AVaughan

Something I try to do, that might help you is to either disabling autostruts before docking, or alternatively make sure that I'm only using autostrut to root.

In no particular order: Bradley Whistance https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ID7Ybh-NRY ; Stratzenblizt75 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT2Fggr_LWQ ; NathanKell ; and Scott Manley.

I'm slightly surprised that the vacuum Raptors won't gimbal. If everything is working properly, that isn't an issue. They can use either differential throttle and/or rcs for steering during burns, assuming all three engines are operating. But if a vacuum raptor were to fail that would only work if the vacuum Raptors are aligned through the centre of mass, and not parallel to the hull. Aligning them through the centre of mass would mean a tiny cosine loss (probably negligible overall; it might even be smaller than the dV gained from the weight savings from a lighter engine that doesn't gimbal) but would also mean that they couldn't use differential throttle to steer, and would have to rely to rcs. Source? Also were those studies for 6-8 month trips, or for 2-3 year trips?

With a pressurised volume of 1000 cubic metres you could give everyone a personal "cabin" of 1.5m x 1.5m x 2.25m = 5.0625 cubic metres (5 foot x 5 foot x 7.5 foot) and only use about 50% of that volume. Not a lot of space for a private cabin, but enough to sit/lie down/sleep/stretch/read/watch tv or a laptop plus store some personal possessions etc. I'm not sure whether the remaining 50% of pressurised volume would be enough for life support, food storage, and communal areas like kitchen/dining areas, bathrooms and exercise equipment though. (Although presumably not everyone will do everything simultaneously, so they don't need a 100 person dining room or gym).

But you now can't put inactive vessels on rails. So what will happen if a player does a duna mission, and leaves the Kerbin return vessel in orbit whilst they switch to another vessel whilst waiting for the Kerbin return transfer window? Ike will tug on that orbit every orbit, and sooner or later it is likely to distort the orbit enough that the return craft either enters Duna's atmosphere or Ike's SOI. Not fun if you want players to have multiple missions/space stations in play at a time (except perhaps for the really hardcore players, who will happily use mods if the mod gives them something they want that vanilla doesn't).

Use a small diameter liquid Oxygen tank right in the nose (as far forward as practical), then a larger diameter liquid methane tank right behind that. That way you can use space that is probably unsuitable for cargo, as it is likely to be forward of the cargo hatch. Assuming Starship's total tank volume stays the same, then you aren't losing much available cargo space, just rearranging it. (Your aft tanks will be smaller, since the total available tank volume is the same. Also if they have room for 150 tons of passengers/supplies/life support, then I suspect they will have more than enough space for 150 tons of satellite(s) anyway).

If you assume that Starship will sometimes re-enter and land empty, and at least occasionally re-enter with a significant mass of cargo, then having fuel storage in both locations even on the production version should make it easier to control the centre of mass. Indeed I think that is part of the reason for the addition of aft cargo storage (that way they can distribute some of the cargo mass aft of the COM, and not have it all forward of the COM). Being able to store landing fuel either for and/or aft should give them more flexibility to design starship to re-enter, flip and land with varying cargo loads and distributions.

Mechjeb's PVG ascent guidance works pretty well for me most of the time. (RO/RP-1). eg my last ascent target orbit: 150km x 900km @ 68 degrees. Actual 150,000m x 900,004.9m @ 68.00003 degrees. (It did kill the second stage a smidgeon early, and burnt a bit of rcs to raise apoapsis to 900km. But another gametick from the second stage would have probably resulted in an even larger error in apoapsis, so that was probably as close to optimal as it could get given KSP's 20-50ms gametick).

I haven't played JNSQ yet, but personally I think the stock game has too many biomes. Lowlands + midlands + highlands + poles/icecaps and maybe a crater/canyon biome sounds much more reasonable to me.

It not. But $60 USD probably is the defacto price for AAA titles. https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/b7ch82/when_did_60_become_the_standard_price_for_aaa/ . Indie titles tend to be cheaper. (But not always. There are also some hard-core games with that will only appeal to a small market segment that sometimes go for significantly more, even though they definitely aren't AAA. eg https://www.matrixgames.com/game/war-in-the-pacific-admirals-edition). But ultimately you get to spend your money as you wish. Personally I will hold off buying KSP 2 until after release, and after I have seen some reviews/let's play videos. Possibly I will even wait until it gets some patches and maybe goes on sale. (I haven't spent more than $20 USD on a game in years. Whilst I expect I will get plenty of value out of KSP 2, I also have other games I want to spend more time playing, so unless the reviews/let's play videos are exceptional, I'll probably be in no rush to purchase).

Stratzenblitz75 built a 3 part rocket that reached Kerbin orbit with around 3200 m/s of fuel remaining. That is enough to achieve virtually a stable orbit around Kerbol that any distance that you the patience for.

