Cailean_556

There will be a campaign/career mode - it's now being referred to as 'Exploration mode'. And yes, "Funds" are being dropped in favour of resources. Science is linked to tech progression, however how resources work and how we collect them - especially when in early game, when we have none - is well and truly anyone's guess at this point. How I see it working is that we start in a barebones, un-upgraded KSC - which is essentially our starting colony on Kerbin. Whether or not there will be others, or we can build others, is also anyone's guess. Though from Matt Lowne's interview with Nate and the dude whose name escapes me (used to be a modder, now works on KSP2), I get the impression there will be up to 4 KSC-type areas on Kerbin during Multiplayer so potentially, this will be mirrored across the Exploration mode. But I digress. Our initial tech will likely based on the same tech we start with in KSP1, though I would like to see a "pre-manned rocket" beginning (such as Sounding Rockets) - perhaps as an in-game "hidden tutorial" on managing craft and resources in Exploration mode. I'd also like to see more of a focus on unmanned flight first (mimicking our beginnings of space flight) before we start throwing Kerbals up there. We will likely be encouraged to explore Kerbin itself initially - to locate basic resources and to conduct basic sciences, allowing us to unlock more advanced technology and upgrade our facilities before the "space race" starts in earnest. I believe there will be a narrative interwoven into Exploration mode, to get us to focus on setting goals for reasons as opposed to "Let's just do this thing because we can" - I believe the easter eggs (such as the Mun arch) will play some part in this narrative. When we get to the Mun, we begin the process of exploration, survey, colony building and resource gathering - not all at once, we'll need to gather science data, acquire the technology and resources to support them first. Getting to the Mun and Minmus are the early game - we break into the mid-game with Duna and Eve... Though because of Eve's unique properties, I would prefer that maybe Eve was left for later. Before finally setting our sights on Dres, Jool and Eeloo - though, as teased in the trailer, I see Jool being a sort of end-game ship production area for interstellar vessels. I also think a Life Support-esque mechanic will play a part in KSP2 though, from what I've read in the Discord and such, it won't (or at least there'll be an option to) be life and death, but it will affect the Kerbal's performance (however it will work in KSP2) if their life support is low. Due to this, long duration manned missions will, or may, not be advised early - relying on unmanned probes, landers and rovers initially (again, mirroring our own space exploration). I suspect that, as we explore these planets - whether by orbital satellites, landers or rovers - we will come across unique sites/locations/points/areas we will need to research over time and discover unique resources to extract, necessitating the construction of colonies on each planet and moon we visit to continue these. For example, if the Mun arch does indeed play a role in a narrative in Exploration mode, then our initial "science" at/around/on the site gleans very little progress - yet when we visit with more advanced equipment and/or more often, and/or set up a colony devoted to studying this artifact we gain larger chunks of actionable 'science'. By the time we have the technology to go interstellar, I believe there will be a narrative reason - in addition to our desire to simply explore - for us to go to Debdeb (confirmed to be the first star system added). By this time, we will also have a number of colonies across the Kerbolar system and be extracting the various resources we need to build the rockets we want. From what I also understand, as we discover these resources we, as players, will initially need to do the heavy lifting to extract these resources however at some point we are able to automate these - though what that looks like I do not know. We will, eventually, be able to build ships in orbit, or at orbital colonies/space stations - so we'll need significant resources and automation to achieve this - especially given the scale of the interstellar ships we'll need to design and the sheer size of the parts we must attach to them. I'm like you, OP, I only play the career mode. I do have a sandbox game however I only really use that to test my career mode designs before I commit to launching them and it's what I let my kids play around in - where killing Kerbals and making expensive rockets doesn't affect my career game. So while Funds are going, I think what replaces it will be even better. In my opinion.

Yeah, the nodes are garbage at the moment. Especially when trying to circularise an orbit or when trying to do a TMI burn. Don't even try to do a rendezvous or docking... It does work sometimes, but not reliably.

What he means is, he's judging their position using his eyes - whereas with the engine plates in KSP1, there were 8 nodes around the edge and the central 9th one: no eyeballing needed. I'm not overly enthusiastic about this change either, to be honest, but part of that comes down to what I am and am not prepared to accept when it comes to symmetry in design. I'm actually hoping, later down the track, they add enginesinspired by the Raptor engine, the Starship Raptor-engine cluster and the 33-engine cluster from the Starship Heavy booster - I won't have need of engine plates then.

Kudos for bring up the Steam rules on EA games. Very interesting. However, considering it has been made widely known that the price will go up upon v1.0 release, I can see why some people may be treating this as a 'pre-purchase'. I don't see it that way myself, but I can see where they argument is in that. And you're right...Developer roadmaps do seem to contradict the "Do not make specific promises" (not just for KSP2 but for every game I have that has been in EA and provided a developer roadmap at some point in its development cycle). However I suppose a "roadmap", like a real map, is a guide on where to go - not how it's going to get there, or even if it will. Which is ominous in itself, really, if Take Two decides to pull funding before KSP2 is feature complete. However, as a sequel, I feel there is an unspoken, unwritten rule that KSP2 will expand, improve and go beyond the scope of KSP1 and players/fans are buying based on this unpsoken/unwritten rule. Like if KSP2 was about playing as a Kerbal on Kerbin with no ability to build rockets and such, as opposed to space, rockets and such...I would not have bought it, based on what can be done (both stock and with mods) in KSP1. I wouldn't say KSP2 is a tech demo. I also wouldn't say it's not a playable game. There's a playable game there, it's just not what some/all of us wanted/expected. To me, KSP2 right now (as of today) is KSP1 in 2011, but with better graphics and more stuff to build with. There's stuff to do (build a ship, get to the other planets, explore, try to have fun doing so in sandbox with no real objectives outside what you set for yourself) and to be clear, that aspect is fun to me but everyone has different definitions of 'fun' though. However I must admit even I've had to curb my expectations dramatically, and I didn't really have any outside of "KSP1 but better". I don't see any dramatic shifts in the roadmap of the features it promises to deliver, however I do see - based on feedback - an expansion or addition of features, primarily based off of what KSP1 does have, that KSP2 currently does not have.

