Jeq

It is easier to change direction of orbit because you are traveling slower. if you go straight 2200m/s, you need to burn 2200m/s left/right to get angle of 45degrees. If you go straight 100m/s you only need 100m/s to change angle to 45. If you are not moving anywhere, you would instantly get to direction of burn.

IDEA: How about highlight part which prevents Eva?

I was wondering if using Space Engine would help designing planets and new systems?

I really hope that Kerbin launches will have limited resources at start and you need to build bases to different parts of kerbin to get access to more resources before going to orbit or even escape atmosphere.

If add more poodles then it just adds weight very much. it would be same 3100-3500dv range if twr is same and doubled cargo, just twice as many engines.

I think fairing should be able to clip trought some objects at least, to make fairing making more simple. They should pass at least all sideral decouplers and maybe some structure parts which can be assumed to be vertical at some builds.

Heathshields doens't like my Eve entries.

Without tier 3+ engines it would be: 2 nerv: 23,67t 3 terriers: 35,22t 1 poodle: 35,32t From 3100 to 3500dv poodle is slightly better than terriers but after that terriers are again better up to 4300dv, terriers also are better than poodles from 1dv to 3000dv, ofcourse there is other engines at this range which comes better, like sparks. Optimal dv for terriers are 2504 and 2541 for poodles, meaning after this dV they gains percentually more weight than dV. Terriers are lot shorter than poodles. What i get from this test is thought: Shouldn't bigger engines be allways most lightweight setup within their optimal dV range when twr is reasonable ? This could be done by adjusting their mass. As i said, poodle was nerfed too much with its added weight.

Can we have manual curve multiplier for sas controls? SAS is too agressive controlling vessels and thats why this happens. This is problem with RCS trhusters rotating vessels too, farewell monopropellant. With curve (or turn time) multiplier we would get couple problems fixed. I mentioned turntime multiplier in brackets, its another idea for sas controls. Where you input time in seconds, and SAS tries to do any rotational maneuver to its target orientation within that time, this should be cool too especially with rcs thrusters. Atmosphere flight it feels curve option might be better. To get this further, SAS could even try to avoid going over predefined G forces, this could be cool at every vessel, including rovers where you must remain inside of G to have grip into surface. (Something that braking should do too.)

Why would you do jool 3 missions? Soon those missions probably become obsolete when colonies comes. As obsolete as base building without colonies parts

Some critiques game, some critigues people posting anything on forums. For latter behauviour i don't see any reason, it just creates unnecessary negativity at community. Good and interesting video to watch, thanks!

At least skybox needs to be different when traveling to other star systems. For me biggest problems with skyboxes is that some starts looks very big and bright circles, because i play with high res big television.

It was my favourite engine in KSP 1 too, but it got slightly nerfed as did other engines. It is more weighty now. I actually made calculator app for ksp 2 and it rarely suggests poodle anymore, it is heavily replaced with sparks, terriers, nerv, swerv and new labradoodle series. Lets play? We can actually test this now, you give how much you want dV, cargo weight, orbiting body and twr for that body. I tell you most lightweight setup for that stage

Thuds are good when you want just a little bit more TWR for your skipper but don't want to add another skipper or tanks which would ruin shape of your rocket.. I use smaller sideral engines when there is no enought space to put them on bottom, like landing a rover. Sideral attached engines are good for building your own RCS engines too. Reliant and poodle seems to be most useless engines currently, i haven't found any use for them. Flea and hammer too doesn't need to exists. Kickback does most of jobs, clydesdale saves you when your rocket would be too big otherwise. I might change my mind if money will be in game, because those engines would probably be cheap-end like in KSP 1 which made them save lot of money at certain missions.

Example: We have communotron 16, 16-s and HG-5. They all have same range 16 and 16-s comes first, then HG-5 can be unlocked. HG-5 is heavier than 16 and weakest antenna for temperatures. All antennas works as relays nowdays? My questions are: 1) Why we have different deployable and non-deployable antennas if their stats are same, only difference is that non-deployable are more heavy and harder to protect from atmosphere. 2) Why HG-5 has same strenght as 16 series, while mathematically HG-5 antenna surface area tells it should be hundreds or thousands times more powerful over 16 serie? 3) Is there any plans and what those plans are for future of communication systems?