Mutex

Wait, there's more than one tweet in the thread? Seems recently you can only see one tweet unless you have an account. Is there anywhere else the stuff in the tweet is available? EDIT: Never mind, spotted it in the Discord tracker.

To me, playing KSP without some kind of life support mod feels like playing Doom and typing iddqd.

I've experienced the bug they're talking about with various jet engines. I think by "any engine" they meant jet engines.

How much impact would that have on performance? Because while that would work much more reliably, the advantage of KSP's approach is that it's fast, you can calculate how much of each part is unoccluded from each direction once at the start. EDIT: Thinking about it, perhaps an improved version of the way it currently works, which would still be fast, is to generate a cube-map of the entire ship at the start. Obviously re-generate it every time the ship changes (docking, parts breaking off). This would still be a pretty limited simulation, and it wouldn't take account of the ship deforming/bending severely, but it would at least probably be more robust than doing this part-by-part. (EDIT2: Actually this wouldn't work if/when we get robotics, or anything else that makes the shape of the craft dynamic.)

This also applies to manually attempting to turn off the engine in part manager. If I set the throttle to zero, then I can get the engine to turn off. Although I've also noticed the engine status and the "activate/deactivate" button getting out of sync, i.e. the engine status is "OFF" and the button is labelled "deactivate".

Because the maneuver planner needs to know your acceleration during the burn, what acceleration should it use for when you're out of fuel? Bear in mind the craft gets lighter (and therefore accelerates faster) as it burns fuel. IMO the point of the maneuver planner is to show what will happen if you perform a given burn. So the way it works makes perfect sense to me.

I'm a little unclear what the problem is, is it that you have no remaining dV display?

If you want to perform a maneuver with less than 100% engine power, best thing to do is adjust the engine thrust limiter in part manager. The maneuver planner will actually take this into account (it'll still assume you'll set the throttle to 100%).

Fired it up and first thing I notice, in the options there is a "Temperature Gauges" option. I wonder if heating has been added. Edit: Seems not.

That was 27 seconds ago, WHERE IS IIIITTTT

In this forum I believe.

If KSP2 had a physical release that'd be a quote for the back of the box.

Here's three ships all with roughly 5500m/s dV (slightly weird shapes due to me trying to hit the same dV for all three ships): Left: 5547 m/s, 12.07 tonnes Middle: 5572 m/s, 20.05 tonnes Right: 5552 m/s, 39.24 tonnes If we go for much more dV then the SWERV definitely becomes the better option. But the NERV definitely fills a niche, which is all an engine needs to do, no engine should be the best in all scenarios. EDIT: Seems it's just after 12-13 km/s where the SWERV takes over and becomes the better option, for this payload.

Did some experimenting and the NERV seems to fill a niche to me: Left: 3053 m/s, 8.55 tonnes Middle: 2492 m/s, 15.55 tonnes Right: 2774 m/s, 8.77 tonnes So in this case the NERV powered ship has the best dV and the lowest weight. Of course if you made the ship bigger and added more hydrogen, then using the SWERV would start to make more sense due to the higher ISP being more of a pro and the extra mass being less of a con. For smaller ships the lower weight of the terrier would probably make it the better option.

As far as I can tell, this is the post? https://mobile.twitter.com/KerbalSpaceP/status/1634279204282945540 Edit: also posted to the social posts thread here:

Main symptom is it makes your urine smell funny

How do you know what actually happened?

Should be pretty obvious if they aren't, they flame out. The staging GUI shows the same value for air for all engines because the air is shared between all the engines.

It seems to work using the ion engine, I tried it the other day and used it while timewarping as high as x1000.

This I think is part of why they're not releasing weekly (or faster) updates, but one update after a few weeks. People who gave up trying to play the game in its initial form will give it a second shot, and if it's not fixed enough issues to be playable for them, they're going to be much less likely to keep checking back later. The first patch needs to get the game playable enough for the majority of the player-base.

The idea also has a downside of having to rotate your vessel for you during time warp. What if your vessel is incapable of rotation? It'd be rotating anyway, magically, unless there's some (probably complex) check that your vessel is capable of rotating fast enough. And I'm sure the maths for calculating your trajectory while burning towards a maneuver vector gets even more complex if the direction is dynamic. Also it'd probably be really complex for the player to understand.

I've read for KSP2 they write the Spanish words out backwards and then pronounce the result, recording it forwards.

Yeah I think latency tends to pretty much stay the same, not an expert though.

No sorry, but I'll try explaining more clearly. Lets say you're an ion probe with slow acceleration, and you want to keep burning pro-grade for a long time to increase your orbit height. You'd need to keep rotating to point pro-grade. Currently in KSP2, maneuver nodes assume you'll keep pointing in exactly the same absolute direction for the duration of the burn. This means if you're pointing pro-grade at the start of the burn, and eventually you get to the opposite side of the orbit, at that point you're pointing retro-grade. Ideally you'd be able to make a maneuver node that's say 1000m/s pro-grade, and the maneuver node vector would always rotate with the orbit to continue pointing pro-grade.

It would also be nice if the maneuver node vector wasn't a static vector, relative to the universe. It would be better if it was relative to the pro-grade direction of whatever part of the orbit you're currently in. So for example you make a pro-grade vector, as you go round the orbit the vector direction changes. This means we'd be able to do the spiralling-outwards burns with ion drive probes, for example.