Bej Kerman

Reload a quicksave from before you reverted and they will come back

Self-explanatory. The launcher refuses to take anything other than image files.

Ignoring KSP 1's lack of persistent thrust and broken impulsive maneuver nodes?

C:\Users\USER\AppData\LocalLow\Intercept Games\Kerbal Space Program 2\Global\PhysicsSettings.json Line 61

I've found that closing and opening the map view causes maneuvers to break - midway through a circularisation burn, I found my maneuver putting its into a way higher orbit than I told it to. Worth making sure you don't toggle the map view during burns so that the timer remains accurate.

Yeah, I probably should have mentioned that at some point. A prograde maneuver with an ion engine won't put you on an outward spiral orbit, it'll just crash you into the surface because, on the opposite side of the orbit, what was prograde is now retrograde.

I just think in hindsight how weird it is that we've just sort of... accepted that the maneuver was put in the middle of the burn. I'm not sure how I can explain it. I just think it's more intuitive and more flexible that the maneuver marks where your old orbit ends. With no details to go off of, I can't know what your doing wrong or if your game is bugged. I can only say that, on my end, I end up almost exactly on the orbit I planned. If you really need help, you could probably post a video of you doing your maneuvers to the support forums, then we can see what's going wrong.

That is a work around / gamification for experienced players. If you know you should burn at PE, then the node should be placed at PE. This isn't a workaround, it's the best way to do insertion burns if you want to land directly in a low-eccentricity orbit. Why should it be centered on the node, besides that just being the thing everyone is used to? The way it is now is intuitive and works. Your node marks the moment your engines come on and your orbit from there reflects the dV input over the course of the burn. It's different from KSP 1, but so what. I can absolutely see why they did. The way it is now gives players a better understanding of how the time they choose to start their burn will impact their final orbit. Refer to Draradech's screenshot: I don't see any reason it should be any reason other than this. It's just another change you'll need to get used to but will ultimately be better than how it was in KSP 1. I'd imagine a tutorial at some point in the future will counter any "how will players figure this out?" concerns people might have, seeing as understanding this new system is critical even for ion-powered ships.

My bad. PrtScrn just saves to clipboard but Win+PrtScrn does save to Pictures\Screenshots and clipboard.

I didn't say that. I did say its bugs are way easier to tolerate than KSP 1's. [snip]

Exactly... Being able to plan an orbit so that at the end of the burn you're in the desired orbit, like in your image, was difficult in KSP 1 and also wouldn't happen if you just put the maneuver in the middle. The only solution for OP's problem is to just plan ahead and use the burn time to your advantage - an option to put the maneuver in the middle would discourage players from properly planning when to start their orbital insertion burns (which is important for ion engines and will be even more so for torch drives). The game should outright encourage players to do this. Just because this wasn't the way it was in KSP 1 doesn't mean the extra thought you put into maneuvers is bad.

It also horridly compresses screenshots.

The Panther has the same afterburner thrust and efficiency, but is also a fair bit lighter and can also switch to a more efficient mode.

The difference is..?

Have you tried just putting the maneuver earlier in the orbit? Burning 50% of the burn away from the maneuver node wouldn't have any advantage, and in fact unless you apply the above technique you will have to reduce your eccentricity in a separate maneuver.

Windows 11 automatically saves screen prints to your screenshots folder and your clipboard.

