Breuss

I present my version of the Dream Chaser spacecraft. I did not strive for 100% accuracy, especially since it not actually flown yet. After the launch and up to an altitude of 20-25 km - do not touch the rocket control! Let it fly straight up. Otherwise it will start chatting. DeltaV - a lot. I failed to land properly. The device is very poorly managed in atmosphere. Maybe you'll have more luck? A test payload lies in the cargo hold. But I failed to extract it in flight, because. there is no docking port or separator on the satellite itself. I forgot that in KSP 2 the dockport cannot separate from itself an object that does not have a dockport. The entire flight went fine, but the landing still failed. But you didn’t hear that!) Just close your eyes and imagine that the craft did land.)) Download >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eZ8mBV7EyG5HMF8nJKf85941PUItJQua/view?usp=share_link

Hmm... I can't see my screenshots either. During the day they were all visible. What the hell?

I want to share screenshots of my flights. I know that KSP 1 with mods looks just as good or even better. But KSP 2 already knows how to please the eye.

I'm sure I'm not the first to complain about this. In the Parts Manager, mouse clicks often do not work. The video shows a problem with checking the checkbox. But often the bookmarks are not opened from the first click. They also sometimes close with problems. Although in video a bookmarks behave extremely well.

He tested the emergency rescue system on his rocket. The ejection of the command module was successful. The rocket fell and exploded, the capsule flew off to the side. After it landing, i noticed that a mark was hanging over the launch pad and was not moving anywhere. There is no object there. And for some reason, the distance to it is constantly growing, although the mark is motionless. P.S. And please turn down the reflectivity of the terrain! Well, why does it shine in the Sun like plastic?

I landed his capsule with kerbonauts specially at the north pole. To see what it looks like in game. The landing happened in the mountains and the command module was drowned in textures.)

I tried to make a Dream Chaser. First, I designed the spacecraft itself in a horizontal position and saved it. Then I started building the launch vehicle. Created a control unit, tanks and added from the Dream Chaser collection. I deployed it vertically and there were difficulties. There are two problems in this 20 second video. 1) After adding the Dream Chaser, the camera began to behave differently. Now, by holding down the right mouse button, I zoom in and out of the camera, but I absolutely can’t move the camera up and down. The problem is somehow related to the fact that I am adding a spacecraft that at the time of creation was not oriented vertically, but horizontally. Those. if I start building a booster right under the spaceship, the camera still won't be able to move up and down. 2) I noticed the second mistake only when I uploaded the video to YouTube. After adding a spaceship from the collection, it had an incorrectly rotated docking port. Although when I saved the device - everything was correct. The video shows that I tore off the docking port and attached it to the rocket. After that, when trying to move the Dream Chaser, its back wall unfolded in the same incorrect way, the role of which is played by the control unit. In a word, Dream Chaser's flight has been delayed for now.)

Perhaps not the most necessary feature, but it will add convenience. Add a button that places the craft exactly on the floor in the VAB. Especially if masts are attached to the craft. Because it is not always convenient to do this with the mouse. And it will be even better if a separate or the same button will align the craft exactly in the center of the floor of the vertical assembly building. Only in the horizontal plane. Perfectionists will rejoice!

In the first part of the game, in the workshop, there was quite a lot of white light. The craft was well lit from all sides. And the huge doors of the building were also open and it was possible to see the street, the grass in the distance. It looked more comfortable. Now the building is closed and dark. Sometimes bright sunlight penetrates through the windows, but this is a matter of chance. In my opinion, there are not enough artificial light sources of a cold or white hue. I know it's more of a matter of taste. What do you think?

I'm starting from the same logic.) So far, enjoying the gameplay in KSP 2 is difficult. But 1-2 hours a day I still play it for the sake of finding errors. This is a unique project on the whole planet and I want it to develop.)

Since day one of early access, I have been using this button extensively to report bugs to the developers. But... now I see that none of the messages I sent have been viewed. At least, I can draw such a conclusion, looking at the number of views of the videos with errors, the link to which I attach to the message. I understand that there are a lot of people who write feedback. But still, a lot of time has passed since the beginning of early access. And I get the feeling that I'm doing an empty, redundant job, recording videos with errors and sending them to the developers. Moreover, since I do not speak English at all, I also have to bother with translation. Or is it better to report bugs in the game on the forum?

I already sent a message to the developers about this issue. I think it's worth repeating here. When 2 or more ships are nearby, then in the map mode it is unrealistic to select the vehicle you need as a target. Icons overlap each other. We need a drop-down list that will list all spacecrafts within a radius of, say... 10 km.

I often create with new topics. Well, what can you do if there are so many ideas?) SSTO and shuttles is one of the most popular topics in the game for many players. And all these crafts are distinguished by the feature that they are all covered with heat-protective tiles in reality. I propose to add in the game to all wings, control surfaces and fuselages (yes, there are many of them, I agree), the ability to add the texture of heat-shielding tiles. To make the shuttles look even more cool! Moreover, we cannot know in advance what kind of fantasy the players will come up with. Will it be a copy of Starship Elon Musk or Dream Chaser? Therefore, the tile textures should be of three types: only the lower part of the wing, only the upper part of the wing and ... completely covering the wing from all sides. The same goes for the fuselages. Tiles only on one half of the fuselage, on the other and full coverage. And yes... maybe the fuel tanks need to add this feature too. Those. any fuel tank can suddenly become the fuselage for the SSTO. What do you think?