Gone are the days when developers held more influence over the game's development and developers/publishers made good games for the sake of making good games for their customers to enjoy and keeping them happy and their reputation as developers/publishers intact. And it bloody shows, not just for KSP2. Obviously, if Intercept Games outright told us that Take Two Interactive forced them to release it in this state, there'd be some very swift backlash from the publisher - such as the "Oh no, we have to make some staff cutbacks...Oh no, we can't afford Intercept Games so we're shutting down the studio" type corporate BS. So they wouldn't do that, even if it were the 100%, provable-in-court truth because of the risk to their livelihoods and the franchise. I very much believe that Nate and most of the more active developers truly are fans and want KSP2 to succeed backed by the legacy and lineage from which it comes. You can see it in interviews when Nate drops his guard a little bit and gets very passionate, very quickly. However, on the back of that, this was slated for launch in 2020. It was then delayed - twice. What we're seeing here (in the EA release of KSP2) seems very odd for a game that has spent an extra 3 years in developmnent... What were they intending on releasing in 2020 then? Passionate people can sometimes be the worst kind of people to work for, or with. Especially when it comes to managing expectations or having to cut content they are passionate about. I should know, I am one of those passionate people (in a different discipline and work environment, but I can sometimes be a bit overbearing because of my passion - I will even go toe-to-toe with my bosses, and have to varying degrees of success, if I believe the compromises we make/paths we take are damaging/dangerous to our core product). The very real risk here is that, due to the consistently BS "Must make profit now for shareholders" mentality of almost every company means that Take Two may very well cut their losses, even if it is in the vicinity of $100 million. Companies these days, with only a few exceptions, are afraid of funding long-term projects or absorbing a loss despite the projected long-term success of a thing. The idiots in charge of Take Two don't care about established franchises, dedicated fanbases and keeping them reputable. They care about money and getting more of it as quickly as they can. So the OP is right in that if we starve this project of funding, they're likely to stop funding Intercept Games and KSP2 along with it. Conversely, if we fund it, we're also saying that releasing games in this state, after this long in development - after delays to improve the quality of the product - is okay, when it really kind of isn't... So then we, as the fanbase of a franchise devoid of the sequel we were promised but haven't been delivered, get out our pitchforks and light our torches. So we need to ensure that we start aiming it at the right entity: are we angry at Intercept Games for what could reasonably be assumed is "dragging their heels" on development (honestly...if this is what EA KSP2 looks like now, after an extra few years in development, what did they intend to release in 2020!?) or do we circle the wagons around Intercept Games and demand Take Two give them the time and funding they need to deliver the sequel we all non-verbally, universally signed on for in all its visually impressive, interstellar-spanning glory? I'm very much in favour of the latter, obviously, however the truth is always a three-sided sword: Your side, their side and the objective truth. I don't think Intercept Games is entirely innocent when it comes to the state of the EA release. But I know, based purely on gut feeling and an understanding of how publishers use legal contracts to the detriment of developers, that Take Two Interactive have pushed for a release to recoup losses already incurred from acquisiton and project funding so far. EDIT: Of course, Intercept Games could have been hamstrung by Take Two, and have done what they can with the funding they've been given - very rarely will the people with the money give a project the money they believe they need - "do more with less" permeates every level of consumer-based profit.

