Bej Kerman

I think that is a dishonest comparison. The bottom screenshot had nothing to do with Squad. That's unofficial, that's modded. That's not Fur Elise, that's a remix done by someone other than Mozart. The graphics actually went from this: To this: Personally, I don't think that's very impressive for 3 years, forget a decade. They did some improvement with terrain contours and water, but look at the atmosphere. It looks washed out (that's besides the fact it was originally blindingly bright, which is worse depending on what hurts your eyes more - RIP the mod that fixed this). But overall the graphics were stuck in 2010.

I've not yet seen anyone explain what was wrong with having one spacesuit for all situations.

That just loops back to what we were just saying, doesn't it?

What strawberry said. Needing specialised kit to go to really specific places is a small, tiny extra layer of tedium that does not benefit gameplay. One suit for all situations works, and you probably shouldn't fix something that isn't broken.

Is this really necessary? I mean, the atmospheric composition of capsules is really important in space, but configuring what kinds of spacesuits you wear and how you balance the chemicals in the atmosphere isn't exactly KSP gameplay, is it? I mean, it doesn't need to be any more complicated than "has spacesuit, can survive in space", right? This is just lending depth to a corner of gameplay nobody cared about until someone mentioned it, that is what I am getting at

Yes. It's busted. But the point is that the devs didn't forget or neglected to add it and that Nuggzy didn't check to see if KSP 2 had local controls before complaining about it.

It has those if you bothered to look. This argument summed up in a nutshell

The camera is fiddly to get centered on a part and it does not well accommodate vertical rockets. Having controls in KSP 2 that well support structures of any shape is a blessing. That being said, "it's not what I learned" is not a good reason to dislike something. The first thing you said here is a complaint about a metaphorical car that changed the layout of its controls and you never acknowledging that how a car is designed goes beyond "this is what I learned, so it must remain". Aziz said it perfectly: "It's called evolution. A person who learned how to operate a Ford Model T would have trouble in Ford Focus" The Ford Focus is not worse just because someone who learned the T model would need to learn the Focus model.

Okay, two things A. I'd suggest using Imgur instead of whatever dodgy bitcoin miner "yourimageshare" is supposed to be. Then you can use "copy image address" instead of the address in the search bar to embed the image. B. We cannot help you if you do not give us the tools we need to help you. Please, tell us what mods you are using. Thank you

Irrelevant. KSP 2's new editor necessitated a change (a very welcome one) to the editor controls, with the added benefit of unifying the VAB and SPH controls. KSP 1 expecting you to learn two sets of controls was insane and pointless - why not complain about that?

Get or upgrade a stick, close unneeded programs

It's certainly fine to have a problem with the way the UI has been designed, but it's nice to see someone putting some thought into why something they didn't like might be the way it is. That being said, it is odd you can't reposition the color editor. Sometimes its position can feel intrusive. I can see the distinction as engineer's report and color manager pertain to the rockets' physical form and everything else pertains to its crew and in-flight functions. +1 I also want a universal "close window that cursor is hovering over" button. Between this game and mobile ads, UI designers seem to have a thing for making close buttons comically tiny, and either way my dyspraxia stops me from getting the cursor position right to click it on the first try.

When did we start talking about 180 degree turns? You wouldn't necessarily, I was replying to Bej Kerman. They asked a good question

Your trajectory describes your position...? If a deviation can put you on trajectory X from Y, then a set of deviations can put you on trajectory Y from X. In fact, isn't this one of the principals of orbital mechanics? I really don't see the "but wouldn't work in practice". There's nothing stopping the node from offsetting a bit to aim you at your expected position then aiming away from your expected position as you approach your intended trajectory in order to ease back into the planned burn.

If this is how it works-I will test this out today- it is beyond me how this makes any sense. Isn't the Maneuver Node target (just to be clear, I am not talking about Target itself, i.e. a moon I have selected, for instance), supposed to orient the craft in the direction of the burn? Is that something different from putting "your vessel on the vector the planner is expecting", because I'm reading as being the same thing. The plotter assumes the vessel does not rotate at all during the burn but the maneuver marker moves anyway - KSP 1's marker drifted to compensate for any deviations but the KSP 2 marker doesn't need to do that. Bit weird but really it's an issue with the navball, not the plotter as most people usually blame it on that.

