Bej Kerman

You only have to practice instead of EVA'ing for a total of two seconds and concluding that trying wouldn't make you any better.

@SUS Free parking space here

Did you timewarp and see if it could go higher?

It can lift anything from anywhere if you have as much disregard for the environment as all billionaires. Ideally you wouldn't want to use it anywhere near a planet lest you mess with the electronics on the ground or irradiate nearby satellites.

So, to save weight, you're gonna alter the design of the craft to add much more weight than is taken by removing the shock absorbers? Wouldn't we save weight by replacing millions of tons with a little shock absorber?

Adjust the wings until so Good luck with that. Might help to put fuel at the front and back. If someone can figure out a good way of figuring this out more consistently, @ me. ? If you mean for landing, heighten the friction on the back wheels. I only realise now you were guiding them and not asking how to do all of this. Oops. Some help on balancing fuel better could be nice though.

Maybe when computers run on unicorns and magic, the devs can cater to your unrealistic wishes. But not today.

There's a bit more nuance to the topic, and the presence of a human face is not needed. See for example the demos shown at places like E3 where you have a human holding a controller, performing motions that have nothing to do with the running demo on screen, that's non verifiable, even with a human right there, specially since those demos tend to have a lot of movement and camera smoothing, and sometimes they've been found out to be completely scripted. This ties into scripting having the possibility to show stuff in a way you won't experience, If you show me a hudless static building with a camera turning around it you could definitely write a whole article around the colony building system, but really the only thing we can all unequivocally agree has been actually shown working is the models of buildings. Heck in that specific shot even the terrain is up to question. That's why the concept of verifiable gameplay exists, because companies have, for decades, really tried to play around every angle and setting to pass their bullshots for actual products. That's why the requirement is simple: human input (which can easily be shown under a scripted camera) or human perspective (as opposed to a scripted camera), or a mix of both (best possible case), otherwise it gets the label of "not real gameplay". I still don't really care all that much. It's just a game at the end of the day.

Yep, that's why my suggestion is to keep this functionality using part variants Had I caught that, I would have typed all the same things but prefaced it with "removing stack separators and streamlining stack separators are contradictory ideas so I'll just complain about the worse one". Integrating them as different variants does sound like a good idea, providing that the paint jobs and textures are separated from functions this time round and not mashed into the same thing as KSP 1 did.

Does it matter? It shows new things are being added either way, and frankly I don't care t osee playtester #71's blank face in the corner of an otherwise pretty shot for the sake of verifying that it wasn't a script performing some menial function (set 100% throttle, do nothing else) that a human could have done.

Duna's atmosphere is still essentially a vacuum. When the atmosphere actually begins to act as an atmosphere, vacuum engines stop working and you need atmospheric engines. I am still right. Either way, where's the necessity in labelling all the atmospheric engines as ones that work on Eve, Kerbin, Laythe, etc. and labelling the NERV as the engine that works on Duna, Ike, Mun, Moho, Bop, Pol, etc? I still maintain that the idea of needing to segregate engines by planet has 0 uses whatsoever.

if you optimize an engine for an atmosphere, it will work better in all atmospheres than a vacuum engine would, everywhere, period. What part of that am I not clearly communicating?

I'm saying an atmospheric engine that barely works in the depths of Jool will still work better than a vacuum engine in the same situation.

Then just practice.

That's a UX/UI issue, not a decoupler issue. Plus this affects everyone, especially those that have actual uses for stack separators. Just no with this idea.

Literally nothing can exist on Kerbol. Come up with an actual example. An atmosphere rated for atmospheres will work better on a planet than a vacuum rated engine regardless if the pressure is 0.1x or 10x that of Kerbin. Still a pointless, useless idea to make categorization any more complicated than that.

Said engine will work better in all atmospheres regardless if it's Eve's or not. An atmosphere is a generic environment that does not change much from planet to planet; your idea is still pointless.

I was just about to say the same thing as well - I've seen others make this mistake as well, spending hours fine tuning their orbit within literal inches, only to be told they're going in the complete wrong direction

Well what I am thinking is since they are having drop down menus in the vab the atmospheric nozzle one would have a sub category for each planet or moon with an atmosphere. And as I've said before, that idea is completely and utterly useless in a world where the way an atmosphere works for an engine really is as simple as "use atmo engine if you plan on going inside the atmosphere".

That is correct, and in the opposite direction they get worse and smaller expansion ratio engines get better and the higher the pressure the smaller the optimized expansion ratio is. So what's the problem of categorising them by whether they're adapted for atmo or not?

And as you transition to vacuum, vacuum engines become better, no?

Literally nothing works at Jool sea level. At any reasonable pressure you can expect outside a gas giant or the core of a star, it really is as simple as "use atmo engine for atmo".

Not all atmospheres are created equal, adding this would increase realism. And? If an engine is created for atmospheres, it will work better in atmospheres than an engine that was created for a vacuum. The idea is still completely useless.

Yes in ksp 1. For example Eve's atmosphere is thicker and more dense than kerbin's. So a shorter nozzle with less expansion ratio would result in more fuel efficiency throughout the atmosphere. Yes? So cut "This engine works on EVE, KERBIN, OVIN, LAYTHE, JOOL, [etc.]" and just say "This engine works in ATMO". There's nothing else to it. I can only say "your idea has no real point or use" in so many ways. So for Eve and Kerbin you need an engine built for atmospheres. For the Mun and Moho you need a vac engine. You still haven't explained why engines need to be labelled by planet when the planet itself is an unnecessary detail to add to an otherwise simple system; "air adapted engines in air category and vac engines in vac category".

Unless they make over expansion a thing. both sides of this argument have insubstantial evidence. But yours has evidence from KSP 1. but that might change. Maybe you misunderstood again. Literally every planet falls into the category of "has atmo" or "no atmosphere, just vac". Engines fall into either the "optimised for atmo" category, or the "optimised for vac" category. There's nothing special about any planet that necessitates extra categories. Overexpansion is completely irrelevant - only ISP between atmo and vac. "both sides have insubstantial evidence", I don't need to explain why a planet's atmosphere is not magically different from any other. Only one thing matters for chemical engines - presence of atmosphere. Only one thing matters for jets - presence of oxygen in required atmosphere. Categorising engines between specific planets is completely and utterly useless when planets fall into one of three categories: vacuum, atmospheric, oxygenated.