SolarAdmiral

I was only responding to calls to completely rework science, using something other than science points style currency, specifically doing something or going somewhere to unlock specific techs or parts. And just voicing my opinion, that I would rather they stick with Science points. Overall, this is what I expected from Science gameplay. And, I haven't heard any suggestions that I would prefer to science points. Folks have been voicing the opinion that they don't want Science Points. I'm voicing my opinion that I prefer they stick with Science Points. I'm not arguing the current system is perfect. It could do with some adjusting. I'd love to see some more different experiments. But I'm also willing to wait to see how it interfaces with Colonies and Resources. As I think a lot of progression and management people are looking for could be introduced with Resources. Also, I'm not a sandbox player, I pretty much only play in progression style modes. Career in KSP 1, and now Explore in KSP 2. I really only used Sandbox to build and test stuff to be used later in career. But I've been loving the new KSP2 Science mode setup. As I said before, I found the KSP 1 Career to quickly devolve into a pretty boring grind of running several dozen identical missions to grind up money and science to be able to do the missions I actually want to do. After playing KSP 2's mode, it's made me wonder why I ever really played KSP 1's career mode. I like having the limit of money, I like being forced to build cheap efficient rockets to run missions, but the only missions I could tolerate doing in KSP 1 were the 'world's first' ones, and gathering stranded kerbals from orbit. And it sure got boring saving 30 kerbals from orbit to pay for the KSC upgrades. I much prefer the speed of progression in KSP 2, and I'm looking forward to resources to reintroduce a need for cheap efficient rockets, and to invest in building colonies. I don't know, I prefer a system where it can be spent arbitrarily. For that suggestion, I see it being done very easily with cut corners. If I play through using rockets and get all the points to unlock the Rapier. If it's locked behind flying the Wheezley, the Panther, the Whiplash, all you have to do is build a quick plane. Air Intake, Cockpit, Fuel Tank, Wings. Fly it to complete the Wheezley requirement. Swap the engine out for the Panther and repeat. Swap out for the Whiplash and repeat. It just doesn't seem like it adds much to me but some busywork.

And KSP is a strategic choice of what you want to spend your limited points on. The choice really is the same. KSP science is limited by locations you go to and experiments you perform. Civ and ONI science are limited by how much you invest in science and time. The two major differences with ONI and Civ, as well as some others, is 1) the game pauses when research completes for you to select a new one, or is turn based and 2) the science points are infinite and steadily generated over time. I personally don't think KSP would work with having to select research ahead of time. Science isn't infinite, you have to get to new locations to get new points. With the current system, you can get all the points you can from an area, see the total, and then make sure you unlock what you need to get somewhere new. If it was locked in and the points went to that like Civ or ONI, what happens if you miscalculate in your head, and then don't have enough to get what you need halfway? Science isn't being generated automatically like those games. And for 2, what happens if you get enough points to finish the selected science right as you're about to land a probe, or halfway through a burn, or with only half the science from an experiment? Do you need to pause, go to the R&D, select a new science, or risk wasting more points before you can land and go select a new one? Having the points and buying tech as you like works just fine for KSP. Timberborn has an identical system. And Factorio and Dyson Sphere allow you to build the science ahead of time, then use it in the labs while you have tech selected. Pre-selecting works for them. Pre-selecting seems problematic for KSP. Your description of using the whiplash, flying to altitude, to unlock the Rapier is the best suggestion for alternate unlocks I've heard so far. But I still wouldn't want it taken too far. I don't want to have to fly in Laythe's atmosphere to unlock the Rapier, or land on the Mun to unlock the Poodle. So it kind of seems like all of those unlock requirements would be in Kerbin Atmo, or Vacuum so Low Kerb Orbit. Seems like requiring a lot of identical missions. Fly a plane with the Wheezley, Fly a plane with the Juno, Fly a plane with the Panther, Fly a Plane with the Whiplash, Fly a plane with the Rapier. So I don't see it as super engaging. Why not just throw together one junk plane, swap the engine out with each new one, fly the pointless flight mission, unlock the next engine, repeat. That's the quickest way through that path to get the Rapier. If this system is implemented alongside science points, it seems just like pointless busywork. If I already have the points for the Rapier, but need to fly all these other flights to unlock a chain of engines. And depending on altitude, each of those flights could take 10, 20 min. So is this just requiring a player to fly for an hour up to an altitude then back to land again and again to unlock the engine they actually want for the mission they're actually wanting to do? It seems a lot like the worst missions from KSP1, fly this part to an altitude of 15,000km and a speed of 300m/s. And I hated those, so just never did them.

