Scarecrow71

Not much that you personally have seen. Just because they aren't releasing what you want when you want it doesn't mean they aren't working on stuff. Yes, bug fixes are pretty much stuff they have to do. But those roadmap features ain't gonna code themselves, and they certainly aren't going to be done in a flash.

I recorded the AMA this morning and uploaded the video to YouTube. Actual AMA starts 3:27 in; I started 1 minute before, and Nate had technical difficulties which resulted in them starting a bit late. Video is, as of this post, still processing to HD, but the actual images aren't that important. I have comments turned off on YT, so if anyone has anything to say about my video please do so here or on Discord.

In continuation of my Historical Space Race, I launched both Sputnik II and Vanguard I into orbit. I am particularly proud of how Vanguard I both looks AND how I was able to get it into the fairing.

2 entries for today. Just moving along now! DATE: 3 November 1957 FLIGHT: Sputnik II ROCKET: Modified R7 Semyorka FLIGHT DETAILS: This flight was very similar to the Sputnik I launch, except I modified where the Vernier thrusters were to get more control over direction. I also removed the Stayputnik probe, instead opting for a Mk1 Command Pod. Sputnik II was the first flight with a mammalian occupant on board, so to try and stay true to the spirit of the flight I launched Bill into LKO with this one. In real life, very unfortunately, Laika (the canine cosmonaut) died after a few hours, so I get to leave Bill in space indefinitely. Interestingly enough, there was really no plan to get Laika back to the ground; the capsule was not designed to separate from the central column, and there were no parachutes attached to the capsule. DATE: 17 March 1958 FLIGHT: Vanguard I ROCKET: Vanguard TV-4 FLIGHT DETAILS: This flight is significant in that it was the first man-made satellite to rely upon solar power. The circular object had 6 antenna and 6 solar cells, and was in operation and sending signals back to Earth for...6 years. Lot of 6's in there, which is kind of spooky. I tried to stay true to the shape and power of the TV-4, but the construction IRL was rather odd. Stages 1 and 2 (liftoff and transfer) were both LOX...but the third stage, the stage that put the satellite into its final resting orbit, was an SRB. Odd. Anyhow, upon construction and launch, I realized that I had far more fuel than I needed (although I had to over-engineer this thing to be able to put it into the correct inclination of 34.25 degrees). So I didn't even use the SRB stage. Also, I had to get creative with how I crafted the satellite and get it into the rocket itself. I had to use a pair of nosecones to get the rounded shape, but you can't attach stuff to the top of the nosecones other than struts. This forced me to get a bit creative with getting the fairing on/around it. You'll see in the first image what I had to do.

This might be the greatest thing I've ever seen. Nice job!

Correction: Not until AFTER 1.0

I think you need to add an option to all of those polls up there: Do you think we should give the developers some time to get more bugs out of the way and more performance enhancements into the code.

This has been reported and several topics merged into the following thread: I will ask, again, that the mods PLEASE sticky this thread as it is now 3 pages down. Far easier for people to find it stickied.

I'm a bit of a perfectionist, so when I build craft I like to have the lines all nice and even. So I tend to rotate parts so the accent colors are all touching one another. However, I have noticed that some parts don't rotate the same way others do. An example would be the X200-32 tank. When rotating the part, either by using E/Q or the rotate tool, the part rotates along an axis on the edge of the tank and not on the center point. This cause the part to rotate INSIDE existing parts, which can cause issue if you are trying to attach the part to a decoupler. It also can then twist the part away from other parts that are attached to it. I have noticed that rotating with A/D or S/W does not have this problem.

As part of my recreating the historical space race in KSP2, I put Sputnik I into orbit.

DATE: 4 October 1957 FLIGHT: Sputnik I ROCKET: Modified R7 Semyorka FLIGHT DETAILS: Modified the R7 Semyorka to use smaller tanks and engines in an effort to more accurately recreate the amount of fuel - or lack thereof, as it were - that the earliest flights had. To this end, the center and outer tanks were reduced in size from Medium to Small, and the engines were reduced from 4 on each tank down to 1 Dart each. This still gave enough TWR that I had to reduce throttle on launch to 70% or risk going to fast and flipping over. The Vernier engines that were used for control were both overpowered and not enough; I had 4 on the center tank and 2 each on the outer tanks, but while the rocket moved under RCS power, it wasn't fast enough. And they weren't in the right spots; I'm not sure how the early Soviet and American scientists determined where to put them, but they certainly weren't taking COM into account. The probe was a simple Stayputnik with 4 Communotron 16's and a small battery. I didn't get the inclination right; the real flight was at something like 65 degrees, and according to Micro-Engineer I'm at about 26 degrees. So I'm juuuuust a bit outside that. But I'm pretty darned close on Ap and Pe, and considering I ran out of fuel as I was adjusting the Pe, I'll take this as a win.

While I'm sure someone in this thread has already asked this question, I have to put it out here or I'll lose my own damned mind. Is the development team planning to take any of the more popular mods from KSP1 (RO/RSS, Near Future, MechJeb, to name a few) and make them part of stock KSP2? If so, which ones, and on what timeline (if you can divulge that information)?

The answer to the OP's question really lies in what they think a game - any game - is worth. And that needs to be tempered with the fact that paying the $50 now does not just guarantee the game in its current state, but it includes all patches and roadmap features to get the game to v1.0. And the OP also needs to understand that the game IS playable in its current state. You can build rockets and planes, you can launch them, and you can go interplanetary and back. The issue becomes whether or not the OP has the time or patience to do that. Some people do, some people don't; that's just a simple fact. For me, I'll say that yes, I think the game in its current state is worth it. Especially considering the piece of mind that comes with knowing I'll eventually get everything on the roadmap and all the bugs fixed. It may not happen overnight, but it will be worth it - to me, in my own opinion - to wait for that.

