T-Bouw

Currently 25% off on Humble (Steam version) until februari the 5th.

Marooned on a moon after a botched landing yet again, the Kerbals huddle together around the Poodle engine (that doubles as a BBQ) and sing their version of "Jingle Bells": Dashing tru the regolith, In a one-engine lander, Vertical speed negative, Giving the ground a gander; Bells on Bob's visor, Chiming without sound, Hit by a geyser, Rolling along the ground; Jingle bells, jingle bells, Joyriding commander; Oh what fun it is to ride, In a one-engine lander. Yesterday I determine, I thought I'd take a ride, And soon Valentina Kerman, Was seated by my side. Jebediah certified badS, Misfortune seemed his lot, His rover too low mass, And then he got upsot.

Accessibility is the feature I'm most thrilled about; As a father of a 2 year old, I can't wait to use KSP2 to play together in a way that I did with my dad. At first with him spectating, playing with the controls and watching the animations. Then, after a few years, learning from the animations and make the first attempts at building and piloting his own crafts. All while guiding him. And finally playing together in multiplayer, him guiding his old man..

This, and it's close to what I suggested. It would reduce the part count on craft as well as what is loaded in RAM on the computer. Both will make for a smoother KSP. Your suggestion and the procedural way could both be temporarily limited in size allowance in career mode if desired.

I'm a bit conflicted on this. Career is how I play KSP the most. During such a career, the science tree is an excellent way to steadily progress towards bigger rockets and further destinations. Part of why it works so well for me is every so often you unlock a bigger tank/engine to take your rocket to the next level. There's almost always a tank/engine for any occasion and I seldom have to stack multiple tanks because there's often a perfect sized one for the job. Except for RCS tanks... whereas fuel tanks have longer versions for any given diameter of which there are also several, the ideal one is bound to be there. But there's no such thing for RCS tanks. Those only get bigger and bigger and not longer. The same goes for wings. I often have to use several bits to get the perfect profile for a given craft. Oh and, for context, I play on a potato so there's that also. So you see I have two stances on this and both have merit to me. I would welcome procedural versions of things in career that won't break the progressional gameplay. Oh, I just had a last minute thought. Perhaps you could have procedural everything, but have it be restricted to certain sizes according to your tech level.

Wow, that's amazing! That has to be a very stable plane.

The stock landing gear has never made the game more than a little annoying for me, until yesterday. My Minmus lander can't even stand upright without the use of SAS. Without it, the lander slowly leans to one side until it falls. The gear seems made of rubber no matter what setting I use for it. Is this at least solvable or is it related to the issues most people have? I've never kept up with landing gear problem news until now.

This never happens to me because the thought alone of this happening is enough for me to consistently pause the game. I even pause the game when I know nothing bad can happen, like a craft in a perfectly stable orbit. This last bit is actually annoying to me, but I can't help myself. OCD I guess...

Welcome fellow space nerd! See you around.

@Simon campbell, welcome to the forums! You've got your answer(s), perhaps some might have come off as a bit harsh, but please don't take it personally. We're a bit passionate here, but we mean well. In the years we've given Squad a lot of flak when we thought they did something wrong, but also defended them when not. Squad made promises concerning free updates to early buyers and can understand how someone could interpret them a little differently. Please don't let this scare you off and let these 2 posts be your last. We'll see you elsewhere okay!?

You could make a hinge section down the middle of your walker and use a separate axis to control it. This way you'll have a fair amount of precision. Another way would be to make axis-controlled-hinges at the shoulder(s) and/or hip(s) joints. Of course you could combine the previous 2 methods to have something as close to reality as possible which can make a super tight turn. I figure, the only challenge with the above methods will be to counter the slacking of the structure the hinges will give. Especially the middle section. Show us some pics! I'm curious.

@Vít Salava, I'm surprised to hear that it handles better with SAS off. I just knew I made it too easy, but I can't help it. I think we all improve our craft until they perform like a dream. I'm glad you managed it! @Klapaucius, love your video! You managed a silky smooth landing on water and the second time, even though you came in too fast, you managed to save the cockpit. Good show! Thanks for giving it a spin people! I feel somewhat guilty seeing other people struggle with my craft. But that's kind of the point of this challenge huh. This challenge is counter-intuitive on multiple levels. As I said, I didn't know when to call it quits with the improvements.

We West-Europeans may complain sometimes about the weather, but we never have hurricanes like that! Your post really put things in perspective for me. So many personal lives ruined by Dorian.

Well, I posted here earlier about playing Final Fantasy VIII after having started another session for like the sixth time in the 15 years I have it. Yesterday I finally completed it! I think a big factor in the completion this time is the fact that I have the game installed on my PSP. This way I could play it everywhere, take every little opportunity I could spare. And I did, on the couch, in bed, on the toilet... It feels better than any other game I've finished, maybe because of all the quits and restarts. I slayed that personal demon by slaying a virtual one.

That gave me a thought. I would love to have a space colony with a VAB. A spacedock! The possibilities!

