SolarAdmiral

Shockingly, I've always heard good things about HP Omen, for desktops (not sure if this good reputation extends to their laptops or not). And I've heard no end of bad things about Dell / Alienware. Neither is from first hand experience though. Personally, I'd always go with Memory Express, but that's only an option if you happen to be Canadian. But maybe also look around to see if you have a local / regional PC and parts store with a good reputation, reviews, and doesn't look like it's on the edge of going bankrupt. Then, check prices, see what they cover and handle for support, compare to make sure you're getting a good deal.

Glad to see I'm not the only one who went for a Tuck and Roll Landing. I didn't use jets and went for spark engines. I was attempting to get under 2 tons, and it would have worked if it wasn't for that darn atmosphere and drag. So I wound up at 3.27 tons. More pics in the imgur https://imgur.com/a/jFTTD9q This is the best one, from the final RCS pack landing.

Agreed! Tiny is my Jam. I'll keep a lookout for any future challenges. Maybe another larger idea would be, "Complete the Explore mode / Main missions with the lowest total tonnage"

So, upon closer examination of the rules, I believe I have a smaller, cheekier, SSTO entry. The rules require, "Put this lightest ship you can into orbit without shedding parts." and "Orbit is PE above 70km. " So as such, here is my 0.13 ton SSTO Although, technically even lighter would be a kerbal with RCS pack. (Funny Enough, the other two possibilities I checked for this, -Stratus-V Minified with min fuel and 1 RCS thruster -Two Seppatrons with min fuel Both also came out to 0.13 tons) If the 'surface' and 'orbit' don't need to be around the same body, then there's this for 0.07 tons. From Minmus Surface to Kerbin Orbit. It's single stage to 'an' orbit, and the PE is over 75km.

Here's a Kerbalized Apollo-Soyuz, the first manmade eclipse. This was more difficult to arrange than I imagined it would be.

Ok interesting. Yeah I don't have much experience flying so close to the minimum. But yes don't think I can beat that, at best would match it. The only other thing I could think of to try to reduce weight is swapping some Oscar B tanks for a Baguette. As I think it has just a tiny bit better fuel to dead weight. But couldn't get any success with it, probably because of drag.

Ha yeah I can't beat that. You can make it to orbit with only 3,223m/s vacuum DV?

Well seeing your improvement, I had to see if I could get it sub 1 ton. I got 0.82 Tons. It starts falling over on the pad so you need to launch it immediately.

Alright, this is what I got for the Spark. I tried building something a little better looking and fancier using the NCS200 nose cone tank, but couldn't get it to work. More weight and drag vs the thin stack of Oscar B tanks I guess. 1.23 Tons. This one is even less useful, having no solar panels. But I got it to orbit with 200m/s extra DV. I think this is probably close to the lowest weight SSTO possible, as there are no lighter engines with better TWR or ISP. Are Ion powered aircraft still possible, in KSP2, or even in current KSP1 for that matter?

Alright, here's what I put together. 4.11 Tons. It doesn't do anything, no payload or Kerbals, just a probe and a Rapier. -edit- Looks like smaller is possible. I figure about a 1.25 ton SSTO is possible using the Spark Engine.

Oh boy do I know that fun. I had a project want metric materials but measurements in imperial. Nothing in my professional life has felt as dirty as making drawings with 30M bar at 12" OC spacing.

https://youtu.be/07vdtBMG4Kg?si=Mj9ai8Fmjvn_4vjX

I'm right there with you. I find even going short distances with a rover very tedious. I've only done a handful of missions involving rovers, often only to go over to one or two other biomes, and every time its boring enough to make me avoid them for years. Which is why I bring up Snowrunner. With everything put together, that game manages to make it fun. I think it's because Snowrunner poses challenges to the player, deep snow and mud, downed trees, running water. There's risk of getting suck. For KSP, the only risk is getting so bored you floor it, driving as fast and reckless as possible to get it over with. Obviously, KSP won't be able to be as in depth as Snowrunner, it isn't going to have a driving and terrain system like that, especially at the scale of KSP. I just hope the KSP team is able to figure out a way to make the rover driving a little more interesting, posing challenges and risks rather than merely testing patience. I don't know if it is possible, or if it fits the team's plan. But I'd almost like to see a system where players can have rovers drive themselves over long distances of easy terrain. Click on the planet map and send them to where you want them. As long as its flat open unchallenging terrain, the rover will drive itself and arrive. But it will stop when it hits difficult terrain, large rock obstacles, steep slopes, cliffs, narrow passages or narrow ledges, requiring the player to drive and find a way through only over the hard bits. That way, the long boring parts of driving could be skipped over, requiring the player only to drive the interesting challenging bits. I think most people who hate rovers, is due to how driving them is mostly long boring stretches without much challenge. Maybe if driving them was instead letting them automatically drive themselves over the wide open easy stretches, and letting you jump in to drive over a five or ten minute stretch of difficult and challenging terrain, fewer people would dislike them.