Okay... I have some good and some bad experiences in my first session of KSP2. I'll get the bad experiences out of the way first. BAD EXPERIENCES The new UI I will get used to it, but it rubbed me the wrong way just enough to make me want KSP1's control scheme back. Colours I love the fact that I can colour my rockets. What I don't like is that apparently the colour black is unobtainable on rockets. My chosen colour scheme is black and a brightish green. On the campaign set up screen, the colour appears black. Go into the VAB, my rockets are dark green and bright green. Go to change the colour, can't make it any darker. Change to blue, to see if that's darker. No, it's just dark blue now. Change to red - red appears darker than blue or green but the 'black' is still with a red tinge. I don't want a tinge. I wanted black. If I wanted a tinge of colour, I'd have made the colour more colourful than simple black. I can't drag the little colour circle any lower, nor can I tweak the opacity any higher/lower. I don't want a dark and bright green rocket, I wanted a black and bright green rocket. Delta V Colours aside, I expected there to be some differences in designs for rockets between KSP1 and KSP2 - 1. because the parts are different and 2. the values of engines have been tweaked, so I expected things to be different. I use a lot of 'Delta/Falcon-9' style influence in designing my rockets. That's probably not going to change in KSP2. However, what has changed is the dV read outs... And the way in which they're calculated. TWR in a vacuum? Burn time? Will 16,000dV on Kerbin equate to 16k dV on Eve? I don't know, because I can't check. Kerbals unable to re-enter their pods after EVA Got a Kerbal (Bill) into orbit. Decided to re-develop the orbiter I used for Bill into a Munar lander. Jeb's turn to shine. Lands on the Mun. I get him out and go for a quick jaunt on the Mun before decided to return to Kerbin. Enable the jetpack, fly up to the pod - the "Press F to Grab, press B to Board" options appear. Press F. Nothing happens. Press F again. Nothing happens. Press F repeatedly. Alternate F and B. Swear under my breath whilst pressing F and B. Nothing. Figure it might be because a part has somehow clipped the exit perhaps. Switch to Bill back in orbit of Kerbin - his orbiter has no attachments anywhere near what could be considered the exit of the pod. Get him out. jetpack around the ship for a few seconds, go to get back in. Options appear on screen. F. F... FFFFFFF... (Swearing) FBFBFBFBFBFBFBF... (Swearing). Haven't tried the other pods yet, maybe I'll do that next time I play. Fuel feeding BETWEEN tanks as opposed to INTO tanks when using Fuel Lines Classic 'Delta/Falcon 9' style 3-body rocket with an upper stage intended to be an orbiter. The outer tanks have the small, non-gimballing engine (LVT-30), the central has the gimballing LVT-45. Fuel line from the outer tanks to the inner. This works as I expected it to, or at least seemed to, as the staging seemed to go as planned (at least on the occasion I used it - we'll see if it works again when I try it next time. Made a beefier rocket of a similar configuration that uses a modified version of the orbiter as a Mun lander, added a medium orbit/TMI stage and used large tanks for the core/central body then mediums for the outers - outers are intended to feed the central tank and be jettisoned when empty. Has over 11,000 dV (more than enough for a Mun landing and return). Launch. Everything going well - sluggish on take off due to a TWR only slightly above 1.0 but we started to gain speed and altitude quickly. Keeping an eye on the staging information, notice that the tanks are draining equally. Not only that but it seems that, although the stage's dV is dropping, the tanks Methalox seems to be stuck in a loop: main tank is dropping from 50 units of LF (I thought this was going to be CH4 now?), down to about 45 or so then jumping back up to 50. Weird, but I let it ride. Notice my Apo is over 100km (my intended orbit) - I still have my side boosters and the core attached, and they all still have fuel - so I kill all 3 engines, with the stage information stating I still have fuel (around 1/3). I stage the boosters - my core stage has no fuel. Stage again. The orbital/TMI stage has fuel (as expected) so I use that to circularise and burn for the Mun without further issue. (EDIT) Fuel feeding BETWEEN stages I can't get this to happen consistently, but for some reason on occasion the rocket seems to consume fuel from the stage above it. Number of intended Mun landers have either been stranded on landing, or unable to even made a TMI from Kerbin orbit due to the stage below the lander/TMI stage taking its fuel. Jeb MIA when I go to switch back to him from Bill after seeing if Bill could return to the pod from EVA. After the whole 'being unable to get back in my pod after doing an EVA' thing with Bill, I position him in such a way that he won't float away (too far) from his orbiter and switch back to Jeb. Or I would have if he were still available. The Mun lander is still there - uncrewed, I might add - but Jeb is no longer selectable on the Mun. I didn't 'Return to KSC' or recover him - or destroy him by accident, he's just gone. Where? I assume he is One with the Kraken. Mun lander fell through the Mun Switch to the Mun lander on the surface. Or should I say, sub-surface. As soon as it loads, I notice I have a negative (and falling) altitude, the camera is, I initially think, clipped through the Mun's terrain however I very quickly realise it's the craft that's clipped and is now falling through the Mun. While this is a 'sandbox' and losing a craft in such a manner has no real consequences other than lost time and opportunity, and this is EA, this is the point at which I stop playing KSP2 to write this. (EDIT) Re-entry effects I know, and can understand, that the re-entry effects were disabled for the demo however why/how are these not in the base game at launch when they've been in KSP1 for almost a decade at this point and this game was delayed for several years in order to deliver a better product!? Yes, this is EA. Completely, totally understand. But energy usage is non-existent, re-entry/thermal effects/heat is non-existent. These aren't "nice to have" features, these are CORE features of a space/rocket simulation. Especially for the sequel of an already-established space/rocket simulation game. Overall Impression after my own hands-on To be honest, I'm a little disappointed. I don't mind the whole 'some features are missing' - there's still plenty for me to do right now. I'm not overly concerned about there being no science to do, as I understand that it probably needs a bit of a rework to cater for colonies and whatever else you have planned. But what I do care about is that what *IS* in this game *AND* KSP1 currently, I expect the *SEQUEL* to do as well, if not better than the original - straight off the bat. KSP1 currently does a few things better - mechanics wise. It calculates TWR per stage, for example. I can also assess how my craft will work in a vacuum in KSP1, something I cannot yet do in KSP2. The manoeuvre nodes seem to work better and I can see Apo/Peri information better in KSP1 when making nodes than I can in KSP2. Staging and fuel seems to work better. For a sequel, this currently feels like a step backwards from the original. Kraken and wobbly rockets I can live with. Or at least adapt to. Craft falling through terrain, after 3 years of extra development time, is not something anyone should expect - even in EA. Kerbals going missing without context as to why. Things that worked (as intended) in KSP1 don't seem to work as well or at all in KSP2. I know it's going to get better, and I look forward to the future developments, but if craft and Kerbals are disappearing and breaking or falling through terrain for no reason - why am I wasting my time? I want to play KSP2 to explore and progress (granted I can't progress like I want to - i.e. a career mode, but it is coming eventually), not have to keep going over the same old stuff because last 10 times I've landed on the Mun to explore, my ship fell through the ground and my Kerbal disappeared. I call that wasting my time, and time is a precious commodity for me to balance between my love of space/games/PC, my family and my partner. GOOD EXPERIENCES Graphics, sound, lighting, music, immersion. There's no denying KSP2 is beautiful and is only going to get better. Graphically, I'm lucky I have an RTX 3080. The sounds, in flight, in the VAB or just in general, are amazingly pleasant to my ears. Even with a lingering sinus infection currently. Lighting is equally amazing. Watching the sun's rays dance over my orbiting spacecraft as the sun 'rises' from behind Kerbin. Approaching the Mun, or going behind it and being encased in darkness. Loving it so far. Very pretty. Music. Normally, I turn this off. But I might leave it on, at least until I've gone to each planet and moon at least once. The music gives you a sense of awe, at least it does for me. Looking forward to finally getting to other bodies and hearing their unique music. Immersion. We can go more places with this, but what we have now is pleasing. The radio-chatter on launch, post stage, pre/post-burn, when we enter/exit an SOI. Liking it. Can't wait to see what IVA looks like and what other immersive elements you guys add.