That's more fair. But honestly I still really just don't get the overall complaint here and in this thread myself. I think science points as a currency are overall the best way to implement it. Off the top of my head, I can only think of two science unlocking systems implemented in a game. One, science points. And look, science points work. All sorts of games use science points. Everything from colony builders, to grand strategy. Factorio, Dyson Sphere, Oxygen not Included, Timberborn, Stellaris, Terra Invicta, Civilization. If you consider xp just science points under a different name, we can include any RPG too. The system is ideal for anything that is non-linear. It allows so much flexibility. Do what you want to get the points. Spend the points on what you want. It's resource management. There's limited science points available in each level of destination/resource spent to make it. Gather enough to unlock what you really need to get further in your own style. It lets the player build their own path through the tech. It's the whole point of having a tech tree. The problem with something more detailed and in depth, it takes way more dev time to develop. And it starts to become more linear. The only other real option for Tech in games, is gather these specific resources/hidden boxes and put them into a machine. And honestly, that's pretty much just science points with a step removed, more linear, less flexible. It works for some games, Subnautica, Satisfactory. But they're much smaller, able to be handcrafted. Not really something that could be applied to KSP as well. My whole concern revolves around the fact that so many folks are complaining about currency science points. Yet, I still haven't heard a solution that improves it. I don't want the devs to throw out the perfectly serviceable science system, dump thousands upon thousands of manhours into developing something new, only for it to be tedious, repetitive, linear, boring. So I guess my question is what is the alternative to Science points everyone thinks is such a great idea? We've already ruled out going to a specific moon or planet to unlock a specific engine or part. What other progression systems exist in games? Legend of Zelda style puzzle temples to unlock nuclear engines? Snowrunner style go drag a rocket stuck in the mud out? Hacking or lockpicking minigames? I'd like to appreciate just how much better balanced the new KSP2 science system is. I've been finding the exact balance of how many points each location awards, what you can get and when, has been very satisfying. And wrapping up the contracts into giving science rewards is very welcome from my perspective. Now, don't get me wrong. I wouldn't mind some things added to the science system. But I think all it needs to round it out are three or four more varied and fun experiments. (Please Devs, bring back the Grand Slam from KSP1.) I might even be up for parts to be locked behind destinations. But as I said before, only for future parts yet to be added. The new near future techs and engines, I'd be fine if they decided wanted to be dependent on certain things. Not anything already in the game. Certainly nothing in teir 1, 2 or even 3. But even for the far future engines, I'm not really sold on the idea. I'd much rather it all just be points. And I'd be interested to see what kind of point generating experiments get added into colonies. And yes, I'm aware testing in field is a thing. My point is just that unlocking a new landing gear or new engine by visiting a specific moon isn't realistic, and doesn't seem like good or fun game design to me. And IRL developing new rockets relies on flying and testing new rockets on launch, but doesn't really care about where they're going or what they're carrying. Lots of NASA's rockets were tested by launching tanks full of water into orbit. And doing it again and again. Also, doesn't sound fun or engaging. And, I think everyone has rosy glasses memories of KSP1, but the campaign was such a grind fest. My average campaign was unlock all the science parts, drive around the KSP, unlock a multiseat pod, fly several dozen identical missions to orbit to pick up stranded kerbals to grind out the cash to upgrade, then fly several dozen identical probes to hit every Mun and Minmus biome. Hours upon hours of no thought, no effort, repeat, repeat, repeat.

