Bej Kerman

You couldn't have gotten closer to their request. Good start - don't use IKEA shelves again, though.

Stages should support changing the state of any part with tweakables and clickables - for instance, stage some lights to turn on and unfold the gear when the lander decouples,

This has been a thing for ages...

Are they? KSP has a balance between realism and simplification that makes it easy to pick up but also teaches a lot. KSP IE just introduces all these ibbly things that overcomplicate the mod and don't do much to teach the player.

47% of KSP 1's development was a horror show. Landing gear, Kerbal ragdoll physics becoming more prone to freaking out, dull part revamps and an incomplete part catalog... I could go on all night listing examples of sloppy development.

Near Future parts are usually a better call if you prefer the stockalike charm of not introducing way too many fuel types that don't offer any additional gameplay.

I don't care how many times it gets delayed as long as it comes out completely baked. I just think Intercept would have an easier time keeping players interested if they'd bother showing more gameplay, rather than dripfeeding the fanbase vague 2 second clips and screenshots.

Why is your solution to mess anything up that happens a bit too far from home? Pilots already unlock more SAS toggles. Besides that, It's basically soft lore now that anything the player does with their probe are predetermined instructions anyway. RNG is never good. Why break a player's intricate starship just to implement a bit of chaos? Like, no-one needs this, and few want this. Your solutions to Kerbal jobs seems to just be introduce needless difficulty that lacks any challenges. There are definitely ways to improve this sector of the game than a half-baked gimmick; for instance, the ability to add and move parts on vessels in-flight, which is something 1.11 did iirc - sure, that was half baked itself as with most other stock mod implementations, but conceptually it was a solid idea and the KIS mod proves it can be done well.

A more accurate description would be "ReStock+: Fixes the stock lineup". The stock lineup, if you can call it that, is missing a whole ton, never being filled out because making the parts shinier was a bigger priority. Same difference. You're just pick-and-mixing patches from many other devs that some might consider helpful, while others consider useless and insulting to the modding community. It all depends what you want and need, which is gonna be a lot easier now that the game has settled onto one version eliminating the need for mods to catch up.

Another upcoming KSP movie whose existence is only defined by a forum outlining the release date and all the plans, huh? Maybe this one might have a chance of going anywhere. Maybe.

Starship Earth to Earth is dumb... you've got a long boat ride, a lot of bureaucracy to keep track of everyone, a long boat ride to the Starship as it has to be far out enough to not disturb nearby cities, and before all of that, you have to filter anyone who can't take 2-4 gs of acceleration so they don't pass out on the way up. After all that, you have to do all this again in reverse. Even if it works out, you'll take longer than a plane, pump an absolute excrementton of greenhouse gases, and if anything goes wrong during the flight you'll have a slim chance of seeing it through to the landing. Another one of Elon's schemes to pull in investors. Might as well just catch a plane - Starship is only going to be useful for space travel.

Doesn't help on the dark side of a planet. Bring lights then - again, this isn't the game's fault. Thank you! This may be interesting to research. Nope, I've never been able to properly judge distance in a third person view. (I even have problems with the platforming sections of the Lego games because of that.) I normally play sims in either a cockpit or forward (in front, or bumper) view. We all know that the IVA view is useless since you can't get the angles you need to see. There is no forward camera in KSP. So I'm perpetually at a loss with my spacial awareness in KSP. All on your side. I agree that the UI has us darting our eyes round too much, unable to focus on one thing for too long, but it's something you may get used to with time. For now you'll just have to design your landers to be very short, but quite wide. If you can't fix the landing, fix the lander.

Well of course I can't tell from a screenshot, but in person, it's not hard to take a glance at the view of the lander to tell what direction it's going in compared to the landscape. If you have trouble keeping your controls aligned to your view, use the locked view. I suppose the view toggle is easy to forget about. I will point out that the navball's flawed here as the retrograde indicator fades out near the edge, and having it there would make it easier to zero out your lateral - but, still, as a backup, you have a great view of your lander you can use to estimate your speed and direction. If you want to land consistently you have to get used to spacial awareness because 1.6m/s is way too fast for a certain landing. As I've already established, there's nothing wrong with the game here, even if it could be a teensy bit more helpful. This is all on your side - you just need to get used to making fool-proof craft, and not having to be the target demographic of a fool-proof craft in the first place. We've all been on this part of the learning curve before but it's surmountable. Where did harvester say that automation wasn't intended nor wanted for KSP? When did Intercept that autopilots won't be allowed in the game? It's pretty heavily implied, from promo material including the words "build and fly your own rocket" to the basis of the original 2.5D concept of the game being about trying to get a rocket as high as possible. Why would HarvesteR implement automation in a game he so heavily banked towards letting the players interact themselves with orbital mechanics?