It's fully released because they say so. Feature complete, in what universe? The devs added an ion engine and never got round to adding persistent thrust, which should be simple if some modder can do it. But nope. A core feature missing for ten years. The KSP 2 "launch" (it's not but whatever, I'm tired of explaining EA vs Release) was a trainwreck compared to what we hoped it'd be in 2019, yes. But at least the developers clearly CARE. KSP 1's early developers lacked skill and its later developers lacked passion. Just because Squad declares the game is complete doesn't mean the 1.x.x label means anything. It's a useless metric in determining if a game's worth is anything but a negative integer. dV readouts came a staggering FOUR YEARS after """release""" (again, just an arbitrary thing that means literally nothing) - that is just ridiculous and frankly depressing, certainly more so than the issues KSP 2 has. At least there are basics here whose absence in KSP 1 rendered many parts of gameplay unuseable, like ion engines. At least I won't be waiting... *checks notes* 6-7 years for a stock dV indicator and competent maneuver readouts. KSP 1 had planets that long before you could even determine how far your rocket could get. Really elemental and trivial things like that. Yeah, you're upset you only got a foundation. At least it's a foundation and not a pile of debris you can hardly rest a bigger structure on. And was in development for the next twelve years with varying team sizes despite making Squad a truckload of money. It never had good graphics, had tacked-on mechanics that amounted to nothing more than "right-click, receive reward", and was plagued with issues up to and past release. Indeed. As I said in my reply to Yakuzi, the money isn't the problem, it's that the developers seemingly didn't care much. Specifically, they cared more about adding useless parts and facelifts that only have worth at face value than providing necessities, and for 1.12 they didn't address any elephants (again, persistent thrust! Impossible to play without!) or dump a massive bugfix fest, all they added was a little part that generates procedural particles. That's all it takes to make 1.12 a good update apparently.

Piling on 50 mods to fix some issues is just going to introduce 100x more issues.

That sounds more like a minor misdirection than "poorly conceived and inconsistent". There are examples of poorly conceived UIs, and I certainly don't think KSP 2 is one of them. You don't have to look far from KSP 2 at all for examples of "poorly conceived and inconsistent" interfaces, in fact. Most of the things you said are fair, but I think saying this over something that can be fixed with little adjustment to the overall direction of the UI isn't fair.

Nor am I going to waste time with strawman arguments made because you can't just ignore someone who isn't speaking about your favourite game using the words you would hope they'd use. I'm addressing the people who ignore KSP 1's issues and aren't being constructive with KSP 2's issues, not the people who give it fair criticism. It was a success because A. there was 0 competition, and B. there were no standards for casual space flight sims.

Not any reason for forgiveness given that the modding scene has proven that "a single guy" could also do persistent thrust or a proper parts list with good models, let alone a small team.

Absolutely ridiculous how some people keep "dumping" on KSP1. KSP1 was, and remains, an absolutely brilliant and unique game that has given me and, I know, many other players, many hundreds of hours of joy. Would you care to explain how this is ridiculous, rather than just telling me off for pointing out all the double standards and the issues with a game you liked, all without ever giving me any actual counterarguments to what I said? The game's tutorials sum up to dialog boxes that occasionally do stuff when you satisfy conditions. One tutorial, for a while, couldn't even be completed because of a mistake during its development. KSP 2's tutorials will probably do the job of bringing rocket science to a casual audience with its animated tutorials breaking everything down into everyday analogies while using understandable and fairly common works, but KSP 1 never held up to "teaching them in a brilliantly intuitive way". The rocketry was simplified but don't confuse it for intuitive. Most people I'm finding only learned the game through Scott Manley et al. If you are at all going to call my criticism of a game "low", at least provide me with actual counterarguments. So far I've seen you putting KSP 1 on a pedestal, exaggerating and overstating its qualities, but no counterarguments to anything I've said. I'm severely overstating the severity of a vessel imploding because its part tree got too complicated for the game...? I encountered this twice within a short span, on my Minmus space station and on my probe, which was barely any bigger than a small Mun lander, all because I relied a tiny bit too heavily on tiny cubic struts. Putting too much stress should cause the cubic strut to fall off with sufficient force, not cause the entire vessel to wobble, vibrate and shatter as if every attached part is being thrashed by an engine. Mhm? That's not going to stop me from calling double standards where I see them. I, in no universe, would pay $50 for KSP 1 knowing how barebones it is and how many features, often basic ones, are lacking that are needed. The tutorials are bad, the gameplay suffers from a lack of critical features, the parts list is full of gaps, the bugs tracker has too many bugs in it, and so on. It's not nearly the game people state it to be. People find it easy to complain about a game that's new and has lots of issues, but complaining about a game people have had 10 years to get used to and holds a sentimental value? I don't mind constructive criticism of KSP 2, I've started on reporting bugs myself. But most of the criticism I see of KSP 2 is hardly constructive, and I do see the odd bit of criticism claiming KSP 1 is somehow better on a fundamental level even though you can see from some parts of KSP 2 that the developers are at least thinking, and not just adding stuff on impulse; "We've got ion engines (and later interstellar ones), so we need persistent thrust. People are going to be doing burns in the background and colonies will be told to perform missions on their own, so we need to support resource transfers in the background. The KSP 1 UI was designed by five-eyed aliens who don't understand that humans can't perceive the entire screen at once without bits going into our peripheral vision, so we put altitude and basic orbital info with the other navball readouts. People are going to be building space stations so we'll give them more than a pitifully small selection of girders to play with. The KSP 1 parts list was barely readable so parts are now labelled by size and are divided into subcategories. The VAB and SPH were restrictive so let's make dropped parts act as separate vehicles, integrate mirror symmetry into rocket symmetry and allow players to toggle vertical and horizontal default part orientation within the same workspace -!- wait a minute, with that last bit, we don't need an entirely different scene for aircrafts anymore!" et cetera. There are very few parts of KSP 1 where I can see thought went into planning things. Forgivable when it was still mainly Harvester, sure. Forgivable over 10 years later, absolutely not. TL;DR: People only forgive KSP 1 because they are only attached to it, from what I can tell.