I'd be okay with non-wobbly rockets - even more so with modular, orbitally constructed vessels. Like, if instead of using docking ports to dock parts together they used a "magnetic joint" - works the same way (i.e. you dock to it and it crossfeeds fuel, you just can't transfer Kerbals through them) however anything connected using these joints the game considers anything attached using them is solidly attached to the craft, moving as one part (not wobbling around fighting itself until the Kraken appears). And if the crossfeed is actually causing the FPS drops...I'm hoping that gets resolved sooner in KSP2s EA cycle than later - as EVERYONE is going to build rockets that require crossfeed - especially for lower stages.

I actually suggested this about a week ago on the Discord, so I'll add it here so it doesn't get lost. SUGGESTION: Mission Programs - Apollo. Pioneer. Gemini. Artemis. They're just an example of (US) multi-launch space mission programs. In KSP, whlie yes the entire game *is* a space program, we can't designate or create a mission program/series. Example: I create a mission program called 'Aurora'. The Aurora missions are intended to conduct manned Mun landings and exploration (the overall objective set by the player). Aurora 1 was able to land and conduct basic experiments before returning to Kerbin. I load up a craft complete with a lander and a rover that I have previously designed and assign it to the Aurora mission - it's automatically renamed 'Aurora 2'. The mission program tracks: the number of Aurora missions, the craft used for each mission, the crew of each mission and their staus (e.g. 'Assigned', KIA or 'Returned'), the cost (in KSP2 that would be *resource cost* as opposed to Funds as they are no longer in the game), the resources gained (if any - by way of mining and returning to Kerbin/a colony/offloading from an Aurora craft to any other craft, as an example), things like 'scientific gains' (once implemented), milestones achieved (and by who) during those missions (Orbiting, Orbital EVA, Landing - including tracking which biome they landed in, Surface EVA, scientific experiments conducted and resources mined as well as from what biome) and their success or failure. Success or failure can be determined by the player at the end of each mission flight. When a program is closed, the game keeps a record of these statistics for the player to review or reference later. Especially once we have a career mode, I think having something like this is both 'cool', is informative and allows us to gauge our successes and failures on our own terms and, can create discussion (and perhaps competition) between players. EDIT: Should also track each individual mission's duration and total program duration, how many Orbital and Surface EVAs were conducted per individual mission and overall.

While I can understand real-life studies debunking, or at least curbing our expectations of, metallic hydrogen-based fuels and engines...I don't see why they couldn't just add it anyway. Who's to say our little green friends didn't figure out a way to make metallic hydrogen work for them...or perhaps the Kerbal Workplace and Health and Safety authority are...less stringent...on occupational risks? In the mean time, I'm looking forward to wrapping my head around the uprated ion engine and the 4-nozzle SWERV - right after I tinker with a few Mun landers.

I got the impression, from what has been released and discussed in interviews and such so far, that while Debdeb is going to be the first new star system, and a (TBA named) star system is planned prior to the multiplayer update, they intend to add more. To the right of the 'Multiplayer' milestone is a very obvious quarter/fifth of a new development milestone 'box'. While the (very) partial image it contains is pixelated (at best), it does seem to imply that development is not stopping there. While I wouldn't expect a while galaxy of star systems to explore, it would not surprise me if either we got more than a handful of handcrafted star systems to explore and/or procedurally generated star systems ended up being a thing. Time will tell.

OBSERVATION/CONCERN: The Kraken. It lives (citing Scott Manley). Making large, long-range interplanetary ships using trusses is going to be a pain if the Kraken still lives. One of the major issues (at least for me and some of my new modular-truss ship designs) of trying to make ships using truss structures is that they bend and flex - even if strutted - or when under thrust, or (especially) when multiple reaction wheels are in motion - even if they're on the same plane of motion (I'm relatively new to modular ships built in orbit). Considering it would appear truss-based ships are actively encouraged in KSP2 (as we see several truss-style designs - including interstellar ships - in trailers), my concern is that while they are probably the most logical approach to deep space exploration missions if they're going to flex and wobble and generally be a frustrating mess (on account of Kraken attacks), what is the point of even attempting to build one if it's just going to randomly explode or twist into random shapes and break itself spontaneously? What is being done to address this issue to enable long, thin truss-based ship designs to be viable in KSP2?

