Bej Kerman

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.

If you don't wanna be part of the growing pains, why'd you buy during Early Access?

It absolutely does given it's possible for the second vessel to lose power (or not in your case) You called it a cheat, it's called a cheat in the menu, I happened to reciprocate this.

No idea. ... Anyway, not being able to control the latter vessel within normal gameplay is something players on default settings will encounter more often than bugs which do the exact same thing. This bug couldn't be further from game-breaking. It just forced you into a situation lots of people learn to deal with - by learning different ways of docking, instead of announcing it as unplayable

They're not adding features that quickly, and the features they're adding are at least small and useful, like grid fins for instance. If you're worried that they'll accumulate technical debt at a rate similar to Squad, I'm confident they're not. Most of the differences I've noticed between 0.1.0 and 0.1.5 have been related to performance and bugs.

I already had this discussion. Scarecrow71 literally uses the cheat options to avoid this happening in a manner that's consistent with what the devs intended and the bug just put them in a situation most dockers deal with under regular circumstances. It's not a gamebreaking bug so much as it's a bug that forces you to confront being unable to dock without assistance from the other craft. That's not game breaking, it's a difficult situation but most certainly not a game breaking one under any reasonable definition of the term.

This felt like an official proposal, kudos

Very nice! Grid fins cause a lot of drag so for ascent stability you'll probably get more mileage adding control surfaces to the booster. To avoid instability on the way down, you can place the control surfaces so that they're below the CoM on the way up and above the CoM when the payload separates.

Interstellar communication is possible with radio arrays, probably even more so with lasers. The question IMO is if the developers will allow realistic comms ranges or if the biggest antennas vessels (and maybe even colonies) can be equipped with will have ranges insufficient for interstellar comms in order to compensate for a lack of delay.

Since I'm here, I think I'll just append to this bit - MSFS players find themselves flying exclusively over Earth because that's the only planet in the sim, and not because of how detailed Earth is. I t stands to reason that the level of detail implemented for Kerbin will have 0 impact on whether people generally go to space or not.

When did the devs ever say Kerbin should be the LAST place you ever explore?

I like how you disregard someone elses opinion and immediately argue that somehow the guy HAS TO BE some kind of KSP1 shill. I'm not. And i also thinks it looks like the splash screen for a cheap mobile/flash game. At best. You missed the part where they said "like a five year old's drawing", as if that's constructive at all. You're free to defend whoever you like, but if a friend of yours presented a piece of art they drew and asked for criticism and opinions, and all you had to say is "That looks cheap, like a five years old's drawing, it's like it came from a cheap flash game", trying to peddle it as an opinion wouldn't be a good look. You're better off just admitting you have nothing helpful to add and that it's best kept to yourself. I'm absolutely an advocate of constructive criticism, but with all due respect, neither of you have said anything of constructive nature. Let's see what happens then. It says "exempt from people being abrasive instead of constructive".

Are you hovering, or are you accelerating? If the latter, then it probably is drag.

When did the devs ever say they don't want you exploring Kerbin?

+1 Also, there's no box for pasting hex values which sucks if you use tools like Adobe Color for finding good palettes.

Ah, yes "I think you're boring so let me talk about a stupid trend that's absorbing the minds of millions of children" Find better friends if that's how they treat you

Can you elaborate in detail or send a video of the problem?

Noted and disregarded. P.S. I presume you had no problem with Squad leaving artefacts in their re-entry effects for the decade that it's been implemented in KSP 1, and furthermore leaving additional effects implemented but disabled for no reason.

I'm pretty sure they stated the exact opposite. Creating massive interstellar vessels that spend decades between stars is absolutely one of KSP 2's goals, I can say that.

Why didn't "tips" occur to me already? We have a winner.

[Description of literally every PAIGE dialog here]

If you take a look at the way the engines are arranged, the gimbal is probably hindered by the engines being at the same height as the CoM. If they were shifted up a bit more, the gimballing of the engines would simply cause lateral motion instead of causing torque. I think the gimbal should be outright disabled, but not for the same reason you think. The gimbal as I said probably just causes the vessel to drift to the sides instead of rotating it, and the vessel already has RCS anyway. A video of this happening would be appreciated. Really, just saying it's "flipping" is very vague and it can mean a lot of things. Does the flip happen on contact with the ground - are you moving laterally when you land? Could the means of applying torque on your vessel be fighting against SAS inputs - sometimes, like with backwards wings for example, a part can end up applying torque in reverse. It's probably obvious what it means to you, but since we weren't there when the accidents happened there's not a lot to be gathered from your description.

What do you think of "A toggle switch that enables certain features for cadets who wish to be oriented"?