Bej Kerman

This forum being what it is, I didn't anticipate the pushback I saw against non-binary kerbals. Fortunately, as far as I can tell as of the Insiders event, kerbals don't have a defined gender like in KSP 1. I didn't see any strict "male" and "female" labels, so I'm hoping Intercept runs with this.

If Pluto is a planet, all the other millions of similarly sized bodies in the Kuiper belt are planets. If it just has to be solid and orbit the Sun, then J002E3, a spent S-IVB stage, is a planet.

Was gonna bring that up! Noticed this elsewhere as well: at here: I've also noticed that notifications say "February 23 2023" rather than something more appropriate like "1 hour ago", as well as occasionally blanking usernames: Edit: there it is again! - this time, I captured the "Feb 23" bug. And of course it fixed itself again. Edit end \\ After some time passes, these fix themselves, only applying to really recent notifications. This specific bug also applies to the front page, to the right of each subforum where it shows the most recent post in that sub. But it doesn't blank the username. The forum doesn't like the stress KSP 2 has put on it!

You probably didn't mean to come across the way you did. I'm just saying there was probably a better way to phrase what you said

The KSP 2 gizmo is fine, I just think Squad's design made it much easier to tell the rotation handles apart from transformation.

Much cheaper. That's what this means.

Are you sure that was the best way to say what you said?

How do people know fuel crossfeed is the issue here?

Expectations.

This early access is more for people who are going to be writing bug reports and want to explore the game on a technical level, than people who wanted to make interstellar ships and run casual missions.

What if we prefer the pixel font? Five letters looking a bit weird isn't an issue that can't be fixed without ditching the entire font.

Well it doesn't matter seeing as it's happening here now

Nope. Kerbals could make it

RIP to Queensland and NS Wales. With Love from Britain

Yes, he was.

Well I don't want to see the creation of assets washed down to people making prompts with 0 thought or development.

Nope. There are no preset wings. You get a few default wings and it's your job to change the settings from there.

Not to mention save corruptions and rockets disassembling themselves because you made the part tree too confusing and built a cubic strut somewhere near the root, the latter of which happened too much to me.

Wings have control surfaces built in, so it doesn't look like hardcore wing patchers will get a good substitute for old style building. Unless you like every tiny bit of your wing flapping.

It wouldn't be a bad thing for KSP 2 to have an ingame alternative to having to mess around with Windows Explorer tabs and having to reload the game to see your flag show up.

Is putting thought into your designs really worse than not getting a choice for small wings? The indicators not moving is a bug so that's not an issue in the first place.

If it does the job, there's no reason for me to not use it. I'm not a recreationist, I make things with specific purpose and so far I had no need to use 80 parts just to build a wing. Partly because it never worked for me. And I'm pretty sure some people who wanted to remake Concorde or jet fighters or whatever already went to use procedural mods because they knew what to do with them. Okay, you keep saying whatever gets brought up is the only possible reason a wing needs to exist. Wings having a variety of possible shapes is a good thing. If a delta wing is all you need to add, good, but there exists purposes for wings that aren't just delta-shaped or any of the other basic shapes provided by Squad. It's good that now, if you want to make a large aircraft (the Concorde is solely for comparison purposes), 90% of your parts won't be spent solely on the wings. You didn't? You did say that - the words I see here and the fact it's under a post complaining about wings rather than documentation would pin your frustrations on procedural wings rather than the documentation. I just said that they aren't a shortcut or an easier way to build working planes. They may solve the shape and part count problems, but nothing else. In KSP1 if my pre-designed wing didn't work, I'd simply switch to a different one (really same thing applied to engines). In KSP2 I have 8 sliders each modifying different parameter. That's not making things easier, is it? In KSP 2 you've got 8 sliders that each change important properties that affect distinct properties of the wings. That is making things easier, especially for applications that call for very thin wings, which KSP 1 did not provide at all. In KSP 1 you had to fidget with tiny squares that weren't always the same thickness, sometimes caused Z-fighting, had to be maneuvered in specific ways to hide the uglyness, yada yada, that's not any easier than 8 simple sliders with distinct functions. Not to mention that control surfaces are part of wings now in the case of fixed wings and thus appear as distinct components rather than a flap dangling off a string of squares and delta panel masquerading as a wing. When a control surface is at rest, it properly blends in and is flush with the bits around it and doesn't stick out like a sore thumb.

No. They said at most 16 players, divided into at most 4 teams. If they said it was just 16 players per synced instance they would have said so. Temper your expectations - please!

We've been through this before, haven't we? A game shouldn't require knowledge gained elsewhere to play it. I don't have to know how a wing should look like and how it affects the aircraft, if I can just use a wing that's already there, like I've been doing for years - again, I don't use the structural blocks. KSP taught me rocket science, but not air science. "fundamental principles of proc wing design" Which are? None of the games have ever taught me that and I don't think KSP2 will. I'm ready to be surprised though, but I wouldn't count on in-depth tutorials on wing design. A game shouldn't require knowledge et cetera, but that doesn't mean procedural wings is the problem! Little documentation is the problem and you're laying it squarely on the shoulders of the procedural wings because of a problem that doesn't pertain to them at all. You prefer the KSP 1 wings because you didn't get to decide on thickness at all and all that. Having no options isn't better than having options that you need to do research on to recognise their impact on flight. Yeah, you're not used to proc wings, but do acknowledge that it's not fair to blame procedural wings on problems that don't quite pertain to them. SimplePlanes doesn't have tutorials on everything, and if something lack tutorials, the fact the feature doesn't have a tut is the problem, not the feature itself. Well, yeah, but how do I know the shape? for KSP1 it was either slap a delta wing on a shuttle, large wing on a Mk3 plane, or smaller swept wings for small aircraft. But here? I get one wing and I have to work my way around it, supposedly spending hours before it can fly properly. What if you don't want a delta wing? This answer only accounts for one kind of wing out of many types. In KSP 1 you have to patch a bunch of tiny segments together for long aircrafts. For something as big as a Concorde, wings are going to account for at least 70% of your parts count. Rather than fiddle with some sliders, you're building a big ugly delta wing out of tiny squares when you could have just scaled one up. In KSP 2 you still try to put something from your mind into the game, but you're given way better tools for making a wing that looks how you want. (yes, you are replying to someone else, but forums are forums and I'll deliver input ) If only I had their level of expertise. I'm sure you'll adjust swiftly.