Why would it destroy the main idea? Orbital mechanics, trajectories, aerodynamics - all this remains. Without this, the game is not conceivable. But the connection of parts in the rocket will be implemented differently and this will give a performance gain. And also rockets or orbital stations will stop hanging out like sausages. Everything else remains. Why did you decide so? But the same interstellar mothership, which includes an all-terrain vehicle, a heavy cargo landing module, a constellation of satellites for creating communications and scientific equipment - this already draws on a very serious amount of detail. Just over 1000. I play exactly KSP, not space engineers. Because physics is just as important and interesting to me. Orbital physics. But the physics of rocking the rocket like jelly - this is clearly not good for the game. Or do you really like it when craft hangs? Does it give any thrill to the game? In any case, it hurts performance much more seriously. I repeat once again. Orbital physics and aerodynamics remain in place in my proposal!) I have been playing KSP 1 since 2014. I have visited all the sink planets many times. And in recent years I have been playing with mods and even adding my own models to the game. I'm also a Unity game developer. And I know what I'm talking about. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1IJCgl8c3V7JWZSiFoj1wKpKj1IPsdcnF?usp=sharing It's enough?) I also want to add that in the CIS countries a very small percentage of the population can afford a powerful computer. I have a $2500 gaming laptop. And I have 3 more years to give a loan for him. All my friends have laptops for 300-400 dollars and very old ones. Those. among my environment I am the richest. Although a resident of the United States, for sure, can buy a PC for $ 2,500 in 2-3 months, and not on credit for 3 years. Those. outside of Europe and the US, with poor optimization, people won't be able to play PCB 2 at all.

Greetings to all KSP 2 lovers and developers! Sorry for my English, I'm using google translator. I hope he translates correctly. The fact that optimization is extremely important for KSP 2, and that everyone really wants it, has long been known to everyone. But I want to touch on a more specific topic. Where exactly is the very border when optimization can be considered sufficient? I personally think that optimization should be such that owners of not the most top-end computers can build orbital stations, planetary bases or interstellar motherships from 1500-2000 parts without a critical FPS drop. Someone will say that I've lost my mind, but ... we really are all waiting for interplanetary flights and colonization, aren't we? And how do you imagine a starship of 50-200 parts? In my opinion it would be a rather dull sight. In the first part, with mods for interstellar flights, a decent interstellar ship cost me about 1200-1500 parts. And yes, I played with 3-5 fps. In CPS 2, with such crafts, there should be at least 25-30 fps. There are many, many lovers of building complex, grandiose, large crafts. Yesterday I launched a rocket as close as possible to Saturn 5. With a lander and a command module. The craft consisted of 275 parts and I played with 7-11 fps. It's not bad. Before the release of the patch, it was even worse. But... it's only 275 parts. What happens if I want to build an orbital station with 1000 parts? As I liked to do in KSP 1. 1200-1500 parts in crafting at 30 fps, I propose to make it the very bar to which we should strive to optimize the game. Another question is how to achieve this? I have a suggestion. But I suppose the developers may not like it, because. this will require a major overhaul of the game. Now all parts in crafting are physical. Those. each piece carries a rigid body component. I'm right? It turns out that if a rocket consists of 300 parts, then during its flight the physics of 300 components is simultaneously calculated! And their interaction with each other! This is a performance disaster! And most importantly, this is absolutely not necessary for the game. It doesn't help the gameplay in any way. It just brings dangling, flexible rockets like sausages or jelly into the game. And he forces everyone to use uncomfortable struts that only irritate and spoil the appearance. Physics is not needed on every detail! And what is needed? We need one common rigidbody component for the whole craft! The rocket consists of 300 parts, but the rigidbody is one for everyone, common! If a stage separates from the rocket, it has its own rigidbody. Now we have two rigidbody on stage. Not 300, but only 2! If some part undocks, shoots back, falls off, gets damaged, overheats, it gets a rigidbody component and behaves like a separate physical body. But until the craft fell apart - it has only 1 rigidbody component for all its parts. Those who work in the Unity probably understand what I mean. How should parts be attached to each other, if not with the help of physics? With the help of inheritance to each other! Everything is simple! As soon as the part should fall off from crafting, it ceases to be a child for crafting and the rigidbody is activated for it. Why is it necessary? Productivity will increase not by percentages, but at times! Many times! It will be possible to create crafts from 1000-2000-5000 and even possibly 10,000 parts! And this is much more important for the game! Do you agree? Players will be able to build epic interstellar ships, huge bases on planets, complex rockets with complex payloads, cool orbital stations!

How it was in KSP 1. This is quite often convenient. And in general, the management of the creation of fairings in the first part was more convenient, faster, clearer. I'm sorry. Posted the wrong video first. Already corrected.

I agree that the new control in the vertical assembly shop is not as convenient as it was in KSP 1. I vote FOR the return of the old control!