I for one, would like to voice my opinion, that I really really don't want to see this kind of thing in KSP. My favourite part of playing campaigns is playing them in totally different ways every time. I'll play a standard kerbal campaign. Then one using only probes to go ahead of manned missions. Then one only using planes. This type of thing would absolutely kill that. 1 - Without the flexibility of the science points, you wouldn't be able to lean one way or the other, pick what you want and need at the time. In all those different playthroughs, I'll unlock things in vastly different ways. Instead, it would have to be balanced for one generic style of playthrough every single time. 2 - It would kill my interest in replaying the campaign, having to do the exact same missions every single time to unlock the parts, probably in the exact same order every time. I 100% much prefer the existing system to that proposal. And, it isn't even realistic. Real rocket science is done on Earth, in an office or lab, completely disconnected from the science done by probes and crews out in space. NASA didn't need to land on the moon to figure out how to build landing legs, or go to an asteroid to figure out how to build a hydrogen engine. Science points, can be thought of by representing investment. In exchange for doing science out in space to learn about space, we are rewarded with points to represent funded teams of scientists and engineers working in offices and labs to unlock parts. This is all for the current level of tech stuff. I'd would be willing to give something like that a chance for the far future techs. But not for stuff like landing legs and poodle engines. And I'd absolutely disagree with the 'rating' assigned to KSP 1 vs KSP 2. KSP 2's science play is absolutely better than it was in KSP 1. Despite loving playing through KSP 1 campaigns, they almost always petered out almost as soon as completing the Mun. Because in the end it was a boring grind. How did a playthrough of KSP 1 usually go? Spend half an hour driving around the KSC to gather science. Flying several dozen missions to orbit and back to pick up 'stranded' kerbals for enough money to upgrade the buildings. Flying a dozen identical Mun landings to get all the biomes. Babysitting orbital labs for months or years to slowly trickle out the science. Because in order to build a half decent looking Duna mission or further, you basically needed the whole tree unlocked. And by the time you finished the Mun and Minmus and were ready to go to Duna, there was no point, because there was nothing left to unlock. Whereas KSP 2, I've been loving playing Science mode. It's actually fun playing through, where visiting all the planets and moons is rewarding. Where nothing is dragged out, allowing a few visits to every body before moving on to a new one. Where you can build a half decent mission to the next body or planet after a couple missions to the previous one. Instead of flying dozens of dozens of the same identical mission with the same identical probe or craft to grind up money and science to finally get what you need.

New observation. I'm tending to find the ions work on timewarp while in Kerbol's sphere, but not while in the sphere of a planet or moon. Nevermind. Satuts was, not working at Kerbin, working in Kerbol SOI, not working at Moho, working at Kerbol SOI, but then working second time in Moho SOI.

Reported Version: v0.2.1 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: windows-11 | CPU: i7-13700 | GPU: rtx-3070ti | RAM: 32,0 GB I've been doing some Ion probes and I've been getting this. Acceleration under timewarp worked fine at some times, but not at others. When it worked it seemed correct. When it wasn't working, no acceleration at all happened during timewarp even though the ion engine was still using power, the orbit PE didn't move at all. Acceleration started happening again as soon as changing back to x1 speed. It seemed like it didn't work when the probe was heavier. A light Ion probe worked fine while under timewarp. But after editing it, adding a few parts and making it heavier, suddenly it also wouldn't work when warping. Since all the probes only had one engine, the heavier one had a lower acceleration. Maybe this bug is being caused by low accelerations? It did seem like the Ion probes with a higher acceleration were able to timewarp.

Reported Version: v0.2.1 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: win11 | CPU: i7-13700K | GPU: 3070ti | RAM: 64gb Small bug to report. Orbiting Pol, and noticed the science biome names. "Lowlands" and "Highlands" are listed as that. But one is called "PolMidlands". Included Attachments: .ipsImage { width: 900px !important; }

Alright, so here's my own entry. A small SSTO Capable of landing and taking off from, Kerbin, Laythe, Duna, and Moho. 19.97 tons at heaviest. Seating for 3 Kerbals. It has a bit of clipping for aesthetic, but I wasn't going for fitting it into any cargo bays. So, by my proposed scoring, this would be 43.77 points. https://imgur.com/gallery/41q3HUp