I don't really see how the sparkle thing is *that* big, but everyone has their own unique visual preferences. As for the chatter, beeps and countdown - it's a nice little dip into immersion, more aimed at the kid in us (or actual kids, probably). I would imagine there must be a setting somewhere to disable it entirely, however you can also skip it (in terms of the launch countdown). Personally, the comms chatter is a welcome addition - makes the Kerbal universe feel more alive. I'm sure I'll probably disable, or at least skip, the countdown after the first couple days but for me the comms chatter will stay. Yeah, as soon as I saw it on Jatwa's screen I was like "We need that in stock, not as part of a debug console". I've often had to reference a m/s to mach conversion to get an idea of how fast I'm going so by having it under the Nav ball, near the Apo/Peri read outs or as perhaps one of the speed read out selections (Orbit, Surface, *Mach*, Target for example). As for walking around inside, if they made some parts interactive - like maybe gaining access to KerbNet or maybe a telescope you could mount to a ship in orbit to look down on a planet - it'd have some gameplay reason. Outside of that, just large modules/cockpits where you can IVA as the Kerbal and get out of the chair and wander around looking out the windows, perhaps even going EVA from IVA using an airlock, or something. Just adds that nice little bit of immersion, in my opinion. There are "bigger fish to fry" right now, obviously, so it's definitely a 'later' item if at all.

In addition to the above: SUGGESTION: Add 'Mach Number' to the flight read out/details for planets with atmospheres. I watched a video by "Jatwa" and, using what I believe was a debug/console window for aerodynamics, he was able to ascertain his Mach number. In the KSP1 (and KSP2, it seems) the speed read out only reads in metres per second. It would be nice, particularly when making/flying space planes or just for general info, to be able to see our Mach number while flying - especially on Kerbin, but could also work on other planets with atmospheres. SUGGESTION: This is for later down the track, however for space stations and larger craft with habitat modules/rooms/viewing areas... The ability to walk around inside these areas with our Kerbals. They could be, but don't have to be, interactive however it would be nice to walk up to a window on your station or ship overlooking a new world and seeing a sunrise from another planet's perspective... Cockpit views are coming but this is something a tad different - not needed for every part but ones that are large enough for a Kerbal to walk around in - would be a nice, immersive feature.

I didn't specifically hear that. Like I said, I don't have access to KSP2, I'm only going by what I see and hear from the YouTube creators. And the ones I watch didn't mention re-entry effects being turned off. If that's the case, then cool.

These are my observations/suggestions based on footage from KSP2 so far (I’m talking about “stock” KSP2 here – not using mods) and is more for consideration by the devs but commenting and generating discussion is also welcome - though I don't frequent the forums that often so any response directed at me might not be seen or answered quickly - apologies in advance: *note, I do not have access to KSP2 - my observations come from watching YouTube that content creators created during the ESA-hosted event a few weeks ago. SUGGESTION: Kill Velocity/Kill Rotation buttons – to quickly (less frantically) zero velocity and rotation when approaching vessels and stations. If Kerbal XP is going to be retained in KSP2, this would be a great function for 4/5 star Kerbal Pilots and higher-end probe cores. SUGGESTION: Match/Invert orientation – The ship matches or inverts its orientation based on it and its targeted part’s orientation. This would allow ships to dock “the right way up” every time and, in the event you’ve done a whoopsie, you can invert orientation to suit. This would also allow for “Interstellar-style” (the movie) docking sequences. You can, of course, still opt to manually dock to keep your skills sharp. Again, for higher-end probe cores and high XP Kerbal Pilots. SUGGESTION: Orbit/Docking auto-pilot – By pressing a button or activating a part, your craft conducts (or attempts to conduct) a flight into orbit OR conducts an automated docking sequence – could be limited to when within a certain distance and at zero velocity, or completely “hands free” (so a craft on the launch pad will launch, orbit as required and dock). High XP Kerbals and/or high-end probe cores could have this function. SUGGESTION: Manoeuvre Nodes/KSC Assistance – At higher levels (whether of Kerbal XP or KSC upgrades – assuming they’ll still be a thing, obviously), by targeting a craft or celestial object, you can plot a course to that object and the manoeuvre node system populates the required node/nodes to achieve the instructed manoeuvre, warning you if there are issues (such as not enough dV). This would also work for/assist with landing with pin-point accuracy (such as, for example, making a waypoint on the Mun’s surface and instructing a craft to land there – the manoeuvre nodes will calculate the velocity, angle and descent profile and provide the necessary target point to follow to land on/in close vicinity of that waypoint). The “fluff” of this could be that, if you are in contact with the KSC, the KSC staff assist in the rapid calculation of such high-precision manoeuvres – that or have a high XP Kerbal Scientist on board the craft. OBSERVATION: Textures, especially during the landing/landed phase of the Mun, need work. Stock KSP1 has better visuals for the Munar surface, particularly. Minmus looks -AMAZING- however the Mun looks objectively worse. EDIT: This may have been due to a rendering issue with a content creator's PC (Matt Lowne) as other creators had far better visuals for the Mun surface. OBSERVATION: I didn’t see any re-entry effects in what has been shown. These had better be epic… EDIT: Apparently re-entry effects were disabled for the demos. However...I still maintain they had better be epic. OBSERVATION/SUGGESTION: Weather events on Kerbin/other planets with atmospheres (such as dust storms on Duna and cyclones on Eve, for example). I'm focusing a lot on automation as there should be some reward (especially in career/Exploration mode) for having high XP Kerbals and/or unlocking higher-end/tech probe cores. KSP1 has *some* of this functionality (none of the above, not truly, though) with more advanced probe cores and experienced Kerbal pilots being able to track the various points (prograde/retrograde/target etc). This does not stop or prevent the player from doing these tasks manually however it does allow for automation of tasks players are going to do most often – and enables access for players that may not necessarily be as good as others in that regard. Now you might argue that KSP2 then becomes a "button pushing simulator" however, if these features are unlocked as part of a career mode, or when a Kerbal has high enough experience, then the player will have to work for these utilities, and that work should be rewarded accordingly. For me personally, it’s about saving me time and allowing me to enjoy the visual spectacle of watching my ship achieve orbit or dock (or land) instead of missing that due to concentrating on the actual task. Not that the task at hand isn't also exciting in itself, however sometimes I'd just like to step back and enjoy the view. Without needing a million (slight exaggeration) mods. Thank you for reading.