Most games I play I can master after some time. I know what plays to run in Madden, or when to shoot vs. pass in NHL. I know when to mount attacks on other Civilizations, or what products to sell in City of Gangsters. All of that takes time, but eventually, I have mastered those games. Or, well, I've gotten good enough at them that there really isn't anything left to learn. Not so with Kerbal Space Program. Every day I come across something new, either here in the forums, or on Reddit, or on Facebook, that reminds me how little I actually know. Today I came across a video that @JoeSchmuckatelli made regarding gravity turns to get into LKO. Now, I'll preface this by saying that the gravity turns I use are the ones I got instructions for during the Caveman challenge (get to 75 m/s straight up, turn to 70ish degrees, wait until you hit 4000 meters then turn to 60ish degrees, then at 10000 meters starting turning to 45 degrees, etc.). Which isn't a bad method to use...even if it isn't the most efficient. But the video I watched today? Genius. Absolute first class. I know I don't know everything about this game, but this once again reminded me of how much I don't know. And that is what I love about this game - there is always something to learn. A link to the post: Again, thanks to Joe for sharing this; I am going to start putting this knowledge to use right away!

Today I decided to try going through one of the challenges I created for KSP1 - the Historical Space Race. I've started a mission report for this, the link to which I'll give below. Starting from scratch, I recreated (the best I could) the R7 Semyorka ICBM flight test. I ran into a bug (falling through the water to the core of Kerbin) and the Kraken (ship vaporizing for no reason other than the Kraken seemed hungry today). But I got the first flight out of the way.

While I am waiting on the next patch, and for answers to some questions I've put forth in other threads/challenges, I decided to resurrect a challenge I created for KSP1 - the Historical Space Race. The original thread can be found here: Although we have limited parts, major bugs, few mods, and the kraken to deal with, I am going to see just how far I can actually get with this. It may be that I get nowhere...or I could get somewhere...or I could get to the end. I have no clue how this will go until I try, so here goes nothing. DATE: 21 August 1957 FLIGHT: ICBM Test ROCKET: R7 Semyorka FLIGHT DETAILS: Recreated the R7 Semyorka to the best of my ability using the limited parts available. The rocket consists of 3 distinct stages. Stage 1 is a 4x X200-64 Methalox, each topped with an RS-AD-SL 800 slanted adapter and powered by 4 Swivel engines. 2x Vernier engines on each tank helped with control/steering. Stage 2 is an X200-64 Methalox, powered by 4 swivel engines. 4x Vernier engines on the center tank helped with control/steering. Stage 3 is a Medium probe core with a medium battery, topped with an aerodynamic adapter and a Mk16 parachute. It's short and squat, looking almost nothing like the real thing. And vastly overpowered; I could have easily gotten this thing into LKO with the amount of dV and TWR it had at launch. I could have probably gotten away with using much smaller parts, but it is what it is. Part of the reason for this challenge was to get people to learn how to build rockets, and I really need help doing that myself. The flight was a decent length as you'll see by the images...but I had 2 problems. First, somewhere around 900 meters traveled, it was like the rocket hit a brick wall, the center tank and engines vaporizing due to the kraken. Which is fine; I was at a 0 degree ascent and the Ap was climbing rapidly, so I had to kill thrust at some point anyhow. The second issue I ran into was at landing. Or, rather, splashdown. The craft settled into the water...and then sank. Not sure how deep the water is, but at almost 1,000 meters below sea level I decided to simply recover the craft. In real life, the warhead on the R7 was lost in the Pacific Ocean (or so we are told), so this kind of makes sense with this flight.

Is rendezvous and docking in Munar orbit required for the challenge?

@kspnerd122 Well, considering I need the practice and time with KSP2...give me an Easy one. I'll do that, then go up from there! Question: Are you going to have badges for doing any of these? I know it's random and all, but I have to ask. Nothing like adding that sweet decoration to a signature!

Related to the following. Which should probably be stickied.

First, I recommend the TransferWindow mod. It will auto-warp you to the correct angle and such for whatever your destination is. There is no thread here on the forums, but here is the link on Spacedock: https://spacedock.info/mod/3297/Transfer Window Anyhow, I always recommend doing the burn you need to get an intercept. Unfortunately, there is a major bug in interplanetary transfers and maneuvers right now that makes it necessary to do an SOI change burn to get into Kerbolar orbit and then plot your intercept.

Can I ask how people got their probes back to Kerbin after landing? I landed a probe, repacked the chutes, and then headed back to Kerbin. However, KSP2 told me that I had no stages left during descent...but I could fire the chutes manually. Unfortunately, even at 120 m/s speed all of them said "Unsafe to Deploy", and they all shredded mid-air during deployment.

Ah, so you are correct then. I have to burn on the dark side of Duna (as per my video), increasing the Ap on the light side of the planet. I am burning in the wrong direction. Unfortunately, the game shows my burn that way as going higher than Duna (away from Kerbin) as opposed to going towards Kerbin, so that's confusing. I'll have to do a burn to get out of Duna's SOI and then a correction burn to get to Kerbin once I'm in Kerbolar orbit. Thanks for the help. It's still a bug, but at least I've got something to go on to at least try!

Take a look at my video above. I did make the burn in the correct direction, and it still pushed me to Eeloo after leaving Duna's SOI.

I would believe this were it not for having done burns on both sides of Duna, traveling both clockwise and counterclockwise. And in all cases, the trajectory changes as soon as I leave the SOI. In the long run it doesn't matter apart from it being a bug and needing to be fixed.

Wouldn't the correct answer be "moar everything"?