shdwlrd

I agree with mcwaffles2003, that's your interpretation. I'm not taking it literally. Most commercial pilots fly their planes, but spend most of the cruise portion on autopilot supervising. Hell, most commercial aircraft can land themselves at appropriately equipped airfields. Harvester never answered questions about how you have to play KSP. He only describes what he wanted KSP to be. His refusal to answer how KSP should be played showed he didn't care how you played KSP, as long as you're playing and enjoying his creation. I remember him chiming in on some of the weird and cool creations players had made that had nothing to do with space. I know he was always impressed with the creativity of the KSP community, whether it had to do with space travel or not. The reason why an autopilot was never added to KSP1 was because it was out of scope. But that was Squad. Intercept can do whatever they like with KSP2, and they are. It's been said many times that there will be changes in KSP2 from what was in KSP1. (And I don't mean just cosmetic changes either.) I'm hoping that some of the changes will take the most difficult tasks and make them easier to complete without the use of autopilots. And as a I explained to Aziz, that is the root cause of my issue. You should be able to see exactly what your flight situation is by a simple picture of the UI. And as you said, the camera isn't helpful at times and locking it doesn't help when you can't tell which direction is considered forward on the craft. (Plus the camera will also drift on you even if it is locked.) Completely agree with that. That's why in the helicopter sims I've played they had gauges that showed you your side slip and angle from prograde. Doesn't help on the dark side of a planet. Nope, I've never been able to properly judge distance in a third person view. (I even have problems with the platforming sections of the Lego games because of that.) I normally play sims in either a cockpit or forward (in front, or bumper) view. We all know that the IVA view is useless since you can't get the angles you need to see. There is no forward camera in KSP. So I'm perpetually at a loss with my spacial awareness in KSP.

Where did harvester say that automation wasn't intended nor wanted for KSP? When did Intercept that autopilots won't be allowed in the game?

I'll base the name after the planets they are on or are orbiting.

It's the first true Kerbal re-engineering of the gravitic engine. Awesome.

The thought is the initial buildings of your colony would be akin to setting up a base using Pathfinder. You will start small inflatable or flat packed buildings that require small amounts of resources to setup. From the starting buildings you can start processing resources to construct the larger permanent structures.

Maybe because I can't capture video? Maybe because I don't want to spend forever uploading a video? Maybe I don't care to join a service to host a video? Maybe the image has all the information I need to show my point. Again, my point is there's nothing telling me which way the craft is moving. All that's showing is that there is motion, but not direction of motion. So you couldn't take a picture of an airplanes instrument panel or flight data and not tell what the plane was doing at that moment in time? What's the point of a flight data recorder then? If I hidden the UI, you would have a valid point, but the UI is up and showing almost everything that is happening in the moment. It doesn't matter what I see outside of the craft, the instruments are not telling me what I want to know. Your eyes can lie to you. The camera in the wrong alignment to the craft will give you false information.

@Bej Kerman If your such an expert, which way am I drifting? I'm using TCA to hold my vertical velocity at 0. So the velocity shown is my horizontal movement. You can't tell in a screen shot. That's the problem I have. If you were able to tell in a screen shot, you would be able to help yourself and be able to easily control your horizontal velocity. The whole point of my argument is that there needs to be something on the navball or somewhere on the screen that shows the direction of the transitional velocity of your craft. Preferably marking whatever your control scheme is. In this case an arrow with WASD (or IJKL if RCS is active) so you know which way you have to pitch (translate if RCS is active) to cancel your movement.

Any vacuum body. In an atmosphere, I will use chutes, or a plane. Kind of hard to do when there are multiple motors.

No. That's not the issue. I was using a purposely built lander for the Mun. This specific lander had 900 dv with 200 tonnes of payload. I was using it on the Mun and Minmus. The typical payload landing was 20-50 tonnes. The average dv was about 2800 dv. So no, fuel wasn't a problem. Neither was the TWR, I had the motors tuned down to a TWR of about 1.6 at full throttle. The problem is using a keyboard as your primary way of control isn't precise enough to control the throttle to hover. Every tap would change the throttle 3-6% when you only need 1-2% change in the throttle position. The other problem is the inherent drifting that craft will do. I can't see what direction I'm drifting and the navball is useless. 1 m/s horizontally is more than enough momentum to tip a lander. So without something to indicate the direction of drift and what key you need to press to cancel the drift, I will never be able to land the precisely.