Alright, my first challenge, but it’s an idea I’ve been tossing around for a while now. Excited to explore new star systems, the KSC has started work on plans for the K.S.S. Entkerbprise, the greatest exploration ship ever built. However, it has quickly become apparent the Entkerbprise will be far too big to land on and explore new planets and moons. So a design challenge has been sent out. Design, Build, and Test a Shuttlecraft. The ideal shuttlecraft should be able to transport crew from the Entkerbprise, down to as many possible planet surfaces, and return them to the ship in orbit. It needs to be reusable, refuelable, resilient, and versatile. Ideally, it will also be small and light to fit in the Entkerbprise to start with! Rules- 1) Build one craft that will be used for the whole challenge. (Multiple different craft entries per person are allowed and encouraged. But are completely independent from each other for scoring.) 2) Some moving and part clipping is allowed. But don’t abuse it to make the overall volume of your craft smaller. IE, clipping two cylinder tanks into each other a bit is allowed, but not to overlap more than the air gap still left between them. Usable parts, like fuel tanks, batteries, ext, can be clipped into ‘hollow’ parts, like nosecones. 3) The only changes that can be made to the craft between flights, are changes that could be done while docked to a mothership vessel. (I.E. you can change the fuel balance for different flights. Like filling methane tanks for a flight on Kerbin and emptying them for a flight on the Mun, or adjusting the amount of oxidizer in tanks.) Once you have your design, you can’t make any changes that can only be done in the VAB between flights, (Like moving, adding, removing parts.) 4) Optional attachments are allowed, as long as they are attached and detached by docking ports. (Hence, would be able to be added or removed when docking, undocking with the mothership.) 5) The craft needs to be able to maneuver and dock. (Though something like a separate docking tug that is left in orbit is also allowed.) 6) Everything you start with has to be brought back. Sub craft are allowed and can be left behind (like a docking tug) but must be collected and returned to the final orbit for each flight. 7) To demonstrate the craft can land on any given planet or moon, teleport using the Alt+F8 menu to an orbit, at least 50km above sea level, or 5km above the atmosphere. Then land on the ground (or in water), and take off, returning again to an orbit at least 50km above sea level or 5km above the atmosphere. This awards full points for that destination. 8) If the craft can land and take off, but needs to be refueled between. (IE, to test take off, teleport fueled craft to the ground and take off to orbit, separately from the landing.) This awards half points for that destination. 9) You only need to do a successful flight on the largest possible moon/planet without atmosphere, to also score credit for all smaller moons/planets without atmospheres. (So for example, landing on the Mun also scores you Dres, Ike, Bop, Minmus, Pol, and Gilly.) Atmospheres, Duna, Laythe, Kerbin, (Eve?) all each have to be done independently for credit. 10) You do not need to do a test flight for all or any specific body, only the ones you want to get points for. (No need to fly moons/planets you didn’t design for or know you can’t do.) 11) Kerbals must be able to get out of the craft and plant a flag or swim, and get back in. Craft will be scored in four categories. -Destinations -Crew Capacity -Weight -Bonus Points And, keep a save of your craft files, so all crafts can be given new updated scores after the addition of each new stock star system, to see how they perform with all the new added planets. The rules above will still apply, no added or removed parts, the only changes that will be allowed to tackle new planets added in the new star systems will be changing fuel levels in tanks. All new bodies without atmospheres will be slotted into the list as above, so you’ll only need to fly new test flights for ones larger than ones you’ve previously done. New flights will have to be done for any new bodies with atmospheres to qualify. Planets added in new star systems will be worth double points, as long as your craft is design, built, and entered before those systems are added to the game! Bonus Group Challenge Co-op - Let's see how many of the yet to be added new planets our fleet of shuttles can service all together. The K.S.S. Entkerbprise will only be able to explore planets and moons at least one of the entered shuttles can land on. Scoring Math – (You don’t need to do the math yourself if you don’t want to. Simply report what destinations the craft can fly to, crew capacity, heaviest weight, and applicable bonuses) -Destinations Add up points from all destinations the craft is qualified for. (Qualifying for a body without atmosphere qualifies for all below it too.) Full points for round trip, half points for needing to refuel on ground before taking off. With Atmospheres Without Atmospheres Jool* 8.00 Tylo 2.27 Eve 8.00 Moho 0.87 Kerbin 3.40 Vall 0.86 Laythe 2.90 Eeloo 0.62 Duna 1.45 Mun 0.58 Dres 0.43 Ike 0.39 Bop 0.23 Minmus 0.18 Pol 0.13 Gilly 0.03 *(Jool - Can dip down to touch the clouds and return to orbit, no points for one way trip down) -Crew Capacity Add one point for each of the first three kerbals a craft can carry. Add half a point for the next three kerbals a craft can carry. Add a quarter point for all kerbals after that. IE – 1 kerbal = 1 point, 3 kerbals = 3 points, 4 kerbals = 3.5 points, 6 kerbals = 4.5 points, 7 kerbals = 4.75 points, 8 kerbals = 5 points, 20 kerbals = 8 points -Weight Take the wet mass for the heaviest state of your craft, (heaviest fuel load for any destination), add the mass for all optional additions, sub craft, tugs. All parts of your craft and craft system, the weight of everything that would need to be carried by the mothership, fueled in their heaviest state you used. -Bonus Points Deluxe Cabins – All kerbals are sat within a proper capsule, cockpit, or passenger cabin, no external seats – 2 points. Seating for kerbals is in external seats, cargo bays, or farings – 1 point. Included Rover – Craft contains a rover that can be deployed and recovered, (or has wheels and is a rover itself) – 1 point. Complete craft, and all additional modules fit inside and can be deployed from any one cargo bay module without clipping. – 1 point. Complete craft, and all additional modules fit inside and can be deployed from any two cargo bay modules without clipping, connected or not – 0.5 points Final Score = Destination^2 x Crew x Bonus / Weight The Proof -At minimum, for each flight on each qualifying planet/moon, take a photo landed, and a photo back in orbit. Take a photo in orbit before going to land if you have any funky optional additions or sub crafts going on, not required if not. -Take a photo in the VAB with the engineer report open, with the craft in its heaviest state, most fuel, all addons ext, for the wet mass. If you’re applying for the bonus for fitting in a cargo bay, take another photo with the craft packed in the bay.

