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?

Rover wheels are too far at science tech to get, you should be able to get some kind of rover with first crewed Mun mission landing.

Itsa bug on my opinion.

This maybe same bug, if vsync off, pause game at loading screen, same happens.

Its a problem if i say its a problem for me, i am player. There is problem in design decision.

Yes i can see it with my own eyes and that's a problem i pointed out here.

This was closest thing i could create with 2 seated landercan, i think there could be some stuff to tweak. Another thing that pops on eye, is that landing legs are quite not as sturdy as their real life counter parts. This were biggest landing legs from KSP 1. Actually picture of lander i post at start was just an early design, real rover was foldable and backed into tighter space, lander wasn't that big. Question remains, where are engines and fuel, i don't think RCS had enought power to land on Mun .

Rover which Nasa used, has same wheels as KSP has, those foldable red ones. Problem to re-create this in KSP 2 comes in dimensions: -Nasa Rover was 2x3 meters, it was fitted under lander can which was big enought so you could fit that rover under it. -If i wan't to recreate 2 seated rover under lander can in ksp2, it becomes very obivious this cannot be done due scale of these parts compared to eachother. Could we have some solution here? I think fitting rovers into rockets are harder than in their real life counterparts, which often leads to weird shaped and funny looking concepts. We know that in real life this could be done without extra space in fairings, without robotics. But we don't have options to fit things correctly in KSP 2. Problem to solve 1: Should we get huge lander cans or smaller rover parts? Problem to solve 2: Current rover parts are underperforming for their huge size i think.

you could just refuel that minmuslander to get back to over 200t. And if you find it hard to launch heavy vessels from kerbin, you can connect upperstage parts at orbit, and launch vessel in multiple ascents. 3400dv against gravity and trought atmosphere is hardest part of journey.

Everytime ksp 2 is getting new patch or update, i have just started to check if it has updates in steam. I have done this now couple days so new patch is coming very soon I did stop sending new bug reports couple weeks ago and waiting for thermal fixes to get to Eve and complete that last side mission. Meanwhile i have tried to do custom petrol engine in KSP 1 with robotics and rocket engines.

currently i dont find any other problems with physics than when doing extra large rockets, their boosters doesn't keep attached, detaching before players gets see launch pad. And ROVERS!