Bej Kerman

I'd be willing to mess about with 1/4 scale stuff given the apparent reputation for matching the part balance better. If the developers added the ability to hotswitch system packs - which they should - I'd love a 1/4 scale option.

I wouldn't be opposed to the developers adding the ability to input specific R/P/Y values a la MJ.

I don't recall NASA having a limit on hair length so as long as they bring clips they're probably fine.

There's a lot of factors at play here, the biggest of which is probably your gravity turn profile. The time you spend in the lowest parts of the atmosphere should be short either way, and the amount of time you wait till beginning the turn can make a big impact on dV margins. I think either Matt Lowne or Stratzenblitz came up with this technique for getting consistent turns, but a good way to repeat the same gravity turn profile consistently is to turn to five degrees on your navball right after launch then set SAS to prograde at a certain altitude (or speed, I cant remember but the latter may be better for low TWR launchers). Experiment with when you begin the turn and see what works most efficiently. Addendum: It was Stratzenblitz (3 parts to Duna, Ike and Minmus) and they began the gravity turn at 80m/s. That was for their particular vessel though and it resulted in the vessel intentionally overheating so you may benefit from experimenting with the technique.

I don't think you understood Lisias' explanation. The larger flea slows down because more air hits it. Its dry mass is not as big a factor here as its drag. Also, a feather will fall at the same rate as steel in a vacuum.

It seems it can in the Kerbal universe with their laws of physics. But then how would their laws of physics support that and a 1:1 Earth at the same time? The developers didn't just choose to bend the rules, it became a part of the game's style and breaking it would be equivalent to breaking an art style.

I wish I'd brought this up now People forget that the Kerbal system being 1/10th size is offset by rockets being ridiculously inefficient compared to real rockets. It's debatable whether KSP was balanced for 1/10th size planets or 1/4th size planets, but either way RSS in stock is conceptually boring anyway.

So you're telling me Kerbin with its absurd density could exist in the same universe as Earth?

What Periple said, and to add an example of my own, you won't find a planet with the density of Earth in the same universe as a planet with the density of Kerbin. You're telling me these things obviously occur at the same time in our own universe? None of your examples have any relevance to the problem of having Earth and Kerbin in the same universe. It's a ridiculous inconsistency. You're sorely mistaken if you think Kerbin can happen IRL.

Because it's inconsistent. Realism isn't the point, consistency in realism is.

KSP 1 isn't?

Also, there's no way the Kerbol system is co-existing with another system whose densities and physics are more in line with real life.

There's no such thing as a metal alloy you can't develop using materials in your own star system.

Some bits of software like Nvidia Control Panel let you create a virtual monitor with a custom resolution. I'd advise starting there since this forces your game to use that resolution when in borderless, and also forces all apps to the target resolution.

No, but your Kerbals won't forget how to build them between departing and arriving.

Why not the Mun? There's probably an abundance of hydrogen and helium on its surface. because that is boring and excrementsty game design It's realistic, and real space ventures aren't established to hunt for arbitrary elements so I can't say I want to see KSP 2 making specific things exclusive to certain bodies.

Would it hurt to be realistic?

That's why the labels exist.

You're making tutorials out to be less helpful than they are. They're supposed to help you figure out what each part does, how they combine is up to you. You're criticising tutorials for being too linear then suggesting a UI element that forces beginners into a linear way of thinking. Your suggestion does this: it tells you "put one of these specific parts there" instead of giving beginners a feel for how different cross sections can be used to create more interesting structures. Because it is quite literally spoonfeeding part options instead of leaving them with just their judgement. And your part assistant is resistant to the idea that just because two cross sections match, that doesn't mean that's the only way to build. That's what the size labels are for.

If the tutorials have that problem, then the suggestion should be that tutorials need fleshing out. Your suggestion doesn't teach them anything. It just makes them dependant on the game spoonfeeding them information. Just to make it 100% clear, I'm saying this is not an improvement. It's a downgrade from just adding tutorials and teaching beginners how to use their own judgement.

Quick few things. Beginner experience and improved tutorials exist so beginners will not need a feature like this to figure out where the parachutes are and how they attach to vessels. More seasoned players will not need telling which parts attach to which. And competent builders from KSP 1 who were thrown off by the jumbled parts list should have an easier time browsing parts given that they're sorted by size properly and also sorted into distinct subcategories. With that said: Not necessary to the aforementioned seasoned and competent players. It's not the UI's fault if the player forgets what they're doing mid construction, so this isn't applicable to beginners or seasoned players. The UI is doing its job by telling you the sizes of parts, it's up to the player to remember what they're doing between placing one part down and placing the next. Not an issue because of the aforementioned tutorials. I think the best way to describe this suggestion is that it's redundant. It's supposed to make things easier for beginners, but it'd only make it harder for them to think outside the box (some aesthetics are best achieved by intentionally mismatching cross sections, and beginners won't learn this from your proposal). It's supposed to help the more experienced players browse the parts list quicker, but they should already be on their way to developing a muscle memory for the parts list, and might just be slowed down by this. I think this is just unnecessary, and that the devs' time is better spent trying to make the existing parts of the UI easier to read, instead of developing massive tools that don't help many players across the board.

Probably won't matter; if there is a speed limit, you'll probably have a hard time reaching it.

I thought this was just me Attaching the struts to the decouplers themselves also worked, but IIRC this also left marks.

Maybe I could come up with a drawing of something that would work... I think the splashes are way better at communicating that your vessel is going to be under the influence of another gravitational source and that this is determined by their SOIs. The biggest problem people see in it is that the splashes are too big. Can't they just be turned down instead of removed altogether?

Doing this to beginners would only box them into matching specific parts instead of teaching them how to use their own judgement.