Imgur gallery link has all the photos.

Hey, someone put up a challenge and that finally spurred me to share the low tech ssto I used to play a plane only playthrough, if you're interested to see.

I've mostly been building passenger spaceplanes so far. But I do have this I can share, the low tech "cargo" "SSTO" I built for my spaceplanes only playthrough of science/explore. It uses Swivels and Wheesleys, so only needs "Mun Landing" and "Light Aviation" to build the plane. 205 science total I think. It's so low tech, it was the first vehicle in the playthrough I took into space or orbit. Though the payload shown here was a later one, a Duna/Ike /Eve Flyby Probe, and also needs "Long Range Probes" and "Environmental Science". It can take a 2.8 ton payload to orbit. The plane itself has a 63.8 ton wet mass. https://imgur.com/gallery/QLEJPms

Hey agreed! At the very least, having the three rung stationary ladder being procedural, adjusting the length to whatever is needed, adding rungs as required by the length, would be great.

I've noticed this happens more often with larger control surfaces. So a current workaround that I find often works when I have a craft that does this, is to make the control surfaces smaller, (Smaller Cannards/Control Surface Wings, shorter Control Surfaces on Wings/Stabilizers). For example, if I see my plane is oscillating badly, generally by halfing the length or height of the Stabilizers on the main wings, it will stop the behavior, or lessen it to the point the plane is flyable. Of course this will only work if you still have good control authority with the reduced control surface area. Maybe there needs to be a bit of a scaling dampening factor, for larger surfaces, craft that oscillate.

My personal take is, we probably don't need three more gas giants in the kerbol system. But, with Jool being at a kerbal sized distance of Jupiter. I'd love to see one more gas giant added, out around the kerbal sized distance of Neptune. It would be an awesome visual. Like, you thought it was a long way to Jool, here's Neptune 6 times further out. It would be great to truly show off the size of our own solar system, and be a bit of a stepping stone to full interstellar travel. Maybe this neptune stand in could even be tilted on its side with rings like Uranus.