Oh the other hand, maybe more realistically and just as good, rovers might simply be encouraged out of efficiency. They don't need fuel just easily generated electric charge. A planet could have three different resources. They never generate in the exact same place, but maybe you can seek out a spot that has all three nearby within easy driving range. Build your base between them and drive them all to the central base. Maybe even more key in high gravity like eve and tylo. I just hope they can figure out a way to make the driving fun and challenging without being tedious and boring.

So of all of KSP2, resources are what I'm most looking forward to. Ultimately, the economy, manufacturing, and transportation of stuff is what I'm interested in most and just adding that kind of industrial and logistic side to the game would be more than enough for me to be interested alone. But, I've also been wondering how the ground nature of the resources could be used to improve the ground gameplay of KSP, which has always been a bit lacking and unnecessary. Just something to have fun with on the side but no real purpose. Do you think it's possible resources could be used to make the ground gameplay both necessary and fun? I don't expect it to match this, but what I'd look to as the absolute best example the game could strive for, is Snowrunner/Spintires. If they could figure out a way to add even a little bit of that to the driving game of KSP I think that would be fantastic. I don't even know if that's possible though. Could such difficulty be added in a low gravity environment, where in KSP vehicles can't really get stuck in the same way they do in the mud and snow of Snowrunner? Can it be done on the massive scale of KSP planets, without being one or two handcrafted sites on an otherwise massive boring world. Can KSP do that kind of gameplay without merely being frustrating. I think the first problem to solve is, why not simply use landers and rockets. Maybe to encourage the use of rovers, some resources could be placed in caves or overhangs. There could be steep cliffs and deep valleys. There could be tall rock spires or other obstacles around the resource, easier to drive around but hazardous to land in. So they could encourage landing nearby on nice flat land free from obstacles, and then find a route to drive over to where the resources are. Anyway, I was just interested in starting a discussion about what could possibly be added to make the experience deeper. Again, I don't really expect it to be too in depth, whatever is done has to be able to cover the massive area that are full sized kerbal planets. It can't be something that requires too much work.

I don't really expect floating colonies, at least at the first release. Though I hope eventually there's support for colonies floating in water or thicker atmospheres. What most likely will be possible immediately with the colony release, is colonies built in the water either as platforms or towers anchored on the seabed, or underwater colonies on the seafloor.

Yeah, I don't know what people were expecting. If someone is an experienced enough player they don't find any challenge in KSP2, how did they find any challenge in KSP1? You could finish the whole KSP1 tech tree without doing anything more difficult than landing on the Mun. And all it took to fully upgrade all the buildings was grinding out the same rescue kerbal from orbit mission over and over. Completing the KSP2 tech tree at least requires going to Duna, Eve, Jool and some moons. And completing the main mission chain requires accurate landings on Duna and Tylo, not to mention the 10 kerbals to Eve and back mission. Those all together are just about the hardest things the game could ask of you.

Abundant hydrocarbons makes it cheaper for us yes. But water electrolysis isn't so much more expensive to make it impossible. Like a space program on a planet without hydrocarbons but that does have water would easily still be able to have hydrogen. But you're right, with access to methane, there's no reason the kerbals wouldn't also have hydrogen.

Ah you're right. I could see them limiting Uranium to be only off world, so no NTGs and no NTRs. And I guess there's no real use for hydrogen without the NTR.

I basically have the same thought. Though my guess would also include hydrogen and xenon. It would be a little strange to not have access to hydrogen with an ocean right at the end of the runway.

Reported Version: v0.2.1 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: win11 | CPU: i7-13700K | GPU: 3070ti | RAM: 64gb Using a Structural Tube to cover part of a vessel during assent. The Tube itself is ditched while staging. RCS thrusters that were inside the Tube don't work even after tube is removed. All the other RCS thrusters still work as normal. Part file included, added both types RCS to see it happens with both. Two Vessels in Part File, Rocket on Left has no tube, all thrusters work. Rocket on Right has the tube, thrusters under the tube (connected to the donut tank) don't fire, even after the tube is dropped and they are revealed. I also tested this using a cargo bay and then a faring to cover the same area, they didn't cause this. Seems to only happen with the tube. Included Attachments: Moho.json .ipsImage { width: 900px !important; }

I'd definitely prefer more spread resources also. Actually, one of the things I find most interesting in real life are stellar distributions. I'd love to see heavy metals be the most common in the inner system, slowly replaced by silicates through the middle and then water ice further out. I definitely agree the basic resources will be available everywhere. Based on how they talk about setting up a base, I think every body will have some kind of base building material. Stuff like water, fissiles, carbons, I for sure agree will be available almost everywhere in varying richness. I would like to see some stuff locked behind a large developed colony too. But, I also expect those resources I mentioned weren't brought up in game for nothing. I also think as far as game design, they're trying to encourage visiting every possible place. I still expect some of the advanced materials for building the far future engines to be rare. Maybe available on only one or two planets in the Kerbal system.

