Bej Kerman

And the game that brought the forums together, again, didn't get a dV indicator for over half a decade with the devs having the extremely daft idea that the newbies they were aiming at would hand calculate their dV. KSP 2 is better than KSP 1 was, from 0.7.3 to 1.0 and debatably even newer versions, and as Matt Lowne says (or was it ShadowZone?), this is the worst it'll be. If you don't like playing EA games and exploring the game as it evolves, or otherwise don't feel like submitting bug reports and studying what breaks the game and how, then don't waste your energy getting involved when you can put your money aside for other things and wait for the game to reach a more presentable state. I don't have much doubts, with the idea development restarted sometime around the announcement due to a vast increase in scope, the transparentness of the devs and CMs so far and likely time constraints from T2, that KSP 2 still contains placeholders and unfinished systems for many things. Fuel crossfeed I feel is an obvious example, as well as command modules that don't yet have transparent windows. Given how the game looked three years ago when we first got that video of a rocket wobbling and disintegrating over the KSC above a rather empty looking Kerbin, I'd say development has been going at a fast enough pace and that KSP 2 has a decent chance of turning around into something better received, as long as T2 sticks to it for the next year. That's not even considering what the developers have also been working on alongside the core game we got on the 24th, like OABs, interstellar travel, colonies, et cetera. Just wait, and if KSP 2 does flop, then smeg happens. I don't think that's going to happen; I don't think KSP 2 is in nearly as bad of a state as it's made out to be, and that its current state is nearly as underwhelming as it looks. We've seen what three years has done, let's wait and see what one more year does to the game before making any serious judgements about how good of a job the developers did on KSP 2.

Gonna need more details there

Probably defeats the point, but add a bit of methane, loft the thing up a bit on jet power and you could save a lot of fuel as efficiency increases with altitude very quickly in the lower atmosphere

@NovaSilisko's lore says that the Kerbals were created after an ancient race's attempt at warp tech put their planet far outside the Kerbol system.

Every time you ask when, the date gets pushed back a day

I guess this was possible with KSP 1 vehicles, to embed them in forum posts, but you will have had to copy from the craft file and paste it into another to load it, so not much time saved from sharing the .craft itself. Being able to do it straight inside the editor will probably make vehicle sharing much easier if there's no char limit

Believe I found the problem

So their decision making is worse than I suspected... In what universe would having to do hand calculations benefit the gameplay?

No No That'd just be childish Because fixing the game takes priority over wasting time entering slap fights with unruly forum users. People have given extremely detailed answers about why all of this would be utterly pointless. All I'll say is that I don't see what any of this would solve.

And they are - either way, you gotta concede they are doing a million times better than Squad who didn't understand the important of dV until more than half a decade into the development of their rocket science game.

I find that the procedural wings have made doing things in regards to aircraft much more fun than before

I didn't see anyone complaining too much about the fact Squad relied on 3rd parties for things as basic as dV readouts, so surely something like this is a relatively forgivable sin?

We are

I uh, really? Well, I don't often find people who don't concede that the game in its unmodded state is not a very good way to play it. For a good portion of KSP 1's history, you needed mods to get dV readouts, which is absolutely required for spaceflight. So yeah, completely agree. KSP 2 has dV right out the box and that, to me, makes it more promising than KSP was.

I like the idea that the Kerbals, by their alien nature, are genderless, and we can't make any assumptions. But come on; they are obviously human proxies and clearly present as male or, less often, female. Hardly. A man can wear a skirt if they so wish. Culture be damned. All that means is that she didn't find a Kerbal that fit her fashion preferences. If you say the game is presenting men as the astronauts and engineers, when half the Kerbals dress androgynous and there's no labels for gender at all, all that means is that you imposed your image or idea of a default gender onto them. It's reasonable to assume KSP 2 will get a character customiser sometime before or during the release of multiplayer. That'll be the fix you are looking for, but it is a ways off. The game just came out and multiplayer is at the end of the public roadmap.

You make flaps by adding wings near the CoL that deploy when you use an action group. Basically, KSP 2 already has them.