I actually found a probe heavy playstyle pretty easy. I made it through the whole tree of 'main' missions with just probes. I did probe landings on the Mun, Minmus, Duna, Ike, and flybys of Eve and Gilly, filling out most of the first two tiers, before building an apollo style mission to the Mun as my first manned mission beyond Low Kerbin Orbit. "Plane" heavy isn't impossible either. I just recently finished a similar playthrough using only SSTOs. Although that involves a liberal definition of 'spaceplane'. More using Wheezley jets to get up to 7km, before using swivels to go the rest of the way. My plane had 4 Wheezleys and 3 Swivels, and could launch a little over a ton or a ton and a half to orbit. It seems a bit easier to build an SSTO with Wheezleys vs KSP1. Anyway, used that to launch small probe packages, with which I did the same as above, landings on Mun thru Ike, flybys for Eve. That got me enough to get thru to the Panther engine, which I have used before to run manned Mun missions in KSP1. The real 'spaceplane' jet engines are a long way up the tree. The Whiplash and Rapier are so far down it's difficult to see a playthru truly using them. It's difficult though as if they're available sooner, it would be easy to skip the Wheezley and Panther almost entirely.

You know, with the new workspace system, you can kind of already do this. Merge all your most significant vessels into one "Museum" Workspace, move and rotate them as you please to display them. That would be about halfway there in the meantime. Down the road, maybe the Devs could be convinced to let us put up some little text sign displays inside Workspaces, which could be useful for things other than just the 'museum' display. For non-museum workspaces, signs could be used for documenting what part of the workspace does what. Maybe you use the workspace to store a bunch of slight variants of one craft, and you can leave yourself/(whoever you share the file with), little notes as to which variant craft is which. Like "This Variant has extra fuel for Tylo Landings", "This Variant is designed for 50 Tons to Low Kerbin Orbit". Or if you build a workspace for a rocket, plus all its different payloads, your signs could note, "Mun Orbiter Payload", "Mun Lander Payload", "Duna Orbiter Payload" Ext

Yeah I've seen lots of complaints about science, but none of the suggested 'fixes' I've seen proposed feel like an improvement to me. Most sound much worse than what we have. So in reply to the thread title, I put down my vote for Science is good as is. It can be added to, but it's a good base. I'd be extremely hesitant of any large scale changes, as at best wasted dev time, and at worst only making it all worse. I like the system of collecting points in whatever way I wish and spending them on whatever I wish. I like the missions that direct you to the monuments, that give a big bonus of science, but are not required for any stage of the tech tree, allowing you to do them whenever you wish. I like the new balance of the system vs KSP1, where you can move through pretty steadily doing one or two landings on each planet an moon, rather than needing to do dozens of identical landings on the Mun to get all the science. I like how it moves you smoothly through going to the moons, to Duna, to Jool. I like there's a point going to all the moons and planets.

I haven't had any trouble with spaceplanes to and from low kerbin orbit, or simple stuff like a pod with a heat shield. But I'm finding Laythe's atmosphere very punishing for entering. Even with a plane that can steeply reenter at kerbin with no extreme heat, with the wings with the highest max temp, and first lowering the orbit to just above Laythe's atmosphere before entry, almost as soon as hitting Laythe's atmosphere all the wings instantly burn off. It isn't a big or heavy craft either, under 20 tons. So far I haven't found a way to get wings to survive through Laythe's atmosphere, has anyone else had any success?

Does anyone else feel the MK1 inline cockpit, Peregrine, is too sensitive for obstacles disabling EVA? I find it difficult to use while still being able to get Kerbals out, because anything placed either side of it seems to block exit, even far down on its sides. Be it fuel tanks, wings, ext. All of them placed lower than where the kerbal normally pops out. It would be nice if it was a little more forgiving. I've even had trouble where I build a design, test that a kerbal can exit, but when loading the same craft at a later time, exit is suddenly disabled with all parts in the same placement.

