Bej Kerman

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.

Again, there are only reasons not to do this. Engines are adapted for atmospheres and vacuums - these aren't environments exclusive to certain planets at all. There are only reasons not to label engines based on planets.

What sense does that make? Ovin and Kerbin have high pressure surfaces, so what sense would there be in calling an engine "Ovin rated" if all the properties that let it work on Ovin also allow it to work on Kerbin, or any other atmospheric planet for that matter? It only needs to be classed as "vacuum rated" or "atmosphere rated", and maybe rated for different G levels depending on gravity; there's literally no reason to attribute its rating to a planet rather than a broad term that encompasses an environment you might find on that planet - especially when planets with no atmosphere will have 0 effect on vac engines.

You're missing the point. SR2 lets you use engine presets (as with KSP) until you're confident you know what the sliders do. And if not, you just slide things until the ISP looks good in atmo/vac. What's the problem if 1. all the advanced engine adjustables are out of the way and 2. the tutorials are better?

I couldn't have put it better myself. I completely relate in getting sick of posts that solely exist to rile people up over the fact that the KSP 2 information drops aren't coming out every day - so much so that I'd be willing to petition for a rule that prevents people from filling the forum with angry complaints about how long (implying 2 months is long) it's been since the last KSP 2 info drop.

Mun, Minmus and Duna. Tried Moho once, but I put a decoupler on backwards and 4-5 years ago me ragequit. I've thrown things into Jool before, but not returned for hopefully obvious reasons.

That's ignoring several videos and countless posts telling you everything you need to know about KSP 2. Please cease your caviling by virtue of the aforementioned behaviour not being of productive use within the contemporaneous discussion To add, Take Two and Intercept know that if they say just one too many words, a not too small and very loud minority of the forum will erupt at them. Plus, development isn't instant - the team has already talked about planetary architecture, recently shown 15 minutes of footage pertaining to interstellar vessels, propulsion and tutorials, and made too many posts here to remember, and it likely won't be until something substantial is completed and in a presentable state before we hear that much again. Again, it's worth noting that 2 months isn't long in A. the grand scheme of development and B. in the eyes of someone whose recent life has not been built around a possibly unhealthy obsession over KSP 2 content. The length of Aziz' post here is already enough evidence that "I'm at square 2019" is a disgusting exaggeration; the team might as well cease news till release campaigns begin and this would be enough information to put me on.

The optimal KSP beginner would not realise they can customise the existing engines until they're familiar enough with the UI to start learning how they can optimise their engines. Engine customisation is a feature in SimpleRockets 2 A.K.A. Baby's First KSP and stays out of the way for beginners, so I see absolutely no reason to not implement engine customisation in a similar manner for KSP 2 when we're also getting several other advanced features like torch drives and interstellar travel.

It's not a major fail point, you just need to adapt the atmospheric stage engines for atmospheres, choose the best parameters for the job, and choose otherwise for transatmo and vac.

Above all else, it means no waiting for the devs to fix possible holes in the part lineup.

It just has to be a side feature, like choosing to customise an existing engine when you're familiar with how it works. We don't exclude interstellar travel just because there's some people who haven't even heard of an orbit, do we?

Wouldn't KSP 2 make a great introduction to how engines work?

The tiniest sprocket is three hundred meters löng (16)

Sounds about right