joratto

Do you understand that this is incorrect because of the bug reposted by @Scarecrow71? Whether or not you'd go on to argue that this bug is also game breaking is a function of the validity of your playstyle.

Lapat won't know what hit 'em

In light of recently implemented additional Kerbal hairstyles, (and my recent replaying of XCOM 2), I would like to be able to create, customise, and name my own Kerbals. I want to insert my friends and family into the game and watch them go on space adventures and/or explode. I hope such a feature is considered for a (reasonably far) future update. I can see it being particularly fun in multiplayer.

You don’t need a space telescope to know that Venus or Jupiter’s moons exist. Even Pluto was discovered from the ground! But I would still support limited access to detailed information like surface features until you launch a space telescope or, better yet, do an initial flyby. Normalise Grand Tours in KSP!

What’s with the purple Union Jack experiment? Space greenhouse? Life support confirmed! /s

I think something like scansat should take a realistic amount of time proportional to the rotation rate of the body in question and the orbital inclination of the satellite, even if only for the sake of realism. Maybe you need to think about the planet temporarily blocking your satellite’s access to the sun, for example. Features that encourage consideration of orbital parameters are generally a good thing. But in general I agree that time constraints usually don’t matter when we have time warp. My take is that if you only want to “slap a crew cabin onto a big cool rocket and see the stars”, you could just play starfield. KSP is not special because it’s about space exploration OR spaceship building. Lots of games already fulfil those requirements. KSP is special because it’s about space complexity. If players didn’t feel their options constrained by realistic design considerations, it wouldn’t be KSP. Constraints are what make problem solving fun. I like the idea of snacks/living space/comfort requirements that would discourage players from sending Jeb on a 300y journey to Deb Deb in a mk1 command pod. I think longer missions should encourage players to think more about life support. Take the example of a player planning a multi-year manned mission to Jool. With Kerbal well-being requirements, the player might be faced with a few very different mission design options. They could: - assemble a massive spin-gravity hab module for their transfer stage in LKO with plenty of snacks, living space, and radiation protection - look for faster, non-Hohmann transfer trajectories that minimise life support requirements, allowing for a simpler hab module - invest in the construction of refuelling outposts/hotels between kerbin and jool, where kerbals could rest in between trips. These could evolve into full blown colonies that can launch to jool directly The first option can have snack masses tuned so it’s not too debilitating, while still discouraging mk1 command module transfer stages. The second option in particular would be a great way to encourage players to branch out from the faithful Hohmann and discover new orbital mechanics with real world applications. There is currently very little reason not to use a Hohmann transfer for every interplanetary mission (Gilly doesn’t count), and we shouldn’t need to wait for torch drives and interstellar for other trajectories to be practical. The third option plays into the entire core gameplay loop of this game, and finally gives us more realistic reasons to have space stations. Also, Mars Cycler anyone??? I think constraints inspire creativity, and we should be careful about giving players too much agency to optimise the fun out the game.

That’s what I’m sayin!

Unlikely given that the mohole is right on moho’s pole, which is perpendicular to Kerbol (right?). But I’m assuming they wouldn’t change the position of the mohole, and maybe they would!

And directly overhead

Remember, Nate wanted this game’s development to be “a little more Kerbal” this time around! Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t resource gathering planned for after interstellar? One of my concerns is that, given how much I’ve played of ksp1, there really isn’t much that ksp2 can provide for me unless it can match the late-game ksp1 experience of setting up mining stations and reusable vehicles for sustainable kerbolar system colonisation. To me, even full ksp1 science mode without ISRU feels pointless, and sandbox interstellar travel probably won’t entertain me for more than a few hours of admiring the new pretty planets and parts. So we may be waiting a very long time

I did!

I experienced the same issue shortly after KSP2's release. Maybe extremely low acceleration is getting rounded to zero under timewarp. It would be interesting to try to recreate this with other small engines on extremely massive craft such that the acceleration is comparable.

I'm pretty sure the transcript is actually misleading here. When Chris said "the first one", he was actually referring to the "Nertea" in "How do you pronounce Nertea?". That "Nertea" was pronounced like "ner-tay-uh". Is that accurate, @Nertea?

Fingers crossed for Kerbnet 2.0 in the science update!

The biggest issue for me is that you can be in a completely stable low orbit and still unable to timewarp quickly without VEEERY slowly switching back to KSC, and then to the tracking station. In KSP1, it was really nice to be able to skip many orbits quickly when you're trying to intercept two vessels, and especially when one vessel is in an inclined orbit and you need to wait for that orbit to pass over a point of interest on a planetary surface. In particular, extremely slow timewarp in low orbit makes Gilly a pain in the butt to fly around. I hope this is just a temporary band-aid for unintended orbital decay. If orbital decay isn't fixed soon, I hope they'll remove that band-aid regardless.

I hope we get at least one rogue planet in addition to the 2-3 extra star systems they have planned. Landing in absolute darkness, lightyears from the nearest star, would be both awesome and terrifying. Same descriptors apply to the deltaV costs.

My comment was directed at @Spicat since they said "Debdeb will be a red dwarf".

Is deb deb a red dwarf? Red dwarfs can be some of the oldest stars in the universe

I was disappointed to hear that life support had been put on the backburner, but this sudden disinterest in radiation is heartbreaking to me. Properly implemented, radiation could introduce a paradigm shift in late-game spaceship design with a whole slew of wonderful new construction constraints like the need for radiation shielding and distance attenuation, and giving a purpose to the triangular shape of those radiator fins besides just looking cool. Not to mention the new flight constraints like "don't land at your colony with nukes" or "don't approach ships from the radiation-side unless you want your kerbals fried". Radiation hazards would help to balance out nuclear engines so that the late game doesn't solely consist of putting the shiniest nuclear engines on everything, which was largely the case in ksp1. Players would be encouraged to branch out and find more creative uses of more "primitive" (or otherwise non-nuclear) engines in situations where maximal efficiency just isn't necessary. so I sincerely hope that by "long term" the devs just mean "after there are lots of radioactive engines in the game" instead of "never". This was one of those new, game-changing features that I looked forward to the most.

The downside to putting all the small science parts together into one "bulbous part" is that it limits building possibilities and it might make satellites (especially small satellites) look very samey. It's also not very realistic to not be able to attach multiple small experiments radially and conformally around a central satellite core as required. The upside is that building neat, compact satellites gets harder, and challenge is fun. It's a trade-off, and it remains to be seen if it's worth it.

Some early images of colony buildings seem to show a somewhat traditional sci-fi style with all the glass domes and tall towers. They almost remind me of Futurama. Was there a conscious decision to move away from a more realistic, NASA-punk look in exchange for a more cartoony aesthetic?

Reported Version: v0.1.3 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Windows 10 | CPU: Ryzen 5 3600 | GPU: Radeon RX 5600 XT | RAM: 32GB After picking up a strut from the parts menu, the symmetry icon appears greyed out and cannot be changed until I put the strut down. This is not an issue with other radially attached parts. The workaround is to change symmetry before picking up the strut. Severity: Low Frequency: High

Last Friday before the 30th. Checks out.

That’s a separate issue. I think you should be able to transmit pressure/temp. A Kerbal crew can give a qualitative report of their surroundings. A probe needs sensors to measure its surroundings. Those sensors are experiments or kerbnet.

That’s what the experiments are for. A crew report is qualitative. On another note, I’m expecting space telescopes.