I've actually used SRBs a lot more in 1.0.2, same with the LV-T45. Though I guess I could now counter the inability to steer with the new Tail Fin (already in use on my Calliope IVc). Most of my LFRs are designed like the Falcon 9 (Calliope is the exception) - three tanks/engines side by side to get something into orbit and a smaller stage to keep it in orbit. I then scale that up as required based on payload and mission. I have found that SRBs seem to be a lot heaiver, but I haven't gone back into an older version to check the weights but 4 Kickbacks are heavier than 4 LFRBs which consist of 3 x FL-T800, a LV-T30 and a nose cone. Having said that, 3 Kickbacks fired at the same time fall short of 2,500m/s in atmo...was trying to break the hypersonic barrier. Made Mach 7, but couldn't squeeze and extra +/-100m/s out of it.

Great... You broke physics... That is pretty weird though...how'd you manage that!?

So, it turns out - in all the excitement - I actually forgot to disclose information about a few purpose-built rockets - the Joyride I and II and the X-Type and QX-Type. The X-Type is a manned experimental rocket that is purpose built to achieve the mission objective(s) set out by a given contract. It is one of only two craft that does not receive a version designator with every change. The other is the QX-Type. As some of you might suspect, the QX-Type is a drone/probe craft - it has the same function as the X-Type however with the benefit of being expendable. The Joyride I and II are hybrid probe/manned craft that are typically used to fulfill Kerbin suborbital (Joyride I) and orbital (Joyride II) tourist contracts. The current models can only support one passenger, later models will obviously house more as required. My second manned mission to the Mun, Munar 4, was successful and has returned safe and sound. Valentina has expressed her desire to "do it again" and a contract was recently accepted which requires a manned mission - planting a flag. Jebediah, in the Blue Rock 1, has also successfully landed on Minmus. This was done, oddly, without a contract. I am hoping that, due to the fact I only recently fulfilled the "Fly Past Minmus" contract, that an "Explore Minmus" contract will be offered upon the return of the Blue Rock 1. If not, I have missed out on some funds and possibly some science however I could not justify the cost of launching a capable lander only to do a fly by and return. I have also unlocked two new tech nodes - Space Exploration and Aerodynamics. I modified the Daedalus I to equip either a satellite or a probe (satellite orbits, probe lands - satellite has "space only" experimental instruments: currently only thermometer, while the probe features the Barometer and the Thermometer). As both types use the same launch vehicle, they are designated Daedalus Ib and Daedalus Ib-L (signifying "Lander"). The original 'new' models (the Ia and Ia-L) had some minor issues in relation to the fairings (not being able to detach the satellite from the rest of the craft, an oversight on my behalf) however after some minor adjustments Ib and Ib-L are both quite capable of Mun (and therefore Minmus) missions. The Mun is now home to MunSat 1 and MunProbe 1 - MunProbe 1 landed in the Eastern crater approximately 22.6km North West of the 2nd Munar Landing site. Once Blue Rock 1 has returned, I expect MinmusSat 1 and Minmus Probe 1 will be launched, followed by further manned missions to both the Mun and Minmus in order to generate both funds and science. The intent is to upgrade the R&D labs, developed a space vehicle capable of taking multiple Kerbals into space, the Mun and Minmus and also to begin construction of BKOS, which will in fact be a long term, evolving project. All of this is intended to be done PRIOR to any manned (not ruling out unmanned) missions to planets outside the local Kerbin area. I was also thinking today that it would be a nice touch to designate missions and assign personnel and craft to them, and possibly assign mission patches to the kerbonauts, as well as set and track the objective(s) of the overall mission and each individual flight (like the Apollo missions). Such as my 'Orbiter' series of missions, where the objective was to achieve orbit and remain in orbit transmitting science data until battery power was nearly depleted and returning to Kerbin. The program could track each craft assigned the mission, how many days the mission was active, the crew assigned to the mission, whether or not the set objectives were achieved...that sort of thing. My 'Munar' missions are obviously related to the Mun, and 'Blue Rock' to Minmus. I'm thinking 'Red Star' for Duna missions... Thinking 'Nightshade' for Eve, on account of it being purple, like the flower, and it being called 'Eve' - like 'evening'... But, one thing at a time... Time to recall Blue Rock 1 and plan the next set of missions! Cailean_556, out.

