vossiewulf

Considering that there seems to be a few hundred people who would be willing to strip naked, cover their bodies in mustard, and run laps around the Star Theory office for a chance to get their hands on KSP2 early, I'm absolutely certain that no one from the company is trolling the forums for volunteers. In fact no game company ever trolls forums for alpha or beta testers, if they need them they will provide a link somewhere so you can apply. And if they're even vaguely popular they get 10 or 1000 applications for every tester needed, and if you think they have the time to look at something like what ships someone has created, you don't understand the limits of game dev resources. I OTOH won't even buy it when it's released, because it's almost certain to be broken in various ways that will require save-breaking fixes. I'm perfectly happy to let other people beat their heads against those issues for me. Once it begins to settle down and the modders have started making progress, then I'll start looking into a purchase.

(waves around giant e-peens) I'm a little past that actually, the machine is built for modeling and rendering performance, the games performance is a secondary advantage. In fact looking at the preferred 3dMark benchmarks, it seems like they're all 3d card and the CPU is almost meaningless, I think you could hook up an i5 to an RTX2080 and be only slightly below an i9 running the same card. The days of CPU being important to average users, even most gamers, seems to have gone by the wayside.

Or solve KSP and all other issues by getting a 9900k and water cooling it and overclocking it to 5.1Ghz. That's the machine I just built for myself, along with a RTX2080 for other games and apps that is useless for KSP. I need the machine HP for other purposes, not just games. You're right that a KSP-specific build could be much cheaper with a less expensive CPU and 32Gb of the fastest RAM the motherboard will support.

Sounds like you are using some backpack other than the standard inventory every kerbal has on EVA, because those certainly take KIS electric screwdrivers. Try right-clicking on the kerbal and selecting Inventory, and put the electric screwdriver there and then do the right click equip.

Ship's Manifest has some good functions, but figuring out how to use it isn't easy. It doesn't win any points in UI design contests.

And I thought my 40,000 ton loaded space station resource arm launch was crazy.

That's a big twinkie. I mean torus. How exactly does it get to space?

If it comes up in a window just hit alt-enter and it will go full screen.

If you un-rage quit, bouncing off means you were probably moving too fast at the docking port, if you move slowly they have a magnetic effect and will pull themselves together even if you weren't aligned perfectly. So like I said, try to be moving no more than 0.2m/s.

1. When you arrive a few hundred meters away, use regular staging mode controls to point yourself at a spot that's say 50m out on a line from the docking port you intend to dock with. 2. Switch to docking mode and set it to Linear mode. Accelerate toward the starting spot you're aiming for. Do NOT give yourself any acceleration other than purely in the direction you're pointing. 3. When you get close to your intended starting point, accelerate in the reverse/retrograde direction and bring yourself to 0.0m/s relative velocity. 4. Switch to docking/rotational mode, and use RCS to line your craft up as close as possible to the axis of the docking port. 5. Right click on your docking port and select "control from here". 6. Pick which direction is "up", and rotate your craft to be at a zero degree alignment to that up direction, which should be aligned with your intended docking port as well. That way, from this point the up and down RCS controls will move you up and down relative to the docking port, and side to side works the same. Makes it very easy to know which direction key you need to hit at any given time. 7. Right click on the target docking port and select "Set as Target". 8. If you lined yourself up correctly, on the navball your nose should be pointed very close to the target direction as shown on the navball. 9. From here, it doesn't matter what camera view you're using, as you don't really need to see. All you need to know is the relative speed you're moving, that you're pointed at the docking target, and the distance to the docking port. 10. Use the LINEAR up/down left/right RCS controls to get your nose pointed right at the docking port target. 11. Once aligned, accelerate toward the docking port. Doesn't matter how fast you go, just that you're only moving .2m/s -.3m/s when you get there. 12. Once you get close to the docking port, use the linear RCS controls to once again bring yourself to a dead stop. Use the same steps described above to refine your axis alignment and rotation until it's really really close to the same axis as the docking port. This will usually make your nose move away from the docking port target again, so once again use the linear RCS controls to move you back until your nose is pointed dead at the target. 13. Now accelerate toward the docking port again. Continue to use the linear RCS controls to keep your nose pointed at the center of the docking port. You can switch to fine control mode (capslock on the PC) which can make small adjustments easier. 14. Hit the docking port at .2m/s, if you're lined up right it will instantly dock. Below, docking a 2000 ton station resource arm and a 77-kerbal orbital bus, complete manual control, no docking mods used.

Ah, well there ya go, there will be underwater support, that means yes at least to some degree. Rest of the point remains, particularly that the best plan is to wait and see what more they say, there will be many more interviews and the like and someone may explain better.

They have neither shown nor spoken about underwater colonies, so I wouldn't hold my breath (rim shot) for them. Also, as with the other endlessly speculating threads, your actual best plan is to WAIT AND SEE what they say, and some time in the spring as they work through their betas and lock down the initial features, they'll announce what KSP2 will support in more detail. They're most certainly not interested in suggestions for anything new at this point, they can't be if they intend to ship in the spring/summer. If you don't understand why that is, I or anyone else who has been involved with the delivery of complex applications can explain what the process and timeline look like. It's not that they didn't look for suggestions at all, I'm sure during the design phase (which is well over) they looked at all the ideas people had and requests and tried to distill them down to a list of things they could implement. But now they're heads down in implementation.