There is no gender. It's a good time to explain to her that the masculine, feminine and androgynous fashion choices picked by the Kerbals she sees can exist detached from gender. Frankly, I find the idea of male being a default gender for someone you don't know the gender of to be just as regressive as what you accuse KSP 2 of. [snip]

Perhaps simply announce that it's common courtesy to explicitly state whether downloads are included or not in the title, without any extensive moderation. The term exchange is used here as in a telephone exchange. People weren’t physically trading telephones, it was just a central location used for the routing of calls. In this case, it’s a central location where people can post both craft images and files. Since a gallery would imply images only, exchange is more fitting term. You are technically correct, although this is a very unintuitive use of the term. The logic here may be flipped to demonstrate that while a gallery is where art can be viewed and sometimes collected, exchange implies to a great extent the circulation of useful assets e.g. craft and workspace files. Seeing as this subforum is brand new and separate from the KSP 1 ship gallery, perhaps it can be renamed. With the prevalence of aircrafts in here, and the previous points, maybe something like "Ship Gallery". It's also a bit of a play on words, as in the quarter gallery of a ship

That's just what modders came up with. Intercept's official solution to modding when that comes about will probably be less debatable.

It lets you find other parts even if they are in inaccessible locations. That being said, a search function would be nice, and as a whole it really needs optimising. If you have it open in the VAB, the game lags when dropping parts. Presumably it's regenerating the entire menu when anything changes? This is actually in the game. Click the arrow next to the GO button and it'll extend the stage display to show dV. Though, while it does show dV for each stage, you only get to know the TWR of the first stage under Kerbin's gravity. There's no individual stage display for TWR and the engineer's report doesn't let you set gravity and atmospheric pressure. That's all valid, but do give it credit. Calculating how the trajectory warps under acceleration has been a long time coming.

I know people are saying the devs claimed to have defeated the Kraken when they were clearly just issuing themselves the challenge, in a very tongue-in-cheek way as well I might add.

It's not just a remake, it's a completely different take. I don't expect it'll ever reach parity, given the flexibility of both the workspaces and the non-impulsive maneuver planner.

With KSP1 maneuvers, I can start a maneuver at half the predicted burn time to get a perfect orbit starting from the precise point I want (e.g., from Ap/Pe). With KSP2 maneuvers, I can't precisely time them around Ap/Pe because the maneuver nodes represent the start of a burn rather than the center of one. Not really. As I said, they predicted orbits and did not at all take into account acceleration. If you have a low thrust craft and you want to achieve 0 inclination, you have to start your maneuvers well ahead of the 50% rule else you cut your engines at a much higher/lower latitude than the maneuver would anticipate. Only in KSP 2 can you properly do a low thrust inclination change using maneuver nodes (image credit: @Draradech) The 50% rule was just a workaround for KSP 1's extremely flawed system that didn't always result in "perfect" orbits. It only correctly approximates no-gravity-whatsoever environments where the maneuvering object does not change in mass. I'm struggling to find the right phrasing, but I think @Immabed worded it perfectly: It didn't really deliver perfect orbits. Just an extremely vague approximation you can only approach with extremely high accelerations, unless you are dealing with extremely minor changes, like fine tuning intercepts. Again, KSP 2's system blows this issue out of the water. By starting the burn at the node, you can extend the burn without the start time creeping backwards, and the node remains anchored where your old orbit ends so it isn't part of the constantly changing mid-acceleration section of the orbit, which would complicate interacting with the node, especially when you make use of ion engines, and eventually, torch drives and interstellar engines, where the "middle of the burn" would creep outwards into interstellar space as you pull the prograde handle. As demonstrated in Immabed's image, you can properly account for burn times when engineering orbits. The new maneuver system does exactly what you say the old one does, it puts you in the orbit you asked for, properly accounting for your acceleration (and probably change in acceleration, but I haven't tested that yet). You're allowed to complain that the maneuver isn't in the middle like you're used to it being, but in KSP 1 you couldn't do what's shown in the image and time the burn of a low-acceleration craft to land you precisely in a low-inclination orbit. This is just one of those changes you might need to get accustomed to when KSP 2 eventually (and hopefully) takes off, like procedural wings and workspaces. It's different but that doesn't make it bad.

Which is why I suggest a subforum in which no downloads are required