Scarecrow71

Shana said that, not Dakota. And I fail to see how this is somehow telling us the company is intentionally spacing releases or stringing us along.

I love that the simple answer anyone ever gets is "You are playing the game wrong". In a game that is all but explicitly defined as being able to play any way you want, making a comment about what someone perceives in the game is simply playing it wrong. Forgive me for not wanting to take 10 minutes to slow down, or that I'd like to have a higher TWR. My bad for thinking that the DSM engines are pointless due to their low TWR. I'm fully aware that a higher ISP in a vacuum means more dV. None of that means I should blindly just agree that the engines are awesome and should be used. I spent 2800 science points to get them; they should give me some benefit that makes me want to use them other than "You may get some fuel efficiency out of them, even though they are heavier and have lower thrust". But, you know, I'm playing the game wrong.

Side Effect: Only in a very specific alternate dimension that you have no way of getting to. Superpower: I can travel into and out of any alternate dimension/reality.

Although I cannot confirm this due to not having access to the code while it's running, it is a pretty well-known fact that, with any software, exiting and restarting dumps memory and wipes variables. Doing this can clear up memory and buffer/swap files that are being used.

You took what I said out of context. An increase in dV does not equal an increase in efficiency when burning said fuel. Longer burns with more fuel do not necessarily equate to more efficient burns. I don't use the KSP1 technique in KSP2. When the timer hits 0, I start the burn, aiming (mostly) at the maneuver marker on the SAS globe-thingy (is there an actual name for it?). I do tend to slow down near the end of the burn timer, dropping from 100% slowly so as to not overshoot the burn or the fuel it says I need to use. But longer burns are not better. In my experience; your mileage may vary.

Bolded for emphasis. Consider for a moment that the average KSP1 player never leaves Kerbin's SOI. I read somewhere once that a whopping 70%+ of players have never gone any farther than Minmus, and another 10% or so have only ever sent probes into Kerbol orbit. Those numbers could be wrong, and I could be remembering them incorrectly. But that's 80% of the KSP1 player base (assuming the numbers are right) who have never had a probe, lander, rover, etc., land on a celestial body outside of Kerbin's SOI. Also consider for a moment that there are some KSP1 players who have landed on Duna, or Dres, or Moho...but who have never landed a Kerbal on Eve. Or who have sent probes to Jool, but have never landed on any of its moons. Or who have never even been to Jool. Or Eeloo, due to its distance and inclination. Even with being able to spam science points in KSP1, and being able to unlock the entire tech tree without ever leaving Kerbin's SOI, some experienced KSP1 players have never been to the outer planets (or landed on one of the inner ones). I can accurately state this, because I'm one of them. In KSP1, I have never landed a Kerbal on Eve, I've never even attempted to launch a landed probe from Eve, and I had never been to Jool (although I have been to Eeloo). So you want to talk about a challenge to experienced KSP1 players? For starters, you can't just spam science points in Kerbin's SOI any more, so now you have to go farther than Minmus if you want to unlock the entire tech tree (or even just get better parts). Sure, there's some local missions you can get some science points out of. But you are never going to even sniff Tier IV until you've gone interplanetary and back. And for those KSP1 players who never left the local SOI, that's going to be a challenge. Take myself, for instance. I mentioned above how I've never even been to Jool in KSP1. In KSP2, I've not only been to Jool, but I've gotten a probe in orbit AND I've landed on and returned from Pol. Things I've never done in KSP1. And I can tell you that it was certainly a challenge. I guess that an answer to your question lies in what someone really thinks a challenge is. Are experienced players going to have an easier time of things in KSP2 than new players? You bet your booties. And that's because they already understand builds, launch windows, gravity turns, transfers, and all the good things that come from having played the previous game. They already get the physics part of it, which is a pretty decent learning curve. But that doesn't mean that there aren't challenges for experienced players. It just depends on what they did in KSP1, and what they expect out of KSP2.

This simply tells me that, in spite of him stating they will continue to support and interact here on the forums, they are in fact ignoring the forums. Not all of us use Discord. Or Instagram. Or X. For a lot of us, the forums are our bread-and-butter for interacting with the community. And as these are the official forums of Kerbal Space Program, we should not be ignored. Having a little thing on the side of the home page that may or may not work is not acceptable enough. Especially not when, as I've mentioned above, Dakota has stated they will make a better effort to interact here. Which they aren't. Yes, Mike is out, and Dakota is having to fill both pairs of shoes right now. Still not acceptable to ignore an entire section of your player base.