This challenge is right up my alley! @Vít Salava, your entry looks so retro and clean. I'll try to fly it this evening if no one else beats me to it. And for my own entry, I immediately had a design in mind when I read the OP's post. Whatever happens, count me in! Edit: Alright, I've pushed myself to the limit today with this challenge! For part 1, my submission: https://kerbalx.com/T-Bouw/TailSittart It is a design inspired by the weird experiments done with VTOL's in the old days. The design was once used by me in a career out of necessity as I hadn't unlocked the wheel gear parts and needed a VTOL for survey contracts. This particular plane was especially made for this challenge and thoroughly tested, and crashed... The difficulty comes from landing the thing. Transitioning from horizontal to vertical flight can be difficult and the descent can't always be controlled by the SAS. Oh, and there's not a lot of fuel. You've been warned! Just to show that it can be done. Part 2: MeatFly-B is really unstable. @Vít Salava wasn't kidding. The craft sometimes just rolls or pitches heavily upwards out of nowhere. I haven't been able to maintain a stable hover or flight for more than a few seconds! Quite the little devil it is. Proof: I did have a blast doing this challenge. Good one!

In career I'm also at the point of designing a lander to go to Minmus. Once I have a good working design, I'll post it here. In the mean time I did a quick search on KerbalX and found these 2 that might be right for you. But as steuben says, some more design details would help. http://kerbalx.com/?search=minmus -dlc ~stock ~vab ~just_craft -dlc ~ksp_version:1.4.3 ~include -by:part_count ~all_time I would go for Mun (Basic) II. It's for an older version of KSP but should still be relevant, if you have the parts.

Such a biased generalization about 9 year olds is really not productive and I didn't expect such a statement coming out of this predominantly friendly community. When I was that age I didn't have much patience to persevere through tough games, but I did enjoy watching my dad play them. Those are memories I'll cherrish forever. Besides, it worked out in the end because some years later I beat those same games. So even if such a 9 year old walkes away from KSP 2, they could very well come back to it later and fully enjoy them still. Also, like most have already pointed out here, the developers have the intention to make KSP 2 more accessible than its predecessor.

Bewing is right on the money in my opinion and gives you 1 way to look at the problem, so I'll give you the reverse solution since you seem to want to make an agile plane. Make your vertical stabilizer bigger. Notice how fighter jets with canards almost always have equally impressive vertical and/or horizontal stabilizers. Sometimes the vertical stabilizer(s) has/have almost as much surface area as a single wing! This is so the planes have authority in the relevant axes in almost any situation, sometimes even spins. You have insane pitching ability because of the canards, ailerons and the big wings (yes, the wings help too, remember the Fokker triplane?). Rolls might be also fairly high because of the 2 sets of ailerons and possibly the canards if you didn't disable roll for them. For yaw you only have the single little surface. See the pattern here? So add a nice big back fin, or two. That should make the jet naturally stable. If it reacts very aggressive when you use yaw, only then dial back the angle of actuation. This last bit is also true for pitch and roll. Dial back and/or limit the number of participating surfaces if the plane is too aggressive handling.

Today I attempted a rescue of Jeb that I accidentally marooned on the Mun. This was the first time I properly used a delta-v map for the construction of a dedicated rocket. Thanks community! I also used it to check if every flight-phase went according to plan. The 3-person capsule was chosen, Val and Bob put in, and the whole thing had 200 m/s of dv to spare, but somehow - because I tried to get as close as possible to Jeb's location - after landing I came up 200 m/s dv short for the mission total. I used 400 m/s of dv more than average! I'll have to work on that landing... The extra maneuvering was in vain too because I landed 3+ km away from Jeb. Jeb's lander didn't have the fuel to orbit, but he did have just enough to make a little hop towards Val. Did some first-time science on the Mun, got Jeb in and launched towards Kerbin. All while hoping I could make it there despite the fuel shortage. And I did make it. Had some fuel to spare again to lower the Ap in order to make reentry less severe. 400+ science added, lots of funds, 3 missions checked off and one happy Jeb!

TonybM, I don't want to discourage you, but I seriously doubt Star Theory is going to make and maintain multiple separate versions of KSP 2. Squad did the same thing for a while with an 32-bit and 64-bit version. In the end they stopped with the 32-bit version as that was getting used less and less by people and they wanted to go forwards. I do know where you're coming from. I myself can barely run KSP on my old potato right now. I am already at ease with the fact that I probably won't be able to run KSP2, but this is the way it's always been in gaming, PC or console.

Ow, I would love this! It'd be nice to have your instruments on a separate (smaller) screen.

Wait for meeee! <huf puf> Part of the reason of hype is the lack of details that often accompany such an announcement. You start to wonder how exactly multiplayer will work in practice. How will civilizations improve the KSP experience? My mind starts to wander...

Wow, this good news totally blindsided me! And I didn't hear any rumors about it too. I'm excited about this new version, but I'm also curious as to the PC requirements.

Just now I discovered this thread. Scrolled through the pictures. What mad contraptions am I seeing?! Amazing are the possibilities with such a teeny addition to the game. Keep them coming everyone!