I agree. The UI expects you to dart our eyes round while also remaining completely aware of the space around the rocket, which can make docking a pain when you accidentally forget to place a second set of RCS thrusters on the payload and have to dock the station itself to the payload. As Tantacrul, overlord of Audacity, once said: "I always have to double-check it's the right button because the trumpet keeps throwing me and the incomplete title 'add or remove' requires a pause to understand. Add or remove what!? Oh, I guess it says instruments down there to the right, but that's not really how eyes work." That last bit is the epitome of the KSP UI. Charming, but scattered, impractical and plain difficult, and I won't be missing it when KSP 2 comes round. I really won't miss three quarters of my readouts being in my peripheral vision in any one instant.

Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, your opinion, man. It's such an opinion that in fact it's what the devs were aiming for when they conceived the game.

It's not worth the money, but it's not like it's expensive. I just think these paid full-time devs could have put as much effort into these things as the free-working modders.

Mods, mods and mods. In regards to console, I wouldn't put it past the new dev team to try some in-game implementation of CKAN so console players don't miss out as raging debates over these limitations with console have been a major cornerstone of these forums for a while now.

Keep practicing and make sure you don't lose focus on your surroundings. Crafts drifting during landing isn't an inherent problem with the game, it's just a consequence of Newton's basic laws (your craft won't stop drifting unless you tilt your ship a bit towards retrograde), the way you've distributed your mass (COM near the bottom will make it less likely to tip on touchdown) and the very topology of the terrain (sloped terrain is obviously not ideal) that you'll have to overcome if you want to succeed in the late game - especially if you want to do somewhat accurate atmospheric landings to save on recovery costs. 1. The player is supposed to interact with their rockets directly, not through an autopilot. It'd be cheap if you could orbit Duna once, unlock it as a dest, and never have to do the route again, and it wouldn't be up to the player to create an absurdly Delta-V efficient route. Even before KSP had spherical planets back before 0.7.3, the goal was to see how high you could get your rockets, not just make a good rocket and watch the game do the flying part. Well it very likely is abstracted because otherwise it wouldn't work out in time warp. How would a physical approach to automated milkruns work if it had to work while the player was timewarping through several decades of interstellar travel?

Been there, done that

-Logo made in MS Paint -Delayed because of a bad smell Now I know this movie is gonna turn out good, looking forward to it!

Should we discount interstellar flight, orbital construction and surface colonies as 'obvious exaggerations' as well?

Let's be very honest here. We do have a commercially available heavy-lift vehicle. The Falcon 9 Heavy has come about. The SLS is still sucking up taxpayer money while collecting dust in the VAB, but it's ours and we don't want to outsource our efforts to agencies that have designed, built and repeatedly used way better rockets.

Sounds like you might have previously been overestimating how much dV you have - helps to always pack a lot of fuel. IDK about you, but sometimes I find myself landing my landers with the transfer stage of my rocket.

As far as I know, it's integrated into the launchpad, think less modular launch pads, more kerbal konstructs. I just hope the KSC is as customisable as the colonies... @Nate Simpson? For bigger vehicles I want to be able to expand the pad and remove the tower - it was semi-removed from KSP 1 for a reason

But I get into orbit 99% of the time on my first attempt. I crash while landing 90% of the time on my first attempt. It usually takes me at least 3 attempts to land. To quote myself... These are my reasons why I can't master this skill in KSP. Only except you could get your landing rates to 99% if you tried as hard as you did when you were learning to get into orbit. Might I say? You're not gonna be good at it within your first 5 attempts. Even if you do find it too hard, there's literally nothing stopping you from using parachutes for assistance And these are the solutions that helped me in other games. Why are these not considered valid solutions in KSP? Not sure who said that these aren't valid solutions - I myself would like having an accurate suicide burn timer to save myself from stopping 2 meters short of the ground and hovering the rest of the way down.