So a lot of people have been wishing that the science reports would 'actually teach something'. But I wonder, what if they're already teaching us something. Reports from at least three moons hint to some kind of exotic material. Minmus is ceramic, Gilly is "sticky", Laythe has radioactive water. I can't remember any others off the top of my head. But now I'm wondering if they're hints for resources coming in the explore update. So my guess would be, Ceramic on Minmus, required to build high temperature rocket nozzles for water cooled solid hydrogen. Laythe, radioactive water, can I dare to hope there will be a fissile salt water engine? If not then just a good place to build and refuel RTGs and reactors. Not sure what the sticky Gilly material could lead to. I'd also guess the Moheart might give something specific. Maybe a metal that allows for powerful electromagnets, required for magnetic nozzle engines or perhaps magnetic contained fusion. I'm willing to bet that at the very least, Eve, Dres, and possibly Eeloo and more Jool moons would have something. Anyone remember seeing any material hints in the reports or mission debriefs?

As I laid out in my previous post. I seriously doubt that a lot of the requirements and suggestions made here could possibly be added in a way that isn't terrible and tedious. I'm happy to hear suggestions. But I was just pointing out that none of the suggestions I've seen so far seem any good. I really fail to see the middle ground between requirements so specific they are punishingly difficult especially for new players, and so easy they are pointless busywork especially for the more experienced players, made even worse if they are something that has to be redone exactly the same way every time you play through the game. What sort of nonfungible requirement locking specific parts do you envision that aren't, extremely hard for new players, are fun to replay every time you do a new career, and are actually some sort of challenge and not just wasting the players time with pointlessly easy requirements? Flying to a specific height and speed, trivially easy if you know that simple trick and a pointless waste of half an hour flying to make me prove I know it. Landing on a specific moon to unlock a specific engine or part, now you have to do that every single game, probably at about the same tech level every time. Your idea for the super special parts locked behind certain places is a bit more interesting. But I think runs a major risk of those super special parts either being so much better than the regular ones that consensus quickly becomes 'you have to go unlock these as soon as possible'. Or so little improvement that everyone ignores them. Or so easy to accomplish along the way of playing you barely even notice as you get them. I can even point to something pretty much exactly like your suggestion. Stellaris has parts researched only by killing specific space creatures. They vary from underpowered and so common you get them without even thinking about it. To the point you start to just ignore them or take them as granted. To super rare and very powerful. But so rare you seldom get the chance to actually get them in a game. But stellaris has a massive advantage over KSP for implimenting this in an interesting way, in that you're competing with the other empires, to expand your boarders to catch these creatures or getting to them and killing them first. There's a challenge there in competition, racing against the opponents. KSP, as long as it's still single player, offers no challenge like that. KSPs challenge comes down entirely to just physics. There's not really anything in the game more challenging than landing at the temple on Duna or Tylo, or returning from Eve. That's why I think my vote will always be for generic science points to be spent as you please. It lets the player choose their own path. What order and how they want to do everything. What order and how they want to unlock everything. So they can go and face the real challenges in the game, orbital transfers, landing, entering atmospheres. Why lock an engine or a part behind a landing on Duna, what does that offer beyond visiting the Duna temple? Now, maybe something like you propse could be interesting for multiplayer. If it is limited and there's an actual race between the players to get it first.

I think I figured out a way to explain my problem with this better. A requirement to fly to x height and x speed with x engine would either be so ridiculously easy that it requires 0 thought or ridiculously hard to the point there is only one way to do it or most players won't be able to. Let me explain. If the only requirement is x height and x speed, there is no requirement for the plane to also be an ssto, there is no requirement for it to carry a payload, no requirement for it to be a certain size or fly a certain distance. The engines have power sized to also be carrying a lot of payload. So the best plane to do that mission with is so easy to build you could throw it together in 30 seconds. Air intake, cockpit, fuel tank, engine. Add wings and gear. Because there's no requirement for payload and ssto capability or even safely landing, you can build a plane that is entirely fuel and engines. A plane that is just a cockpit, fuel tank, and engine will be able to fly higher and faster than any other plane using that particular engine. So if the x height and x speed requirements are reasonably low enough that a plane carrying an actual payload or ssto rocket fuel can reach them, this tiny engine and fuel only plane will easily blow passed them. If the height and speed are high enough to be a challenge with this tiny plane, then no plane carrying an actual load will have a chance. The problem with so many limited requirements like that is finding a balance. If they are easy enough to be accomplished by a craft in addition to doing something else, they will be trivially easy for a craft purpose built to do them. If the requirements are hard enough to be the least bit challenging to a craft purpose built to do them, they'd be impossible to do with any sort of general purpose craft in addition to being useful in other ways. And it would pretty much come down to building the bare minimum just to get the requirements out of the way. It becomes a chore to do rather than a challenge. Add to that KSP needs to cater to a wide variety of player skill levels and its even harder. If the challenges pose even the slightest difficulty to the long time players it becomes impossible for the first time ones. Even somewhere in the middle, and the challenge becomes something hard enough for the new time players they might just give up, or look up walk-throughs showing them exactly how to get passed it so they can get by onto the rest of the game, while it still poses no challenge to the long time players and becomes pointless busy work to get passed. The only thing you need to know to accomplish any mission like that, is to build a plane that is only an engine and one tank of fuel. Once you know that, there's no challenge in it at all. It's no longer a test of a player's skill, or planning, or creativity. It just becomes a test of the player's patience making them fly those flights.