Look man, you keep saying it just takes practice. I've spent almost very weekend and days off from 2016-2019 using different mods to build bases. Every time I had to land a component, it would take me 3-7 tries to land successful. And I don't mean on target, I mean just getting to the ground without crashing. It wasn't until Angel-125 released KFS I started to be able to land reliably and on target. Why did KFS help you may ask? The reasons are that I could slow down my decent to a pace where I could figure out what was happening and correct any mistakes without worrying about dv, I could automatically hover and cancel any horizontal motion. So no, this isn't a skill I'm going to just get good at with practice. This skill I need actual instruction or something to tell me what I need to do and when to do it.

But I get into orbit 99% of the time on my first attempt. I crash while landing 90% of the time on my first attempt. It usually takes me at least 3 attempts to land. To quote myself... These are my reasons why I can't master this skill in KSP. And these are the solutions that helped me in other games. Why are these not considered valid solutions in KSP?

Everyone here keeps saying landing is easy. It's not. Whether it's in real life, simulator training, or a game, landing is difficult. You may get used to doing it, but that is muscle memory. It's a skill that you may learn, but it doesn't get any easier. (How else do you explain profesional pilots with hundreds of landings under their belt do hard landing every now and again?) How to you learn such a critical skill when there's nothing telling you what you're doing wrong before it's too late? How do you get better without critical information being displayed to you? Some people can learn a skill by trial and error, some can't. Some people can tell where they are in a virtual 3d space, some can't. Some people can figure out what is happening by just seeing it, other people need to feel it too. There needs to be more than a simple "X" to help you land. There should to be a marked path to follow. There needs to be more than a simple nondescript timer reaching zero to know when to burn. There should be a large visual indicator to know when to burn. The only automated part of all of this should be calculating the landing deorbit burn. As I mentioned earlier in the tread, there are a bunch of variables that you have to account for to land precisely where you want to. Oh, and all these tools should be available from your very 1st mission. There's no instructor to help you, so the earning the right to use a tool is a BS mechanic that will limit the usability, the learning potential, and enjoyment by the player.

It's been speculated that an fuel/resource switcher will be stock from the earliest days of KSP2. If you look at the original ships used, they are using the same 1.25m and Mk2 parts showing a LFO, metallic hydrogen, pure hydrogen engines. It was speculated that Intercept will have to trim down the parts carried over from KSP1 considering all the new parts that will have to be added to KSP2. A rough guesstimate is that adding fuel switching you can reduce the number of tanks from KSP1 to about half. If you add a part scaler too, you can reduce the number of tanks by about 80%. The same can be said about the structural parts too. As you can see, it would be advantageous to add fuel/resource switching and part scaling from the very start of the project.

The only thing that made MKS complicated was the lack of documentation both in and out of game and the different resources that did the same thing. Once you figured out the production chain, it wasn't too bad. (Had to look at the configs to figure out what did what.) Only 1-2 intermediary products required from raw resource to finished good to complete the chain.

@K^2 @Pthigrivi if you look at Pathfinder, MKS, ELP, Ground Construction they have reasonable production trees associated with them. They work well until you reach a point where all you're doing is moving resources around. At that point they fall apart. That's a KSP1 limitation. In KSP2, moving resources around shouldn't be a limitation. In my opinion if the devs take inspiration from the mods I mentioned above. I believe they can come up with a system that is complicated enough to where you have to put some thought into it, but simple enough so it doesn't feel like it rules the game.

Unnamed craft

I like this idea. If not like a ScanSat style map in the flight scenes. It could be done in the tracking station at the KSC or an equivalent building at a colony.

This. Not everyone has the time or patience to perfect landings. In vacuum I consider it good being at least 250m away if landing manually. If I need to be closer, I use TCA. In atmosphere, forget it. I'll just pop chutes and land wherever I land.

Random failures won't be a thing in KSP2. That was set from the beginning.

@Bej Kermando you land at your target first try every time? Eventhough I've been playing since KSP was released on Steam, it still takes me a few reloads to manually land a rocket where I want it. Even the streamers admit it can take them multiple reloads to land where they want. So no, landing isn't easy nor as intuitive as getting to orbit.

It's not working with the current version. The last KSP version it was working with was 1.10.x.

They don't account for the wanted angle of your descent nor the rotation of the body you're landing on, nor if there is an atmosphere present. There's too many variables that you have to account for manually before you even do the burn. That's the point I'm trying to get to. It would be easier to select a target and descent profile, then have the maneuver setup automatically based on that. When you're descending, you're given a track you have to maintain. When you're close to landing, all the info you need is easily displayed.

You would think that's enough. In my experience, I also need to be told when to start the deorbit and suicide burns and which way I'm drifting horizontally. If I don't have that info, I'll either crash, miss my target by a huge margin, or use more than 3x the DV than is actually required.

The devs have already said they are going to implement a system that you can thrust while on rails and unfocused.

It wouldn't be necessary for PC players. All you will need to do is turn the music to zero and fire up your favorite music player. Tada, your own soundtrack.