Scarecrow71

Nope, but I bet @ColdJ is around here somewhere.

I haven't landed manually in KSP1 in years. Doesn't mean I'm not having fun, nor does it mean it's no longer a game.

I don't think it's out of the ballpark to assume a sentient species that is space-faring - and going interstellar at some point - would have programmed their computers to do this for them. Heck, IRL our airplanes have automated functions that you could state "we should learn how to do". If you want to land manually, great. But there's no reason to assume computers wouldn't do it for you.

Granted. You know a head. I wish I could erase that show from my memory. Permanently.

We are all banned because we cannot seem to get @HarvesteR back here.

I'd prefer to have MechJeb's landing utility. Click the surface where you want to land and let the computer take over.

For about the last week, I've been attempting to get a lander to Tylo to complete the Tylo Monument mission. And instead of trying to land a Kerbal there, get a bunch of science, and then try to get them home, I decided I was going to use a probe to do it. And by probe, I mean a gadget-less thing with legs that I could set down near the monument to simply get credit for the mission and leave it there. So I built a large rocket, stuck a probe on top of it...and then watched as time and again I either didn't have enough fuel to land OR I had just enough to land, but far enough away from the monument that I simply couldn't get the credit for it. What little hair I have was starting to get pulled out of my already-bald head, and I was getting frustrated with it. So I took a little break - maybe overnight at best - and came back with the idea that maybe I should use a rover instead. Something simple, with wheels, a solar panel/battery combo, and a really decent antenna so I could drive this thing all over the place no matter where I landed. The problem I have always had with rovers, though, is getting them up into space. I could never quite seem to build a craft that was decent enough to get them up into orbit and then off to wherever I needed them, primarily because rovers are horizontal and rockets are vertical. I spent a few hours actually drawing stuff with a pencil to see if I could get over that hump, and sure enough, I did. Came up with an idea, and I built it. Or, rather, a decent facsimile of it, anyhow. But I built the rover, and the payload bay...and then got stuck on the rocket itself. It seemed that no matter how many boosters and engines on this thing that I either couldn't get off the ground (not enough TWR on Kerbin at launch) or not enough fuel to make the trip to Tylo. I spent DAYS trying to brute-force this thing and, at one point, nearly said "Fuggehdabbotit, I'm gonna cheat this thing to Tylo orbit". But I stepped back, didn't cheat, and came up with a new plan. I decided to built this thing in pieces in orbit of Kerbin. Far easier to get individual pieces up and put them together in orbit. This would then guarantee that I get enough dV on the lander, enough dV for the transfer stage, enough dV to orbit, etc. So I started building Iah III (pronounced yah three) in pieces, beginning with the rover and the lander/cargo bay. A bit of digression, if you will. I've been naming craft after ancient Egyptian gods/goddesses/deities lately, and Iah simply means "Moon". Tylo is a moon of Jool, and so this one stuck. Iah, by the way, is sometimes considered to be the adult form of Khonsu, but very little is known of them as they were "absorbed" by Khonsu and/or Thot some time prior to the 16th century BC. You can read what little Wikipedia has on them: Iah - Wikipedia Anyhow, as I mentioned, I am beginning with the lander and cargo area. So here we have Iah III on the launch pad: A lovely night-time launch. For some reason, night launches just seem right, don't they? But, continuing on, here is a shot of the lander in orbit (roughly 156km) after decoupling/undocking the ascent stage: And finally, a shot to show the rover inside the cargo bay: The center cone is the large cargo bay nose cone, so it does open. When I get this thing onto Tylo, it will undock from the interior of the cargo bay and, hopefully, drive out the front. Again, hopefully. The only issue I currently have here is that I only have the medium docking ports and not the large ones. Hence, the large-to-medium structural attachment. Shouldn't be too much of an issue, but it is what it is. So now we have the first of several pieces up in orbit!

Unfortunately, the answer is "no". In fact, it was stated that they are actually REMOVING things they are working on from the KERB reports.

Banned for not saying...

Which they claim to have been doing since the game dropped a year ago. It really is time for the team to take the community seriously and work on the stuff we have been complaining about the most. A year for the downgrade at maneuver nodes is simply uncalled for.

Nothing said about the game to this point is more true. While there are fun things to be seen and done in the game, and while there are some limitations that are fun, there are limitations in the game that are not. Core gameplay bugs and camera issues, as examples.

This. All day, every day. The game is going to be different things to different people, and the only way to know if someone thinks it is "worth it" is for them to buy the game, spend 2 hours playing it, and then decide if they want to refund or not. For me, there are both things to like and things to not like. I bought the game day 1 and, although I wished at times I would have refunded, I am glad I did not. If I had, I wouldn't have had the opportunity to see the game evolve into what it is today. Granted, we are still a long ways off from it being completed, and there are still a ton of bugs present (like that stupid one in the VAB that recenters your camera without you telling the game to do that). But to me, it was worth it.

Really? Because you stated: Now, this might not directly be you stating "Hey, they are doing this to kill the game". But based on your other responses in this thread, coupled with latching onto what even Dakota stated was one small comment in Shana's response, it can be reasoned that you do in fact think this is happening with the intent to kill the game. Again, I've asked you to detail what plan you think you've figured out, and you haven't responded. Which means your statement is nothing short of doomerism/the-sky-is-falling hyperbole. Don't get me wrong - I'm not happy with the release schedule either. I fully believe that, after a year and change, we should be getting updates far more often. And I still can't believe that there are issues present in the game that have been there since day 1 AND are part of the core gameplay loop AND don't exist in KSP1. But I'm not a game designer (although I am a software/automation jockey), so I won't proclaim to know how difficult it is to get this stuff working. I don't think it should be all that difficult what with using event/variable watches and poring through code all day long. And it certainly should take precedence over implementing new systems (which means CODERS should be working on this and not working on colonies or interstellar). But intentional? That's a bit out there, even for me. So again, I'll ask: what plan do you think you have figured out here?

It makes all the difference who said it. You are trying to take a comment made by one person out of context and then pin that on someone else. And you also failed to indicate exactly how this is the organization telling us they are intentionally spacing releases to kill the game. You said it yourself - you think you have figured out their plan. So tell us where you are getting this spacing comment and what their plan is.

And if you can tell me why it is called a thagomizer without Google...you'll still get banned.

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.