That would still be problematic. Firstly most people wont read the mod descriptions. Of those who do read them, many will probably ignore/forget that detail. But most importantly, Steam will insist on update the mod before letting you launch the game. (Sure you can work around that by turning off your internet, but who would do that? Probably only people who only install mods into a copy of KSP that isn't under Steams control anyway). I would much rather see the devs a proper mod manager. (eg something that provides a cutdown set of features similar to ckan).

As far as I am aware Steam workshop doesn't have a robust dependency system that would work for multiple installs. That means anyone with a 1.6.1 or 1.3.1 RP-1 install and a 1.7.3 JNSQ install would have major problems, since they both require Kopernicus, which is version locked to the KSP version. (Heck as far as I aware it still wants to provide the latest mod version even if you roll back to an earlier game version using the beta channels, which means that mod compatibility can become a major headache).

So how are you attaching the vehicles together? Is this a case of a case of physics (or perhaps autostruts) shaking the vehicle apart? Or misaligned wheels trying to pull the assembly apart? Or something else entirely? Seriously if you want to see a bug get fixed, then you need to describe what you did in enough detail that someone else reproduce the issue. (Preferably with pictures of the vehicles involved and/or craft files/save games).

To be honest, picking some of the more interesting questions (eg what game modes will be available, and how will they differ from the game modes in KSP 1), and getting detailed answers is probably more interesting than a slew of "yes"/"no"/"no comment at this time" responses. So I suggest sorting the questions into some sort of priority order, based on what you want to ask first/you think is an interesting topic/question and if possible getting some more detailed answers for those interesting questions. Probably many of the interesting questions will be things they can't answer at this time. Then if you still have time, you can run through more of the yes/no type questions.

@CocaoGames Which version of KSP? What versions of ksp (if any) did you tell ckan to consider compatible? See https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/wiki/RO-&-RP-1-Installation-for-1.6.1

Gravity turn never did that. However if you had Mechjeb installed, it would ask MJ to plot and execute a circularization burn.

Are you referring to https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/154851-add-on-posting-rules-november-24-2017/ ? Personally I view most of that as common sense requirements from a game developer/publishers perspective. (The work needs an explicit licence statement, otherwise Squad doesn't want to expose themselves or any forum users to any potential legal hassles from hosting it, if bundling other works you need to comply with their licences, etc).

Will KSP 2 have persistent rotation, or will they use the timewarp stops rotation that KSP 1 uses? Will solar panels and resource extraction be properly simulated when the ship is unloaded, or will they just use something similar to the current catch up system? Edit: Also will engine shrouds have something similar to decoupler shroud, where the shroud is calculated based on the dimensions of the tank above, and the decoupler below?

You have principia installed. That adds n-body physics. I'm guessing that is the cause.

I'm not sure about that. I think the table might have a typo. I would expect price per kg to LEO would be launch cost/max payload. Checking a few of the rows in the table that seems to hold for most. But not for SpaceX. $61,200,000/22,800kg = $2,684/kg. Which would make SpaceX the cheapest. (Note the two transposed digits. Probably a simple typo. Also note I didn't read the report, but just the table, so perhaps I'm missing something).

I did say So yeah, the probe core that is upside down is not an appropriate command part. (Very minor typo. I actually said "right click and appropriated probe core/command pod/docking port", but I'm sure you understood what I meant). The way some people build a big fairing up front, being aerodynamically unstable when you hit Mach 1 is often a possibility, especially without fins. (Indeed I'm in the habit of always adding fins, because I've seen it happen too many times with my own designs. It could also be a shuttle style design with asymmetrical thrust that becomes unstable as the centre of mass changes. But there is no way to tell if that is the problem, without more information).

Assuming the root part is a probe core or a command pod that is oriented the right way, none of that should be necessary. If it is, it is normally easier to right click and appropriated probe core/command pod/docking port and "control from here". I certainly wouldn't recommend flipping the the probe core of a lander, that is just asking for problems when you try to use it later. Most like OP's rocket is simply aerodynamically unstable, and flipping due to aerodynamic effects as it's speed and aero loading increase after takeoff. @TheJoolian Try adding some fines (or for very large rockets maybe even wings) to the bottom of your rocket. If that doesn't work post a picture of the rocket in the VAB, and in flight when you start to lose control. (Make sure you leave the UI visible, so we can see things like your airspeed, and the control positions).

I'm a PC player, but the first steps towards fixing any bug is to work how to reproduce it, and hopefully what causes it. A few possible causes for low fps that come to mind are too many parts (too many parts can bring even the beefiest PCs down to less than 10 fps), already having lots of other craft/relay sats in orbit, or high timewarp rates. Working out what triggers your low frame rates is the first step to solving the cause, and/or working around the issue.

@63Hayden I had a good result following https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/wiki/RO-&-RP-1-Installation-for-1.6.1 .