Yeah, I like parts, so I have most of them. The gold parts are Procedural Parts batteries. The pod is a little tiny 1-kerbal unit that is perfect for small landers from one of the Umbra Space Industries mods. The heat shields are SSTU. The second one uses Coatl Aerospace antennas (he has lots of useful antennas) and a bunch of Near Future parts, Solar/Electrical/Construction, and I think some Contares parts too. I use stock parts pretty rarely. They are 100G, but noted, thanks. Actually I never have figured out a way to tell exactly how many Gs are had by a relay sat with multiple antennas. I did a six-lander Mun invasion once, with landers very similar to what you see above stacked six high with stack separators between each and an orbital maneuvering stage with lots of Dv for multiple plane changes. The mission was to do a large number of science experiments in every Mun biome in one trip. I looked for the screenshots, no luck. I have too many KSP screenshots.

I time my launch so in maybe half an orbit I'll be in the correct phasing position for a Hohmann transfer. So a bit ahead of the correct phasing point if your transfer will be to a lower orbit, and slightly behind the correct phasing point if you're transferring to a higher orbit. If nothing else you need half an orbit or so to match planes. If you're launching manually you will always need at least a small plane-match burn.

These are landers, but it works just as well with satellites. I have bi-coupler and tri-coupler versions also. Can't remember if those or stock or not. Relay sat. About 3000g orbiting outside Minmus. Solves a lot of problems. You only really need one, back it up with a few smaller much lower-power relay sats in close orbit around Kerbin to ensure global coverage. And for total coverage do triple relay sat launches for the Mun and Minmus.

As I said, no issues. In any case if I run into unbalanced parts I just don't use them. Can't speak to CKAN, I don't use it.

Most part packs made for 1.3/1.4 continue to work fine. I'm using B9 Aerospace in a 1.71 game with no issues.

I hate it when that happens. Antimatter is way too unstable for warp cores after snnialatration. //typo defies transliteration

A Bluedog Design Bureau Sarnus SRB scaled up to 10m, a bunch of Space Y external reaction wheels, batteries, set the SRB thrust down down to .9 at launch (for a runway), it uses thrust curves that means it won't get too much above 2x starting thrust. Put a spaceplane cockpit on the nose, and tweakscale landing gear, wings, and tail up to the right size for a 10m rocket plane. You might burn up, but if not I'm pretty sure you could beat 343km

I'm not sure I would call a centrifugal hab "smaller", but I admit I didn't know some of those parts had that high a hab time or multiplier. I thought I had looked over the MKS parts carefully. Thanks, those will help. But I'll probably also take on the challenge of building a modular hometime-setting station where I can control how much hab time it has by undocking modules, because it will be complicated and another reason to build a giant overbuilt space station.

Fair enough, as noted I'm not trying to change anything. If it needed fundamental changes you'd have made them some time ago as it's had plenty of feedback. But the above is how I would do it if I was building a system from scratch. I understand what you're saying, but I have a different assessment of the assumptions. And since I'm not planning on building a colonization system for KSP, there doesn't seem to be much point in arguing whether the design is correct That said, as Loren notes some smaller high hab-power parts would be helpful, as you see from your own example you have to go to extremes with the current parts. Since that's just an addition with no changes to the design, I feel fine about asking for something like that. They could go late in the tech tree. Like a holodeck, designed by Data Kerman of course. Or an entertainment module with zero G racquetball court. Make them require gobs of EC and be very costly, but they make it possible to design ships not covered in cupolas. I also appreciate the example you made. I'll spend some more time seeing what I can manage with the existing parts.

I don't know how to build transit vehicles that set groups of 20 or 30 kerbals to a 5 year or greater home time. Best I have been able to do and still have something small enough to reasonably get where they're going is a science station that sets all 9 scientists needed to operate it to a home time of a little over two years. I need three to five times that long for anything outside Kerbin's SOI unless I want 90% of my launches to be nothing but endless crew rotations or resort to using med bays to "fix" kerbals. That, to me, is gaming the system. It doesn't make any real sense that a space program would be driven by something as vague as home sickness or that this is somehow fixable in a medical facility. This is just my opinion, but if you need an override to your feature that is essentially a hack, it should suggest that the feature needs to be reconsidered. No one will be sending anyone into space long term or going into space long term without a hard contractual agreement as to the duration of the mission. Only exception will be colonists, for whom the space journey will just be a transit to a new long-term home; they will have completely wrapped up affairs and packed and will be mentally prepared for not returning. Everyone else will have an expectation of returning and will be extremely unlikely to get on a rocket without knowing when that is and be sure the agreement has legal standing. And they won't accept a duration beyond what believe they can do, and whatever duration they agree to, they will mentally prepare themselves for it. Homesickness and anti-homesickness features would still be present, but they would change to things which either improve or degrade work output, engineers build and fix slower, scientists research slower, etc., so the homesickness value would still be critical and have large effects on the work output. And this aligns with reality, I'm sure we'll see nice facilities built which people really like and so they keep working at peak efficiency, and on the other end is like the (fantasy) MIR station of Armageddon. You shouldn't expect quality or a large quantity of work from people in a crap station/base. But they wouldn't quit working, they have contracts. The only time they'd quit working (barring some major medical event) is at the end of their contract and again that aligns with what we can expect from reality. So I'd like to see contract time be a parameter you set at recruitment time and have it affect the cost just like the existing params do. I really do think it would make the entire system more sensible and easier to work with for the players while being more realistic. BTW I just mostly wanted to write this down and make sure I'd thought it through, I'm not starting a crusade to change the fundamental design of MKS. First, you and the people who have used it seem to like it, and I'm sure you know better than me that KSP 2 plays into decisions on major work even if you saw something you thought was great. So I'm just saying this once and will move on, maybe if the subject ever comes up for you again you'll remember it.