Scarecrow71

Which I actually mentioned in my post, had you bothered to read the whole thing. I literally pointed out that we have no idea how many bodies will be in any new system, nor how many will have an atmosphere. Please use the context of my entire post if you are going to try countering it.

I gotta whole-heartedly disagree with you here. Truth be told, I think it might be easier to learn with a Kerbal than with a probe. "So, I landed a probe on the Mun, but I can't take a crew report." "Yeah, they can't do that. Kerbals can, though." "Oh. What about a soil sample?" "Kerbals can do that. Your probe needs an extra piece that you may not have unlocked yet" "Ok. What about planting a flag?" "Another thing the Kerbal can do that the probe can't." "What good are probes if they can't do any of this stuff?" "Um..." Kerbals and probes, due to the lack of life support, have the exact same function in the game. The major difference is that Kerbals can do stuff that probes either can't OR need extra parts to do. Far easier to learn with a Kerbal than with a probe.

In the current iteration of KSP2, I agree. There are only 4 bodies that have an atmosphere - Eve, Kerbin, Duna, and Laythe - so having an aerobraking tool would become useless rather fast. Once you try to use the maneuver on a given body a second or third time you will probably never use it again for that body. I could be wrong and someone else's mileage may vary, but I can't see it being very useful after the first time it is used. Now, once we get to interstellar...could be a different story. We have no clue how many other celestial bodies will have an atmosphere, or what kind of atmosphere they will have. An aerobraking tool may be useful there...but again, the amount of use may be limited.

Agreed. While there may be times I'm in the mood to follow the American or Russian or Japanese space program, the game is called KERBAL Space Program. Not "History of Real World Space Flight" or some such. Let me define how my program works.

To expand on what I wrote above, here's the list of mods I use to go interplanetary: MapView Focus and Targeting. Shameless plug, but things get too cluttered when trying to select an actual celestial body without this. Transfer Window. Once you have the target selected, this little beauty shows you the current phase angle, target phase angle, and the projected dV needed (might not always be 100% accurate). It then lets you warp to the transfer window...although it sometimes overshoots the angle by 1/10 of a degree. Flight Plan. Similar to MechJeb in that it can create the maneuver node for you. Maneuver Node Controller. Allows tweaking of said node in small increments. K2D2. Similar to MechJeb's "Execute Node" function. I trust it implicitly for burns...although using it for landing isn't recommended (there are known issues with landing using this mod, so son, you're on your own with that). Here are links to the forum threads (in spoiler!) for all of these: For the actual dV requirements, as has been mentioned, the existing maps and calculators for KSP1 are still applicable.

I don't trust KSP2's ability to correctly calculate dV in the VAB (or anywhere else in-game, for that matter). I consistently have seen where the VAB will calculate one value, then at launch I'll see something else, then if I reload the game I get completely different values. I think there is a floating decimal point error somewhere in the math, but I'm not a dev so that's just a wild speculative guess. If some is good more must be better, right? If that's the case, go with the cockatoo and bring all the kerbals!

Not sure if it was mentioned in this thread (I did read it, so sorry if I missed it), but what docking port is having this issue? In a sandbox game I have where I'm trying to build a massive space station, I am using the large flat docking port (forgot the name of it), and I have had no issues with decoupling, docking, undocking, redocking, etc. But I have noticed that when I use the Clamp-O-Tron (the larger of the 2 with this name) I do sometimes have issues with it not realizing it should be able to dock but isn't. Just a thought?

So, this may be either an unpopular opinion OR it may be just my singularly-eyed view of the Kerbal world (korld?). But there is something in KSP2 that just bothers me, and it's a problem I've faced since the very first days I picked up KSP1: building vertically vs. building horizontally. Let me explain. In order to get out of a planet's atmosphere, you have to build vertically. Long, thin, spindly...whatever term you wish to use, we have to build that. Due to aerodynamics, we have to produce ships that reduce as much drag as possible so as to reach more optimal speeds, with better gravity turns, and then easier time to get into orbit. This is true in early game stages such as initial lift-offs from Kerbin, but then is really noticeable during late game when you are attempting to get out of the soup that is Eve's atmosphere. Even Duna's atmosphere can produce some drag, so building vertically is needed. The problem comes with landing on a celestial body, and this is where I am really bothered with how KSP (both 1 and 2) handle things. In order to land properly, and to insure you don't trip over yourself and not knock a lander over, you have to have a wide base. Or, you have to have built horizontally. This is especially noticeable when you don't have mapping techniques in play to show you where the flat pieces of terrain are, such as if you are landing in a crater on the Mun or on one of Eve's mountains. Heck, even dropping into Laythe's ocean you should have a wide base so as to displace enough water to keep your craft bouyant and floatable. Both of these building techniques are, technically, do-able in KSP. The problem is that KSP (again, both 1 and 2) doesn't seem to encourage horizontal building. All of the parts/pieces are designed to be stacked upon one another, and the game physics punish you for trying to build outwards. Either fairings end up too janky or heavy, or you have to over-strut things. Sometimes the CoM ends up being a problem and ships flip during ascent, or you can't ever seem to get enough thrust to even get off the ground. Or you produce so much drag that you can't possibly fly. Yes, I am aware that some of these may simply be a result of not using large enough engines or some such; don't harsh on me for that as I am aware that not everything that happens is a result of the game itself but is, at times, a result of incorrect builds. Again, the game encourages vertical builds. The parts aren't really designed to go outwards from the center, but rather upwards in a stack. It's actually pretty darned limiting when it comes to building because you can't be as creative as you want to be because you simply cannot put part A onto part B in configuration C to create ship D. Please don't ask me for specific examples; I simply am not going to go through every single part and list out how I want them to interact. I am trying to make a general point/observation here. Maybe it's me? Maybe I'm not capable of seeing a larger picture here? But I can't help but have this feeling that building horizontally is sorely lacking in the game, which limits our ability to really stretch our imaginations and build some wacky stuff.