Admittedly, I started late in the piece. I only just recently got back into the forums after a few YEARS (time flies) and after playing around with the new career, decided to share my musings with you. This will be presented in a semi-serious, semi-role playing fashion in that I am not an employee in any field of aerospace, the owner/director of any real life space program nor am I a <1m tall green humanoid that may or may not have evolved from amphibians...at least that's what my mother said to me last time we spoke...she didn't but, if she were to speak of such things to me, I imagine the answer would be thus...I hope... I digress, how hard is rocket science anyway? As I said, I started this late. I am well into the first (R&D Building) tier of research. I have 5 x 90 point tech nodes to go (being: Aerodynamics, Propulsion Systems, Advanced Flight Control, Space Exploration and Miniaturization). I have upgraded my VAB, Mission Control, Tracking Station, Runway and Launch Pad. I have lost 1 Kerbal. Bob Kerman. He died in a freak "Liquid Fuel Booster 45 degree side-ways landing at 87m/s" accident. Being an engineer, I figured he would know landing several tons of highly explosive, flammable material sideways at reasonable velocity would end badly... I guess Bob skipped "Sound Judgment 101" in Kerbal University. A (hopefully) lasting monument to his sacrifice will be constructed eventually - the Bob Kerman Orbital Station (BKOS). It will be the go-to station in Kerbal orbit - I plan on having it orbit around 150k-200k. It will be used for science(!), refuelling and serve as a docking point for shuttles and any rescue vessels that happen to be needs up there. His replacement, Jesise Kerman, has conducted several suborbital flights but has yet to reach orbit. She may not be part of the original team but she is a very keen engineer. I codename my rockets. The codename corresponds with a letter of the alphabet and a roman numeral from I to X. Minor variations and enhancements are reflected by adding a lower case letter after the type designator (e.g. Apex Vd - a 3 stage orbital rocket used to relay orbital experiments to Mission Control, i.e. purpose build for sending crew reports for contracts) So far, I have the Apex, Brimstone, Calliope and Daedalus series of rockets. The Apex are sub-orbital/orbital rockets. The highest version made thus far is the Apex Vd series. Production and use of the Apex Vd had been suspended due t the introduction of satellites for orbital science report collection/transmission. The last of the Apex Vd missions, Orbiter 7, was manned by Valentina shortly before her selection for the lead to to Munar 4. The Brimstone series was designed to be a suborbital science collection vehicle capable of reaching the poles (for arctic research). So far, the Brimstone Ia is only capable of becoming uncontrollable at high altitudes and speed and has since been put on hold. I do intend to revisit that series again, probably not for suborbital science however - maybe Duna instead. The Calliope series is my current workhorse. The Calliope I was designed when I still hadn't upgraded the VAB as a craft capable of making a pass of the Mun. It failed. The 19.5m tall 41.6t Calliope II was able to successfully make a pass around the Mun. It is the vessel attributed to saving the space program. The even larger Calliope III, standing 20.6m tall, weighing in at 92.8t was more than capable of assisting an orbital craft reach the Mun. The Calliope III launcher used a 'Skipper' engine for the core transit stage with two 'Kickback' SRBs. Orbit was achieved using a 'Poodle' engine and a X200-16 tank to provide the fuel. The Calliope III's focus was the collection of orbital science by way of experimentation. It was unable, nor intended, to be remain on station for extended periods. Only 1 Calliope III mission was ever launched. The ease of success of the Calliope III launch platform lead to it being adapted for use as the core stages of the Calliope IV. While the core stage remains the same, both the lander component and the boosters differ. Boost assistance is provided by 4 custom-designed liquid fuel boosters (LFB's - 3 x FL-T800's stacked with an LV-T30 engine, topped off with an aerodynamic nose cone). These are affixed to the core stage and set to be discarded via 'asparagus' staging. By the time the 'Skipper' is jettisoned, the craft is set for a 110km orbit and peaking at 1800m/s prior to coasting. The 'Poodle' is used to circularise and provided main thrust for Munar transit. The lander is an enhanced combination of the Calliope III Munar orbit vehicle (outfitted - obviously - for landing). It has two side mounted, jettisonable FL-T400 tanks linked to the central FL-T400. It is powered by an LV-909. It features 4 LT-1 landing struts. While the original model launched flawlessly, it was a rather heavy 111.3t craft that stood 20.8m tall. It was also unable to remain on (or in orbit of) the Mun for any extended period. Jebediah became the first Kerbal on the Mun piloting the lander, mission callsign' Munar 3'. Munar 1 and 2 were orbital flights only. The Calliope IVa was intended to fix that issue with the addition of solar panels. Calliope IVa, piloted by Valentina, launched as normal however upon jettison of the first boosters was destroyed after booster struck, and destroyed, the main engine. Valentina was forced to eject to safety. Calliope IVb was intended to fix issues suffered by the Calliope IVa by adding stability enhancers however it suffered the same fate upon jettison of the first boosters and again Valentina was required to eject. The current Calliope IVc is a slightly more enhanced version of the Calliope IVb. The main difference is the positioning of the radial decouplers to be more central on the LFBs. Valentina Kerman is now currently conducting a Munar excursion in the East Crater aboard the Munar 4 lander. Jebediah Kerman has since been selected for a new mission utilising the Calliope IVc. 'Blue Rock 1' is intended solely to make an orbital pass of the Mun prior to orbit and landing. Management is considering hiring another pilot who can, for the time being, focus mainly on conducting orbital flights with Bill Kerman and Jesise Kerman. The Daedalus series has been desiged to place a satellite in LKO, and the Daedalus I has been proven with the launch of the newly christened K-Sat. The K-Sat provides data transmission to surface facilities. Pending the outcome of the Blue Rock missions, an improved long-range version of the Daedalus may be developed, allowing for Munar and Minmus mission profiles. Thanks for reading, tune in next update!

