Scarecrow71

If you are going to quote me, at least provide the context. I was asking specifically about the rest of the bugs and which ones are being worked on, and I mentioned that the devs don't post here as a way to say that we don't know what they are working on. I never said they should post here. Again, please use context and try to see what my post actually is instead of keying on one sentence and then tearing into me because you think I want something I didn't in fact mention.

You know, I've never even SEEN the Mun Arch? O have no idea where it is.

I saw this with Duna the last time I fired up KSP2 (couple weeks ago). The planet is there and it shows up in map view, but the texture doesn't show up in flight view until you get close to it.

As part of my KSP1 colonization science career, I realized I am a bit off from Scanning Tech, which I will need in order to scan celestial bodies for precious minerals to convert first into fuel and then into parts for an extral-Kerbinal launchpad. So, needing the science, I decided to do a Kerbin-3. Earned a tasty amount of Science doing that, too.

===PHASE VII - THE KERBIN-3 CHALLENGE=== Things have been progressing nicely here, and we’ve gotten pretty far with the tech tree to this point. But we need more and more science to get to Scanning Tech so we can start a mining operation, but that’s quite a ways off yet. And I’m not quite ready to head out of Kerbin’s SOI, so I’m going to collect science while going through a really old challenge from the KSP1 forums: The Kerbin 3. This challenge requires you to launch from Kerbin, land on the Mun, then land on Minmus, and then return to Kerbin. The first thing we need to do is to create the return ship. Just like the last mission, it has to have enough dV to get home from Minmus. The kicker this time is that it also needs to have enough dV to get from Mun to Minmus, potentially (and hopefully) without having to come back to Kerbin first). We will assume we need to get from Kerbin to Mun to Kerbin to Minmus in our calculations though, just to make sure we have enough. This means the ship needs: 800 dV to get from LKO to Mun orbit 1000 dV to get from Mun orbit back to LKO (circularized) 1300 dV to get from LKO to Mimus orbit 1000 dV to get from Minmus orbit back to Kerbin That’s 4100 m/s of dV just in the return module. Which is easy to craft, really. It’s just gonna be ugly (as in, it won’t be aesthetically pleasing, at least not to my eyes). So we craft this puppy here: That’s just under 4100 m/s of dV, which should be enough…even if that’s without the lander attached to it (which will impact overall dV). It’s designed to handle the Kerbin-Mun-Kerbin-Minmus-Kerbin circuit, but I’m going to try to go from Mun directly to Minmus. We shall see if that actually happens! Anyhow, the lander. We need a ton of dV to land on Mun, get back into orbit, dock, land on Minmus, get back into orbit, and dock. I’m thinking somewhere in the neighborhood of about 3000 m/s of dV. Minimum. So we have to craft a lander capable of holding this much fuel, as well as carrying all of our geeky science nodes so we can collect those sweet, sweet science points. The design here should be familiar enough. That has 3500 m/s of dV, which should be more than enough to do all the maneuvers it needs to. Without having to refuel, I might add. So let’s put the 2 together and see where we are at here. You can see that the dV of the return ship is cut nearly in half by adding the lander. That’s…not good. This means we will have to seriously over-engineer the lift-off stage to maximize the fuel we have. But, away we go! Now, after getting into LKO, I have 1000 m/s of dV on my lifter stage, which might be enough when combined with the return vehicle to do the Kerbin 3. But I decided to try something a bit funky here. I am sending only the lander to Mun, and then I’ll bring that back to LKO to dock and refuel before sending it to Minmus. I quick-saved here before doing it so I can revert if necessary. So let’s get to the Mun with the lander. Say good-bye, Bob! And the Kerbin-3 is complete. I was able to do this just by sending the lander on its own, but man was that fuel cost from Mun back to LKO heavy. Took more fuel there than it did when I went to and from Minmus. Dang. Anyhow, I earned enough science to unlock Actuators, Advanced Exploration, Advanced Landing, Precision Propulsion, and Specialized Control. Completion Date/Time: Year 1, Day 67, 0h, 51m

This is actually a bug that has been reported where probes (which is effectively what you have) don't have control once separated from the main ship. Which is a real bummer. My best advice here, depending on how high up this is when separation happens, is to have parachutes on the boosters that fire at the time of separation.

Use the claw. Docking ports don't work for these salvage missions.

There known issues with TweakScale, so I wonder if thats it. My suggestion is to remove both mods and see if things work. If that does work, install one and check and repeat. If that doesn't work, and potentially.before you uninstall anything, try verifying your files through Steam to make sure the files aren't corrupt.