Well, it was intended to be a joke about how difficult precision landing is, coupled with how quickly KSP2 thinks people can do it. But it was not as funny as I thought it would be.

Wait. Precision landing exists? I gotta tell that to the Kerbonauts.

I generally fly manually until I get an Ap I want (usually 100km) and then use Flight Plan/K2D2 to circularize.

There's a mod for the transfer window. Several, in fact. As far as dV, I assume you are talking about correct calculation of your stages? Because the dV map used for KSP1 should still tell you what you need.

I will start by saying that this post is my own opinion, and that your mileage may vary. I also won't dive into specific parts here other than saying "probe cores" or "LF engines". Now, with that said... When I think of balance to the tech tree, I don't think so much in terms of what pieces are in which nodes, but rather moreso what I need to accomplish before undertaking a certain task. Take a Mun landing, for example. In my mind - and I could be way off here - you should have done the following prior to landing on the Mun: Low altitude flight High altitude flight Sub orbital flight LKO Orbital flight LKO Orbital EVA HKO Orbital flight HKO Orbital EVA Munar fly-by Munar orbit That is a natural progression for getting to and landing on the Mun. I'm not saying you have to do one launch for each item, but rather you should have checked these off in order to unlock the technology to do a Mun landing. This is, of course, an oversimplified example. In addition to this, I have a real problem with different scientific gadgets being unlocked in different nodes. I have never understood why we can launch rockets into space right away but for some reason we can't do seismic or gravity readings until after we have landed on a other celestial body. That never made sense to me. Maybe it's just me. I also think that it really should be probe cores and sounding rockets with SRBs before crewed flights with methalox engines. And for that matter, it should be planes before rockets, especially when spaceplanes are almost a necessity for several celestial bodies. Just my 2 cents.

I always go engine first (retrograde) so I can burn off any fuel I have remaining as I get near Pe. This helps reduce speed AND decreases Ap. Once fuel is burned, I jettison the engine and tank, letting the ablator do its job.

I am going to vote a hard "no" here as well. We do not want another situation like we had eith the promises of when the game would originally drop, coupled with continued rehashing of what we were told and that the company is lying and Yada Yada Yada. We have been down that road, and we really don't want to go down it again. All it would take to destroy this trust that has been regained and/or rebuilt is to be told that x system will include y mechanics, but then what is released isn't what was promised. I can already see the forum threads and the endless reposting of links and videos to prove the company didn't deliver. We simply don't want that. I don't want that.

Not interplanetary; I have yet to do that in For Science. Munar return.

What elaboration are you looking for? I literally stated: Command pod, on top of a heat shield, on top of coupling, on top of a tank, on top of an engine Standard re-entry profile Attempting to aerobrake to reduce Ap before landing Burning up at 60km I'm not the only one who has reported this happening in the upper atmosphere I'm not trying to be rude, but I fail to see why you are asking for an image of the simplest craft EVERYONE BUILDS. Literally, everyone builds this craft. And >90% of the people have used this tactic in KSP1 to aerobrake to return to Kerbin. Exactly what part of all of this are you not understanding? What elaboration beyond simply reading the rest of this thread - which I have to assume you haven't done because you aren't asking anyone else to provide screenshots - do you need here?

Thanks for assuming I don't know what I'm doing here. I told you: Nothing to see. Standard craft, standard entry, standard parts. I'm not the only one who has stated this doesn't work; all you need to do is read through the thread to see that. I'm not sharing an image of a standard craft that everyone builds.

Nothing to see, really. Standard craft (command module on top of a heat shield, with a tank and engine just below that to help slow down), pointed retrograde. Ain't my first rodeo here.

I am simply turning heat off for the time being. Although some of the issues I'm experiencing are a direct result of the craft I'm building, there is ZERO reason for things to explode in a fountain of hot lava at 60km when attempting to aerobrake in Kerbin's atmosphere. If I'm trying a direct descent at 6 km/s? Yes, I should explode. Trying to use the upper atmosphere to slow down and reduce Ap, using multiple passes and not dipping closer than 60km? Shouldn't happen.

Just like in KSP1. Killing/abandoning/marooning Kerbals was part of the first game; we'd have no Blunderbirds or rescue missions without this. And in actuality, this became a really decent teaching technique on how to get around wasteful designs or what to do when bad stuff happens.

As a shameless plug, there is a mod i created specifically as a workaround for this. Page Up/Down to cycle through celestial bodies in the Kerbolar System, +/- to target or remove target, and Home to reset the focus to the currently controlled craft.

I am the kind of player who likes to look back at what I've done, primarily so I can go on missions to places I haven't yet been. KSP1, in the R&D Archives allowed you to look at the different bodies and biomes and see what science you gained from which experiments, and this is sorely missing from KSP2. I would like to see a system on the game that shows: Science experiments collected by biome/location, complete with points gained Flight data for every flight, to include when it flew, crew, distance, time, and whether or not it succeeded Type of flight (rocket, spaceplane, submersible) I am sure a mod could handle this, but it should be stock functionality. In my opinion, anyhow.

Use the Maneuver Node Controller mod; it has this functionality.

Check your TWR in the upper atmosphere. Although I agree with you that this shouldn't happen, it does. Pull back on the amount of thrust you are generating so that you aren't racing as fast as possible to orbit. Stay < 2.0 on that ascent (TWR), and around 1.5 if you can. That should help.