For someone new to the game, I can see why they'd be asking this question. I'm no KSP God, I still can't eyeball a successful Munar intercept, but I can freehand a reasonable Kerbin orbit. I know people - people I consider smarter than me - that have had (and some still are having) difficulty even maintaining an orbit. This learning curve can be easily rectified by watching some Youtube vids or even playing the tutorials (though I never did...except for docking, and the Mun flight: to see if anything had changed dramatically in 1.0.2. With the ability to customise your difficulty settings, you can minimise the penalties and maximise the rewards but the stock 'Easy' mode could be considered 'difficult'. Getting science is perhaps my only gripe really and it's not even really a gripe, you can get enough to get you going if you know how/where to go about it (and with what tools). I feel that the newly revised strategies (especially for science) don't provide enough incentive to use them early-game, as getting a yield of 1 science for every 12,000 funds is in most cases a negligible result for early contracts until you start visiting other planets - getting to the technological point where such missions (with return) are possible can feel like a bit of a grind. I rely on unmanned craft to conduct most of my planetary survey/temperature readout type missions, as well as testing experimental designs: the risk of losing a kerbonaut is too great, given the cost of hiring new Kerbals. (I think the cost could be randomised based on their courage and stupidity myself but I don't mind the current exponential-type increase). Poor Bill... Maybe landing a liquid fuel booster at a 45 degree side-ways angle doing 87m/s was a bad idea... Being an engineer, he should have known that... He will be remembered when the "Bill Kerman Orbital Station" (BKOS) is launched and operational... His replacement, Jesise Kerman, has yet to go to space but she will...in due time...

Give a brick enough thrust and it will fly, aerodynamics and physics be damned!... Is that all stock? I don't use mods or try to clip parts so I dunno... Also, I'm not that far into either of my new games to SSTOs are still a ways off for me. The wing configuration is different however it does bear some resemblence to the Skylon... Maybe that helps? How does it go during re-entry? I've yet to see a successful SSTO landing on Youtube - though I only really watch Scott Manley and some EnterElysium. It's kinda put me off any large-scale craft until I get the gist of re-entry. I've only just made it to the Mun and planning a Minmus mission as we speak.

Squad, I am nothing short of thoroughly impressed with how KSP has evolved. v1.0 is an impressive leap forward. Yes, there are some bugs I believe the QA team should have identified in the Experimentals phase, but on the whole compared to 0.90 it's practically a whole new game. I'm in a love/hate relationship with aerodynamics, but I've learnt to adapt my previous designs to suit - the LVT-45 sees much more use in my rockets now (due to its gimbal). Science is now much more difficult to acquire and the science focus in the Admin building has been re-scaled (which initially caused me to have to rethink my strategy early-game). I've yet to set foot on the Mun, I'm trying to perfect the acquisition of science early-game without losing a Kerbal so I keep deleting and restarting a career... I have big(ger) plans for space stations (which I was never really a fan of as I'm rather unskilled at orbital docking procedures, but getting better...ish...) this time around. I am disappointed that the QA/Experimentals team didn't identify that the heat shield causes pods to flip...you'd think that occurence would have been among the first things identified. If it wasn't an issue for the team, I'd like to know how they were able to conduct re-entry nose first with a heat shield. Anyway, my first post in erm...a few years...so good job overall guys, just some minor polish required.

I have this problem in my current game when landing on the Mun. I have noticed an increase in HVE (High Velocity Ejections) since 0.25, as I've never used to have this problem. I landed my most complex lunar lander (complex in terms of staging) on the Mun without a hitch. Plenty of fuel to get back. Figured I should do the whole "Let's get out and take some samples and plant a flag or something" thing. I should not listen to my inner Munar surface explorer... Not only did my poor little Kerbal (JEB!) get HVE'd, the game screen goes to black. I press ESC, return to the space centre - still a black screen with only the exit button and a couple other bits of HUD displayed. Quit out of the game, restart and my X-05 lander is doing 4km/s away from the Mun - in pieces - with poor little Jeb MIA... If this is how my manned missions are going to go, there's no point - I can achieve the same effect with unmanned misisons and a butt-load of 'Transmit Data from Orbit' contracts... Very sad panda...

I didn\'t know about KSP until about 12 hours ago at the time of writing this. However as I typed in \'latest space sims\' into google, a heading caught my eye... \'Kerbal Space Program\'. I click on it, go to the website, watch the youtube video and 60 seconds later I\'m downloading it. While obviously still an alpha, this game has impressed me. Something easy to pick up, hard to put down. Look forward to the implementation of more features but other than that, well done dev team. Cailean.