And I fail to see why.

Yes - this puts your vessel on the vector the planner is expecting. Even better if you use time warp, which completely eliminates any extra wiggling your vessel does. Just do this and you should no longer run into massive issues with maneuver drift. Just as long as you keep this in mind

again not seeing the angle here. Blender's default typeface is what screams "unfinished" to me, not a pixelated font designed/picked specifically for a game. Me neither, the naming scheme is a bit weird, but to try overwriting workspaces to merge them is a bit of a leap in logic for me. I still have trouble seeing it as anything but a vast improvement over KSP 1's editor seeing as dropped parts branch off into new vessels rather than turning gray. I am not a he and stop using gendered language for people you don't know please I note you said you "followed the maneuver node target". The maneuver node drifts - if you want to follow the maneuver exactly, you want to set SAS to stabilise or enter timewarp for the duration of the burn or the maneuver will drift off where the non-impulsive plotter expected you to burn. I hope this helps.

I am really confused about what people see in progression. The game dictates what you can and can't do, I'm not seeing the fun.

That doesn't make sense to me. Sounds like you're treating workspaces like folders rather than files. In KSP 1, you couldn't drop a part next to your ship and start building a new vessel from that part within the same space. That's how you utilize KSP 2's system, it lets you drop parts without it going gray and the camera system has also been revamped to suit. KSP 1 forced you to put everything in different spaces. KSP 2 lets me build all my vessels relevant to mission X without saving a billion vessel files for the most inconsequential mission components. My tiny resource scanner probe doesn't need its own space, it can be put in the same space as the mothership. I am not a he. But your compliment is noted.

Eh? That's not intended behaviour. The camera works fine on my end and only centers in some edge cases. The game overwrites workspace A if you give workspace B the same name. I'm not seeing how this doesn't make sense. You just put down another pod in workspace B to add another vessel, you don't need to try giving two workspaces the same name. I get it might not be intuitive with how some things are labelled but I have no idea where people got the idea of overwriting workspaces to merge them. Okay, yeah, I am really not seeing your angle because the KSP 1 planner was not in the least bit accurate for anything but vessels with enough thrust to approximate impulse maneuvers. The KSP 1 maneuver node did not account for thrust at all which is a terrible idea when you have both gravity and thrust enacting on your ship. You try to do a low TWR capture burn centered at 100,000m, but it sends you into the atmosphere because the game had the brilliant idea of you doing half the burn before the maneuver, lowering your periapsis. This makes little sense. The KSP 2 maneuver planner does take into account thrust - people have only had issues with the node indicator moving during the burn and throwing them off, but as long as you lock your vessel's heading before doing your burn using SAS or timewarp, you'll land pretty much where it said you'll land. I cannot say anything alike with KSP 1 which gives you an impulsive approximation and tells you to work around it with "start the burn at 50% the burn time before the node encounter" and all that. If KSP 1's planner is proving at all accurate for you, all I can say if that either you're not using the sorts of low-TWR vessels the new maneuver node is aimed at or you're simply so used to dealing with its inaccuracies that your brain does not instantly recall the times it's screwed missions over before.

Making high ISP engines run off fuel types with a density that's closer to their real values? Properly permitting low TWR maneuvers? I don't see anything being dumbed down.

I've heard complaints about the camera system from people who didn't realise MMB centered you on parts and people who weren't able to wrap their heads around how to save multiple vehicles, but so far I and others have only had nice things to say about it. Being able to keep progress on something like a space station in one save is nice and I'm not sure why you only have bad things to say about what's a massive improvement over KSP 1's clunky system, simply because of a few nitpicks you have. Making a mountain out of a molehill, perhaps? I don't recall KSP 1 being this precise. I got told "why are you trying to do low orbit burns with low TWR engines?" rather than "Yeah, why were burns that are possible with low TWR engines not allowed by the old maneuver plotter?".

Fortunately, we do have what he doesn't. A heart

SAS assumes you do not rotate at all during the maneuver, which is understandable as long as the devs have not yet implemented persistent rotation. You just have to make sure your ship isn't changing course during the burn. Just use stabilize SAS mode or engage timewarp for the duration of the burn.