selfish_meme

I don't know why the fix does not work for you, I don't even know why you have it, I built an SLS alike Mun mission and had no wobble, I can only assume you guys must be trying to put some super heavy upper stages into orbit, come back to that sort of play once the devs have released some gameplay patches, make some smaller stuff. I know why rocket wobble happens if you want the explanation for that?

It is, they have already found a lot of code related to features that have been disabled, and then they had to put a facia on it to make it playable and release, so they have done a lot more work, and a they go they will fix and enable things

What is the point of this post, we should all not buy it? let the company go down and take KSP 2 with it? That would probably pretty much seal the coffin of any resurection and we lose a great game. Though it is flawed, and no one pretends it isn't, and there are structural issues, which exist because of choices (though I am not as sure any other game engine would handle those issues any better) and he is wrong about multithreading the game, especially because of the many physics joints, those calculations need serious computation and scheduling if they are done outside a single thread, and I am not aware of any game engine that would do that, they are just not built to handle what KSP does with so many parts connected with physics joints. There is probably research and engineering software that can do it. Still it is still what we have, and leading the peasants with pitch forks to the monsters house will not get us what we want. Even anyone defending the state of the game knows it has issues, but they also know we need to move forward to where we want to be

I've had Val's being thrown out of my plane regularly as I was flying

I have 22 hours (some of that may have been left on overnight one night) so far on the new game, I have not been dumped to desktop, had the game freeze on me or been unable to do what I have set out to do. Honestly it's been loads of fun so far and the bugs are very kerbal. Yeah, I can see if I set out in a ship that took me hours or days to build and I spent the hours or days getting it somewhere incredible to have it lose all it's fuel or be unrecoverable is frustrating. It happens in KSP 1 too, after a decade of development, whether they were a major studio or not if you could iron out these problems easily they would have done it. I see people misunderstand the underlying game mechanic of KSP and say Kerbal 1 errors are brought over. No this is new code, if KSP 2 has an issue similar to KSP 1 it's that they both model physics joint's between parts. I don't know another game that does this to the extent KSP does, especially the sheer number, 100's to thousands. It makes for wobbly rockets, things being ejected at light speed and the Kraken. It's what made Kerbal the game it is, probably the most realistic space engineering simulator game. It also made KSP 1 very CPU bound, KSP 2 is like a heavily environment moded KSP 1 which has finally started stressing the GPU too, the fuel system also is part of the physics. In KSP 1 it was having issues as well, years after release, it's easy to find the posts, as were part counts, which often went up and down according to the latest patch, or fairings glitching, wheels not working correctly, they had a whole release just around adding a new wheel plugin and then spent forever tuning it. I just flew to Duna in KSP 1 the other day as a farewell, had to wait for 15 minutes for my craft to stop sliding down a very minor slope. The nature of KSP says that the game is going to have these sorts of issues, it straddles the border of simulator and game. I think it's popularity derives from a dozen different things, but usually people call it crap for only failing whichever one they are most interested in. Take a step back, it's a game, it's going to get better, and probably more expensive, if you buy it now you are not getting ripped off, the fixes and features will eventuate, probably not all of them, you would have to be naive to believe that, but at least things like game modes (science etc), possibly interstellar. But mainly because it is a much newer base the community content is going to come for it. What the developers don't deliver the community probably will.

Edit: Hmm, I used the version of TU packed with TURD and it works, though the version numbers match the one installed by CKAN, so don't worry about below Hey, long time no chat! I am seeing this behaviour with coloring Fairings (always an issue) even the stock colors do not seem to work, and no shiny! This is without any mods except Modulemanager, TU and TURD, without TURD the stock colors work. Latest version 1122_TU_Stock_Recolour_v0_3_8 and latest MH and BG configurations. Shown is the 3.75m fairing, but all seem to have the same behaviour. LOG: [LOG 11:16:52.412] ERROR: TUPartVariant could not locate default or stored texture set data [LOG 11:16:52.412] TUPartVariant OnStart [LOG 11:16:52.508] ERROR: Could not locate TextureSet for MODEL_SHADER from global cache for the input name of: [LOG 11:17:05.586] Variant applied: Orange

Damn, your right , and i guess Making History is Saturn V era , I never really investigated the provenance of the Russian parts. Still Soyuz started in 1967....

I would really like the three "capsules" KV-1, 2, 3 reduced to one, with no ablator and the introduction of a new 3 person capsule that looks more like the proper Soyuz descent module, I can't understand why all the other Soyuz like parts where introduced but the utility module became a descent module, and the actual descent module was left out in favour of a three person globe with no flat bottom!

Pathfinder and Sojourner

Sorry about taking so long to reply, As with the guy above you have to come down back into the bowl, not over the top of the ramp, love the Mosquito aesthetic

I'm afraid that re-entry into the bowl didn't happen, check some of the other videos, you need to re-enter the bowl, not over the ramp, lovely fast plane though

Thanks I can't do anything with it right now, but you probably bought yourself some competition, by the way your plane looked very similar to my single engine one, but I could only get 190ms out of mine.

That is extremely cool, I'll try and update the list tonight, but well done. That's some engine, fast, low torque and parkable, I want it! Only for the Jet entries, because it is so easy to exceed 400m, you have to really try with the stock props to go over 400m so i will accept pictures of the main events.

Flew a good run, unfortunately crashed at the end for 28:37 including the 1m penalty, this was my first run with this plane and it performed pretty well, enough to clinch second place!