I brought up impact tolerance only to show the differences in the engines. I am in no way trying to land on them. Now, there are engines I will try to use as landing gear, but not these. I am aware of the change in dV, and that, despite the added weight, the deep space engines all named after musical instruments do in fact give more dV. However, the increase in dV does not equal an increase in efficiency, especially when attempting to use that fuel to slow down and orbit a celestial body. For example, Jool (or one of its moons). Coming in hot, I don't want to have to deal with a 10+ minute burn that will very likely not end with the circularization or even Ap/Pe I'm shooting for. I'd rather have something far more efficient at slowing my craft down. This really comes into play when you create maneuvers that can get you "free" encounters with the moons, such as when needing to go to Tylo. That long burn from the DSM engines will most likely not work as well as the others. This again falls into the category of "Expensive mid-game stuff that you are likely to never use but need to unlock to either complete the tech tree or unlock other nodes after it". If the engines were to really be used in deep space, the thrust would be in line with paying for something that costs all those science points. Regardless of the ISP, I will never use an engine that gives so little thrust unless I'm landing on Gilly or some other body that has a really low gravity/density. For all other bodies, I'm going to take the higher thrust engines every single time. And while I cannot speak for anyone else, I'm quite sure I'm not the only one.

I'm actually less impressed with the hydrogen engine than I am with the DSMs. I only have the small H2 engine unlocked, but it is terrible. I'm trying to build a craft to drop a rover on Tylo right now, and I'm just lacking in dV and TWR. Need to rethink what I'm doing, primarily because all of these engines aren't very good.

Nope. Aloha, @kerbiloid!

She-ban-igans

There is no need to do that, though. They are heavier and have less thrust than other engines in their class. Yes, the slightly higher ISP would mean a bit more dV. But the added weight and lower thrust would mean longer, less efficient burn times.

In my exploration game, I have recently unlocked Deep Space Methalox, which includes the Tuba, Trumpet, and Cornet engines. The description on the Tuba includes the following statement: Unlike its namesake, the LV-3000 "Tuba" is elegant and graceful and designed for superior performance in a vacuum. Horse hockey. The Tuba has an ISP of 385, but only pushes out 510.0 kN of thrust. It also weighs 5 tons and has an impact tolerance of 6 m/s. By comparison, the Skipper engine has an ISP of 322, but pushes out 600.00 kN of thrust, with a weight of 3 tons and an impact tolerance of 10 m/s. I'd like to know exactly how the Tuba is better than the Skipper in this instance. If you really want to compare apples to apples, take a look at the Trumpet (same size class): ISP of 382, 160 kN of thrust, mass of 1.65 tons, and an impact tolerance of 6.0 m/s. I spent all those science points for these lousy engines? I can put multiple darts or vectors on something and get better results. Heck, I can put 10 Twitch engines on something to get the same thrust, and only take up 1 ton of mass. What is the purpose of the deep space methalox engines? Is it to make you do 10 minute burns? Did they just feel the need to suck 2800 science points away from you? Like, can someone give me an honestly good reason why these engines even exist, and what the purpose is other than filling out the tech tree?

Are you talking about the use of the F key while rotating parts? If so, then that's already part of the game.

See, that's not what the documentation related to this EA says. It makes no reference that the only place to interact with the devs is on Discord, and the forums are literally touted as the OFFICIAL place for all things KSP. Does being on the Discord help? Yes. But it isn't the only place, and the company shouldn't ignore the official forums that are still very active.

Well, seeing as @kerbiloid originally mentioned Sith, there is only 1 child capable enough of claiming and defending said hill. Heck, even Yoda was afraid of this kid. Afraid enough to deny him training under Qui-Gon, and afraid enough to eventually - but rather reluctantly - allow him to be trained by Obi-Wan. And even Obi-Wan mentioned "The boy is dangerous. They all sense it; why can't you?"

Side Effect: You are always late for everything else. Superpower: To always know which way is north.

Oh my god! It's sheer ban-demonium in the ring! Somebody stop the damned match!

Side Effect: All dialogue, acting, sets, and props are infinitely worse. Super Power: I can speak every language.

This is the most bothersome point of the whole communication breakdown. We get promised more, but actually get less. And then, when the project manager does a 40+ minute interview on a topic that the community has been begging for information about, but doesn't tell us he did it and we have to find out through other means? That's literally a slap in the face to the paying portion of the community.

Well, it was initially reported as a bug because it wasn't known that it was designed that way. And the bug report was closed without indicating why in the bug report itself. I get that it ended up in the KERB, but people aren't going to go combing through each KERB to see the status of a given bug they may be following.

@The Aziz, @kdaviper You both missed the intent of my question. I'm not questioning what bug reports are for. I'm questioning why it was closed without giving the reason why. I'd also like to know why, if the community is providing feedback on this issue AND it was originally reported as a bug, why is it simply listed as "Working as designed" when Dakota stated that this is merely meant to be "We are looking for feedback". The community gave feedback, but the bug report is in the archive without any further discussion. This is what leads to the community thinking "They implemented this, don't care, and aren't changing it".

Side Effect: You must roll with them. My Superpower: The ability to post witty retorts in any forum thread.

Well, seeing as I want to get in on this, I cast Armageddon: Now that there are no more lands in play, I play a Mountain: And then I tap it so that I can cast Brass Man to defend my new hill: