just put my science experiments in a central place where they can be easily found. Like in a cargo bay. In any case, while you may prefer the new science system, it is definitely NOT "captivating" Using a mod like Scansat to launch a mission somewhere you've never been before, with three polar orbit satellites 1/3rd out of phase so you can scan the planet 3 times faster and find the spot for the ore you need to refuel to go to your next destination could be considered "captivating," depending on your play-style. Pressing one button to do "all" science is literally the opposite of captivating.

Captivating? All they did was put all science behind a hotkey. I get that this is a work in progress and all, but nothing about KSP2 specifically is captivating vs KSP1. As a game, yeah its captivating, but this is a sequel, lol. These devs didn't think up the concept behind KSP.

Couldn't be KSP2, it must be the player who could dock in KSP1's fault!

Click on your velocity display on the navball twice so it displays "target." This screwed me up too, lol.

No worries, I figured I gave the wrong impression by the way you replied, lol.

So you are in total agreeance with me? Except you insist on calling it a "door." Doors have hinges, this object did not lol. It might have been missing some hardware as well, we will find out in the investigation.

The door was plugged. As in blanked out with a piece of sheet metal to put it bluntly. The capacity the seating was configured to did not require the exit to be in operation. Evidently, the exit thought otherwise! Look, I forgot the laughing emoji. Please understand I'm joking around with you, not trying to be some internet detective or something lol. You don't need to talk down to me. I apologize I did not explain plug vs door to you, but you clearly did not watch the video that lays out the details of the incident that is posted upthread. Its not my fault you are unaware of the details of the incident.

So you are trying to tell me that a flight attendant thought this factory-delivered-plugged emergency exit looked fishy, but all the mechanics were too dumb to figure it out. Also this flight attendant muttered it to passengers, rather than maintenance personnel? No, sorry, nothing about this adds up. Like, if you are telling the truth, I'd venture a guess that this person did not last as a flight attendant.

No they didn't. Stop making stuff up.

What? For maybe new players? Edit: Sorry, I don't men to gatekeep, but I'm sure most of you will agree that "10 degrees at 10k" is not good advice There are literally the ideal numbers to hit upthread. For a regular rocket...1.4-ish T/W ratio...go by those numbers, do not listen to this person.

Yeah, so you are on the same page. I get you like being grumpy, lol

This is exactly what I am trying to prevent. Thanks for being on the same page. Wait? The tutorial is literally setting up players to be inefficient? Straight up to 10k? I could be wrong, I didn't do the tutorial, someone mentioned it upthread. In any case, there should be a tutorial on how to improve your ascent profile efficiency. I get they have to get newbies into orbit, but like even 2k is a bit much before pitch lol. Edit: just want to re-iterate that everything I am saying is for people looking for tips, I didn't mean to hijack this thread. If all you fellow board members want to do is compare numbers, I totally get that. Sorry, lol

For anyone reading this thread for tips, a good way to get a more intuitive understanding of the gravity turn is to launch the same rocket multiple times using different ascent profiles, and check your remaining dV. These examples up-thread are excellent starting points/reference numbers, but if someone does not know why people are using those numbers, this is more a "give a person a fish," than "teach a person to fish" My personal answer is that since I have hand-flown every ship since I started KSP1 ten years ago, I try to keep it interesting by always changing up the rocket design. Keeps me on my toes. I am more concerned with not leaving debris in orbit, so for example, if I made a rocket that has more dV in a stage than I had planned, I will purposefully make an inefficient maneuver to keep the stage periapsis underground/in the atmosphere. Everybody plays the game in their own way. I am only making the above comment so that someone does not get stuck in the thinking that they MUST follow a certain ascent profile.

I imagine ECM's have come a long way in the 50 odd years since Apollo though. I'd imagine modern digital flight control can handle a mid 60's problem. Edit, Just like VSV's, VBV's et al on modern turbofans. Engine technology, and especially engine control technology was in the stone age back then. There is no way a modern engine control infrastructure would not be able to sense pogo oscillations and adjust the pumps as required. You don't see modern airliners stalling their compressors all over the place like 1967, do you lol? (Its an analogy, I am aware, pogo oscillations are not the same as compressor stalls, however they are both a symptom of an engine control loop that cannot operate quickly enough to prevent both bad outcomes. IE an analogue computer. Or just in case analogue computers are technically fast enough, the specific analogue computers used in aerospace are used for their reliability qualities/power requirements, not necessarily the sheer processing ability.) It would be nice if people could hold back on the wild speculations in between Starship flights. Just because it does not meet your personal expectations does not mean it is a failure. Sorry, ban me, whatever, but it needs to be said.

My personal advice, ditch the cupola, and put the 2 seat lander..."Tuna Can"? on the bottom of your lander, take off the ladders, and have a ring of fuel tanks instead of like "wings" or whatever you have now; that is waaaay too complicated.

I agree with everything you brought up, especially this one! How can you possibly have a space sim that prohibits you from doing mid-course corrections? This re-inforces my idea that the people leading this game might be KSP enthusiasts, but definitely not experts. You guys set up all the discoverable signals in polar latitudes, but you expect me to just toss a craft at the body, then waste my dv matching planes INSIDE the sphere of influence? I get I can use normal/anti-normal on my injection burn, but this is finger-painting accuracy. Don't make this "Space" Ace Combat, please!

I'm totally joking here, but you wanna pull the plug on SLS and Starship, but this one you approve of? I'm just razzing you, I'm not gonna tell you the opinion you should have.

Look, I apologize for the derail. Mea culpa. Clearly we are not mature enough to discuss a controversial figure. So who is pumped for the X-37 Falcon Heavy launch? Seventh launch for the vehicle, eighth launch for Falcon Heavy, NET Dec 28th. Any bets on how long the X-37 will stay up? I'm guessing over 1000 days this mission. Edit: Thanks, @Geonovast

Of course not. My point is that 5 years ago, you couldn't turn around without being bashed in the head with headlines about how "Elon Musk is the IRL Tony Stark!!" then the honeymoon period wears off, he turns twitter from a cesspool to a slightly worse cesspool and everyone wants his head. I'm absolutely sick of the sensationalism around him. There is more than enough about the man to study for lifetimes before uninformed talking heads go making stuff up.

At the risk of sounding like an Elon supporter, if you dig a bit beneath the headlines, you will see that Elon did not go from Tony Stark to some deranged hard-right wing megalomaniac. When someone is on top, they become a target, and everyone who is jealous starts talking trash. You can disagree with my take on this, but you cannot deny the fact that it is hot to dump on Elon right now. John Oliver just sold out and spent a half hour ripping on Elon instead of his usual gig of bringing to light social issues that are hidden away by the media. My overall point is "take what the media says about Elon with a grain of salt because there is money to be made trying to take him down."

Lol, thanks for the heads up, and my apologies @Minmus Taster. Its hard to tell these days with so many people seriously calling for the cancellation of an experimental program because it didn't work perfectly on the first try with a straight face. You got me good!

What? You realize that rockets are hard right? If you could just slap them together like in KSP, my former high school would have its own space program!

You are absolutely incorrect. The pilot knows how to fly. It is extremely training intensive. The mission specialists train for their specialty as well. It is extremely training intensive. Yes, many astronauts are pilots, but there is a very big difference between being certified to fly a plane and being certified to fly a spacecraft. This isn't a bunch of all-rounders, they are highly specialized in what they do. Aside from liking to fly planes, I bet a bunch of them like driving fast cars too. Edit: You say "sometimes you need a mission specialist" okay I need to be way more clear. 5 times we went to the moon and all the pilots brought back was the equivalent of playground pebbles because it took so long to train them to fly, they couldn't be trained in what samples would be actually valuable to return. You'd need an actual geologist who happens to be an astronaut. The reason NASA sent so many pilots was due to the experimental nature of the missions. Once they felt comfortable , they let go of the pilot redundancy that was engineered in to be let go of when enough data was acquired and confidence was built. They upgraded to a scientist once they reached that level, its just a shame the program was cancelled before more missions could be sent with other scientists.

I hate to be the "Akchually" guy, but, KSP1 is closer to reality. Harrison Schmitt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Schmitt) from Apollo 17 is a good example. He was the only one of any of the Apollo crews that had proper training in geology. The other 5 missions had dudes picking up random dirt they had relatively no clue about. Having said that, the playability of KSP1's class system wasn't fun, and is definitely an area that can be dumbed down. I don't think a single player enjoyed doing those "training missions" that made you send Kerbals to just outside Kerbin's SOI for the full XP upgrade.

I agree 100% and I think most gripes related to the Flight Interface can be eliminated by aiming to make a simulation-style interface based on real-world solutions, then dumb it down for playability. As it stands right now, it looks like you guys watched some sci-fi movie and copied a "cockpit" that was designed to look like flashy advanced technology to laypeople who just want to watch a space-sitcom. Remember: Real engineers in real life already figured out how to display the relevant information. You guys are already behind schedule. Just take the R&D in the public domain and stop trying to re-invent the wheel. Edit: And above else, do not pander to the lowest common denominator. The reason people like this (hopefully) franchise is that it is complex and challenging. Uplift the bottom end of your market to engage at KSP's level, do not ever dumb down KSP.