Bej Kerman

You clicked quote and it made me look like I was saying that fine control doesn't need to be there. Can you quote me properly? I was saying that whether or not someone exploits lightspeed propellers, the idea of letting a broken aero model pass needs retiring.

Newbies pulling 30 g's like it was nothing would disagree with you. Newbies can learn to use fine control mode It doesn't need to be there either way.

There is no predefined function. It is the type of thing you need to simulate a model and check if the conditions converge. No way to approximate it? I don't suppose you saying Dres can't have rings is merely a baseless assumption then?

That's interesting, I still wanna see maths.

FAR isn't any harder, nor will new players have the stock aero in their heads to unlearn. It's not difficult, it just doesn't let you reach lightspeed using propellers.

It is very round.... that is the problem. Okay, so precisely how much more oblate does Dres need to be to have rings?

So why can't Dres? Can you hand me the napkin maths you did to prove Dres can't have rings?

Given the improved physics elsewhere and even three-body for binary systems, I'd at least expect them to aim for a highschool student's understanding of aerodynamics and aircraft design. Wdym?

Anything more than a student game, that aims to simulate aerodynamics, needs to properly account for how the shape of a set of wings affects the performance of an aircraft. Charm

We do not have up-to-date info on what kind of aero model they are using. But given the competency of Intercept, I'd expect that by now they're aiming for something closer to FAR. The game's inspired by the real world but that doesn't give it an excuse to be hideously unrealistic.

is not a part of stock kerbal, and won't be in the sequel. so what's your point? Just to be clear, did you just say KSP 2 won't have procedural wings? https://i.imgur.com/tEvXaYx.mp4 That's not what I am seeing here.

All of my points have been based on streamlining gameplay e.g. the devs adding routine missions so you aren't doing the same resupply mission over and over again, so players can focus on worthwhile gameplay. Sticking together bits of cardboard in a futile attempt to make a coherent wing all while being distracted from the problem of making a wing design that makes sense for the target speed your aircraft is aiming for is not worthwhile gameplay, and the devs are streamlining gameplay here by allowing the player to focus on the problem of figuring out how to make wings that properly serve the aircraft they are attached to - or, as you said it for some reason, allowing the player to use an "easy button". Can't stress this enough, a QOL feature that makes gameplay less mundane and allows the game's aero simulation to properly shine isn't equal to an "I win" button.

Small bodies can form rings.

I'm just saying, if the way you fix your SSTO is by removing FAR and using the woefully underqualified stock aero instead rather than tackling whatever issues your SSTO has (undersized fin?), I think I am allowed to have my doubts. The spirit of "working with what you have" adds nada to the game and detracts from the challenge of creating wing designs. Players shouldn't be thinking "how can I get this approximate shape using these janky wing parts?", they need to be thinking "using these tweakables, how can I make a wing that allows my aircraft to maintain supercruise?". Having to work with LEGO does not add anything but an unnecessary layer of tedium that detracts from being able to properly tackle the challenges of capturing the flight dynamics you want for your aircraft. I'm just not seeing how the left one looks good. The one on the right has wings that are actually coherent.

Pre-recorded missions take a lot of time to make and don't react to external events. This would also fall flat very quickly.

Not a lot from what I hear...

You're saying this a lot but I don't understand what it has to do with anything beyond not having to juggle missions like you had to in KSP 1.

How? KSP is a very complicated game, and unless you give the AI the ability to build its own rockets (which in of itself entails training an advanced AI to be able to make educated decisions in building rockets), just using the stock crafts isn't a feasible solution. At some point the AI will need a rocket built for a specific purpose.

(Please quote me in future ) KSP 2 should avoid having buttons to enable and disable things that massively alter the balance of the game. KSP 1 only lets you disable some massive mechanics because half of them weren't baked for long enough.

Before, you were complaining about the idea of habitable planets. Wouldn't you want this, if anything? I know I want a colony under a star that regularly fluctuates in brightness.

You hate the idea of habitability so your mind fixates on the habitable planets, creating a bias. Think clearly for a moment, we've seen plenty of planets that aren't habitable. Look at Rask and Rusk.

Really? Is KSP 1 one of those games? CKAN handles manual additions fine and even adds it to your mod list.

Building wings isn't something that needs to be difficult. Your sense of accomplishment came not from solving an aerodynamics problem or refining a design, but rather working around an obtuse artefact of the LEGO paradigm. If players feel proud for managing to work around a needlessly complicated part of the game, the game has messed up. When Pwings come round with EA, your sense of accomplishment should come from making a wing that works how you want it to, not merely managing to get a wing together. Hopefully this will incentivise thinking "How can I make a wing that is efficient in the speed regime I am targeting?" as opposed to "How can I make something that remotely looks like a wing?". This is a hideous oversimplification. You still need to consider things like e.g. what shape wings you need in order to fly supersonic efficiently, something you likely didn't think about because you were too distracted by KSP 1's awful wing building. A QOL that lets you focus on the actual physics of wings isn't an "easy button". The last thing Pwings is, is an "easy button". If you install FAR and actually begin thinking about what kinds of wings you need for certain tasks rather than just making sure the CoL is right without thinking any deeper, you'll see clear as day that it isn't an easy button and merely places challenge where the challenge should be in a game where having spaceplanes to use puts you at a massive advantage to people using typical rockets. You still need to design wings and anyone who is using the feature properly isn't just bashing out things that look like wings in 5 seconds without any deeper thought to how the used wings might impact the flight dynamics.

Not to mention after ring collisions appear some players will understandably be confused to see vessels disappearing from the map view.

What fireworks are you using that are methane powered? It's an analogy.