KSP is missing a boat load of essential, borderline required features (see: persistent thrust, different fuel types bc the old liquid fuel NERVs are completely broken in regards to balance, ways to access parts that are inaccessible due to camera controls, a basic reactor, part classifications inside categories, etc) and £30 is asked for all that. I don't think the indie development really holds valid seeing as you had individual modders like Nertea coordinating the development of part assets and parts themselves far better than Squad was. I don't think it's a stretch to say that what's to be said about KSP 2 applies far more to KSP 1 than 2, especially seeing as <s> KSP 1's developers were so good at priorities </s> that they spent a good chunk of developer time remaking the part assets to be just as mediocre and even more bland than the old part assets. Yes, I'm bringing KSP 1 up for the 50th time. But I'm not a big fan of double standards and seeing people take kind stances about KSP 1 when it had many issues much worse than the, as Vl3d would say, mostly "cosmetic" bugs that I encounter playing KSP 2. On my first few weeks of coming back to KSP 1 towards late 2022, I had even small probes suffering from phantom forces and shaking themselves apart on successive rails warp > physics > rails warp cycles, all because I built a tiny bit of stuff around a tiny small cubic strut. You know, using a part built for part attachment to attach parts to places they otherwise can't be attached to. Again, this game in its entirety costs £30 and that's not a kind price point for an insanely cheap and broken game - the game's look, even with all the eye candy mods you can find, is stuck in 2011 and the bugs and lack of critical features make it feel like an early access game. Even seven years after its early access ended. Sure, KSP 1's tenuous list of planned features being checked makes it "feature complete", but that's a frankly useless metric given that many features you should need for e.g. ion engines were seemingly never planned. Yes, KSP 2's parts list takes a second to load and things are a bit slow, but it's certainly better than KSP 1 directing all of its resources to getting the parts loaded, which becomes a massive problem when using mods. I notice my tangent is getting longer so I will stop there. I just wanted to address how insanely pricey KSP 1 is for how broken it is, and that people seem to forget, ignore or get apologetic about KSP 1's Knock-Nevis full of problems when it gets brought up in discussions about KSP 2. So far, KSP 2 costs 15 quid more than KSP 1 (and is just about the same price as the full KSP 1 experience), and it's already dealt some serious blows in my eyes. I can't now go back to single-craft construction, a separate SPH, impulse maneuver editing and a navball that's afraid to be anywhere near the altitude readout, can I?

lol My bad for going off there, didn't realise that was your case. Either way, it's EA, it's going to be fixed

For me it simply does not work... nothing at all. Alright, that's news to me. Did you report the bug?