The video says KSP2. This post is in the KSP2 forum. Hence, it is assumed it is KSP2. Self-editing of post to not get warned for violating forum rules.

That whole video is bunk. "I'll have more analysis on this in future videos, but tell me what you think". Bogus. First, that looks like KSP1. There are no heat effects in the game, and if that was pre-EA, then it was far too polished for those effects to be real. Second, what I heard sounded like fan blades spinning, not some pulsed secret audio. And third...spread out across multiple videos? Really? If you want to make these claims, then chase this down yourself. I know - your machine isn't capable of it. So then don't start this at all.

Which video? Can you paste a link to it? And how did you determine there was secret/hidden audio in it?

It's not just that this forum doesn't offer the functionality we need for a full and honest bug tracker. It's that there are multiple forums (here and Reddit), the bug button in the launcher, and Discord. NONE of those avenues has the full set of functionality that would be needed on a public tracker so people could see what is going on. And by excluding yourself from any one of those avenues (I refuse to go to Reddit for anything as I cannot take the amount of vitriol and hate spewed there) means you will never have the full picture. I like that you thought about putting up your own bug tracker in Google Docs/Sheets, and I respect that you have a day job and can't make that work due to time constraints. I do wish there was a way to get something up. Would it help if you got help in doing this? I'm not sure what all information you would want on a bug tracker sheet like this (and considering everyone has a different system/different hardware specs might be a part of this), but do you think a community effort here might be in order? We all have day jobs, but would you be amenable to potentially working together (with me, with guru, with whomever) to make this a community thing to get up?

I'd recommend using google docs for this as then anyone, devs included, could check this for you.

The only thing I'd like to add here is something ShadowZone suggested: give people a button on the tracker to indicate they have seen a reported bug. And they could make that button a one-shot per player/account per given bug so no one player can spam it to increase the number of hits (if i stated that so nobody is confused).

Once again, more great communication from the devs. I may have been too harsh on you guys, but the perceived lack of communication and/or clarity in posts was what was driving my issue. And I thank you for coming back to clarify what you meant and what the intent eas.

Ok, I'll sing. Ahem...boink! What the...sigh. Вот песня «Очень жаль». Разве ты не поможешь и подпеваешь Я взорвал его! Я знал это! Мне очень-очень жаль, что я взял твой драгоценный флаг!

I get this all the time, and the only way I can get them to display is to right-click on them so the box comes up stickied.

So, this post from @Nate does address some of the concerns I and a lot of other players have. Most notably, that he actually communicated update cadence to help alleviate the feeling that something was amiss or suspicious. For that, I say a hearty thank you. The one thing that I think is still missing is adequate communication on what major bugs are being worked on. For example, the only reason I know the trajectory bug is in the works is because I complained and asked enough until @Dakota verified they were working on it. But what about the rest of them? The developers don't post on the forums, and we have no idea what they are trying to fix. Which can lead to multiple bug reports on stuff they are already working on, or, worse yet, the feeling that they aren't listening to us. I think you can tell from my post here that my biggest concern, apart from the bugs, is communication. That is my biggest ask. With all that said, I'm still waiting for the next patch before I pick this up again. I appreciate the dialogue, and now with a quasi date for that to drop (we know things can change), I have something to look forward to while playing KSP1.

No. Not either way. My comment was directly and only about future patches. Period. End of story.

First, just because other people reported performance increase doesn't mean everyone did. I did not. I've been at 20 foe since launch, and the last patch did not affect that either positively or negatively. Secondly, my comment that you quoted was about my lack of faith in getting future patches, not about performance improvements.

I am aware that all caps is shouting. In the case that I'm referencing, the words were all bolded AND highlighted. That is the equivalent, at least to me, of shouting. One or the other would have sufficed. And now I'm done with this conversation. And this topic. And just about these forums. I'm done having to defend myself over and over again simply because I'm on the side of the fence that believes KSP2 is junk and needs serious work. Buh-bye.

There are probably decouplers involved here. You'd attach the decoupler (radial, probably the manifold) and then attach the tanks to the decoupler. Edit: darn you @K^2 and your ninja ways!

The bolded, highlighted text had far more effect than all caps. And I'm not sure what you mean by my bug tracker?

They couldn't even give us that for EA. What makes you think they can give us this with Science?

For starters, yelling isn't necessary. I can read. Secondly, while that may be what happened here, newbs to a company simply do not come in and make wholesale changes to established processes. That simply doesn't happen in corporate America. So no, I wouldn't just throw everything that's already established and throw it out the window. Finally, I'll point you to what @linuxgurugamer posted in this very thread. This is my sentiment on the topic exactly. He gave us what we needed to give the developers what they asked for, and they simply ignored it.