Reported Version: v0.2.0 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: win11 | CPU: i7-13700K | GPU: 3070ti | RAM: 64gb Boarding a vessel that has the parking brake on, turns the brake off. Probably due to pressing 'B' to board counting as a tap of 'B' to disable the break? Checked and it happens with both vessels built with airplane cockpits and solo pods. Craft used small landing gear. Set parking break on before EVA kerbal. Boarding turns the brake off. Included Attachments:

Reported Version: v0.2.0 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: win11 | CPU: i7-13700K | GPU: 3070ti | RAM: 64gb I got the Plant Flag on Pol mission completed by planting a flag on Minmus, either in the Arctic Ice or Ice Sheets biome.

All in all I'm really loving the new science mode. My feedback. First and most importantly. - Please at some point bring back the Grand Slam Seismic test from the breaking ground pack. Easily the best science experiment. Encouragement to slam heavy things into a planet, or a nice bonus for disposing of transit stages. Maybe instead of making it a deployable ground test, it could just be another science part to be left on landers. After impacts on the body, test data proportional to mass and speed are stored in the part on this other lander. Apart from that. Things that are great- Love the new balance. - It's so much more fast and snappy than KSP1 science. It cuts out the repetition, but still presents growth and development, and allows for widely different playstyles. I was worried seeing how the new system was streamlined that it wouldn't allow widely different playthrough styles. But I'm glad to see multiple ways are possible. So far I've played through my preferred way, going heavily into probes, gathering up enough science so that when I do go to land kerbals on the Mun or Duna it is in style with big realistic looking craft. I assume the more standard way of playing through directly with a more ramshackle kerbal crewed craft. I haven't tried to play through only using spaceplanes yet, but I'm not sure that will be possible unfortunately. And no more need to do 12 identical Mun landings to get all the science from every biome. Love the new balance where you can move through without having to repeat stuff you've already done several times. Love the new balance of biomes. KSP1 had way too many. Love the new style of grouping them based on what looks different rather than having different ones for several similar regions. Love the light story of the main missions. - One thing maybe could use a tweak though. As I was using probes, I was able to hammer them all out without any kerbal involvement. Not to say I want that removed. As I generally like leading the way with probes. But maybe after the main quest objectives of getting to the places, there could be an additional secondary quest to return a sample from the places, or send a kerbal to the places. Then the getting to the place main quest could be accomplished by a probe, and could even finish the whole main chain. But maybe the main quest part only gives half the science reward. The other half of the reward given with the secondary quest of returning sample or bringing a kerbal. Something good I noticed. I've gotten a couple bugs like a docking port refusing to undock, or a landing leg that thinks its deployed when it isn't and so the button is unresponsive. But unlike KSP1 where that would be permanent, all of these in KSP2 seem to resolve themselves after a save and restart. So still some bugs to work on, but only a minor annoyance where in KSP1 it would be devastating to some long missions. Stuff that wasn't good. Worst bug currently in my explore save, is the one where parts suddenly shift, either left or right or up or down. So a huge improvement over worse bugs. But still annoying. The part pairs that run the same experiment. On the whole, I like there being a choice. I like the Sci Jr vs Jr Jr, where later down the tree you unlock the smaller version. But some need balance. Why are both atmosphere sensors on the same science node, where one is significantly heavier to the other. Something that would be useful. - like the Grand Slam, I'd love to see the return of satellite mapping. A nice variant for an experiment, requiring a polar orbit. And it could display biome maps, and points of interest for investigating.

Yes it's strange. I had it happen almost a dozen times playing over the two days before the update. A couple times happening twice in a row. But since the update, I've played upwards of twenty hours in one exploration save and haven't had it happen at all. Despite running a very complex operation with lots of switching between craft and back and forth from the tracking station. Fingers crossed its better now. I've easily switched between vessels more times than in those days where I had it happen several times. Ok thanks. I'll check again. I looked for a report on it but was unable to find it. So far haven't had it happen since the update so maybe it's fixed or at least better.

Did a bit of testing this morning. Built a ship of one solo pod, three long small tanks, parachute, and swivel engine. Testing consisted of flying straight up, (throttling down to 50% through upper atmosphere to save fuel) immediately after passing 70km altitude, cutting engine and leaving ship. (Visually checking engine is no longer firing to confirm.) Then coming back to ship from tracking station. It happened on the very first test, returned to ship and throttle was at 100%. But tried six or seven more time and none of them reproduced it.