Immabed

This is just simply looking at how they are working right now. Pretty easy to tell if you do some complex maneuvers.

To get back on the original topic, I think we need to all change our understanding of maneuver nodes, the new system is ultimately more intuitive and better at predicting trajectories (current bugs notwithstanding). In KSP 1, the node assumed instantaneous change in velocity, so in practice it was essentially centred in the burn (though not completely, since decreasing mass as you use fuel mean the second half of the velocity change takes less time). This was simply a workaround for the node's lack of understanding of motion during the burn. In practice, if you start a burn ahead of the node, you never actually pass through the location of the node exactly, as your trajectory is altered ahead of the node, and depending on the burn this could be quite significant. I'm sure many of us can remember instances where our actual trajectory took us a bit into the atmosphere or otherwise did not match the presumed trajectory if you just look at the node itself, particularly when the burn itself was quite long in comparison to the period of the current orbit. The KSP 2 system takes time under thrust into account, so the node location marks the start of the burn, as that is the only time during the burn that you are actually on the pre-burn trajectory. Since the trajectory is calculated throughout the burn, the exit point of the burn should also be exact (assuming no bugs, perfect pointing, and precise burn start and end time), so your actual trajectory follows the planned trajectory basically exactly. This doesn't match with our intuitions of maneuver nodes in KSP 1, but it is fundamentally better for predicting exact trajectories, and immensely more useful for longer or lower thrust burns. For a simple circularization, you should be able to adjust the node to a bit before the relevant apsis, and find that you get better results then if you set the node right on the apsis, with the separation based on burn time etc. If I was new to KSP, and had no knowledge of KSP 1's node system, KSP 2's system would be much more intuitive. This is exactly the sort of fundamental improvement KSP 2 should bring, it is just unfortunate that this wasn't made clear to us, as it is leading to confusion (myself included, at first) due to the different implementation from KSP 1. The new system is also more realistic, as it accounts for the extended burn duration, and it makes more complicated calculations to improve accuracy. You would absolutely need to take these things into account for longer burns in real life, like for instance the initial planned trajectory of the DART mission which was to spiral out of Earth orbit on ion engines (but since Falcon 9 had the performance, it was launched on an escape trajectory directly). Now, for a suggestion: There is one aspect that I think deserves some possible attention, and that is burn direction. In KSP 1 in made sense that the burn direction was basically static, and if you strayed off course it would adjust to best approximate the initial trajectory. With longer burns expected in KSP 2 (I already did a 17km/s nuclear burn that I went up to 1000x timewarp for, ION would be worse), I don't know if that is the only valid option. Take for instance, a slow burn out of LKO, slowly spiralling out. The ideal burn direction is to always face prograde, since the burn itself takes several complete orbits of Kerbin. A static burn direction makes absolutely no sense for this type of slow escape, but I can easily see large interplanetary ships with ION propulsion needing such a burn. I don't know how you would implement that into the maneuver system, or how you would communicate it to the player, but I think it would be valuable. This of course also would require SAS to be able to work under timewarp, which it currently does not do. Even a slow escape burn that takes say 5+ minutes to get out of LKO to an escape trajectory would see deltaV gains if it could follow prograde rather than just a static burn in the initial maneuver node direction, which is something we already did in KSP 1.

I sent a Kerbal on EVA and ended up quite far away (I can't figure out how to find distance to target). Well outside of visual range anyways, likely 10's or 100's of km away. Kerbal and original vessel have the same velocity, but different (though similar) trajectories. Notable is that this is a vessel launched from Kerbin orbit on a trip out of the Kerbolar system, with a pass through the Jool system, so are 423d MET and several SOI changes. Haven't had this issue in Kerbin orbit or on the Mun. EDIT: Windows 10 RX 6700XT, i7-4790k KSP 2 v0.1 Mods: Spacewarp, Lazy Orbit, Custom Flags

Hmm, last night I was doing this, and I could get all three types soft docked, but not hard docked. Now I can get the Kane and MOS-DM hard docked, but still not the CADS (I'm using an active and a passive). Definitely, I went to the manual first, but couldn't find anything. On a side note, does anyone know of a mod with soft docking ports 2.5m+? These are fantastic (when they work). EDIT: I just got the CADS ports to dock in my test setup, but I've done the same thing many times? It is now consistently docking in my test setup. It seems to be that the docking port needs to be fully extended before coming into contact with the passive port. It seams that I was continually extending and then retracting after I attempted to dock.

Not sure if there is information on this somewhere, but I could not find any. I can't get the docking ports (all of them, Kane, CADS, and MOS-DM) to merge vessels, meaning I can't transfer crew/fuel, I can't timewarp etc. I can get the docking ports locked (Status: Locked, and physically and visually stuck), but they never join the vessels. Any help? Also, love the parts, they look fantastic.

It's like a babushka doll! Made me laugh I spent the day preparing a list of mods I want to install for a new 0.25 career save, it's currently 90 mods long. Installation will be fun... (And I sure hope Active Texture Management is as good as its reputation!) Well, I also launched a few rockets in stock, but while trying to complete some contracts I ran in to some bugs (the toolbar disappeared when I accidentally entered windowed mode) that led to an hour or so in google and the interiors of KSP.app (OSX). All in all, a lot of KSP, without playing much...

It was asked before, but is there deadly reentry support, or planned support? I know that for me it makes all the difference in whether I use it or not. As for the mod, I have been considering installing b9 because many of the stock plane/spaceplane parts aren't very good, and because I like cargo bays, but these parts do most of what I'd want with a fantastic stockalike (but much better) style. If it has DR support I'll be installing right away, and no matter what I'll be watching this to see how it progresses, because this is a part mod I am honestly excited about.

I've never really used an introduction section on a forum before, but I thought why not? So, I guess this is an introduction. I started playing over two years ago in version .13 (when Kerbal was free!) but never bought the game when they added a price. I stopped playing, but then when it was added to Steam a friend who I had played it with (Mostly in English class ) convinced me to buy it, and since I loved the game when it was free, I agreed! That was about a year ago, but I only started playing again in .23, and have been loving it! I was pleasantly surprised that I picked up the game again right away, and was still able to land on the Mun. I then got addicted to Scott Manley, and am now trying to figure out how to make sure all my mods are updated Since I've started using the forums for getting mods and picking up tips and tricks, I created an account (mostly to subscribe to mod threads, cause the search is aweful), and now I might even start frequenting here, since the community seems so nice! So I just want to say, thanks for making me seem so welcome, even before I have posted anything, and I hope we can share a long and rather deadly explosion filled future together.