Vl3d

Can we see it?

The thing that gets me most excited about the idea of interlinked colonies and delivery routes is having to build functional vehicles out of necessity. Just imagine having to transport resources or kerbals initially by rover to an sea or airport, then by boat or airplane to a space port from which you launch them to the orbital colony, send them to your gas giant interstellar space port and sent them to another star. That sounds incredibly cool - mainly because you have to design so many diverse and efficient vehicles and actually use them to set up a route - carrying massive amounts of cargo as efficiently as possible. But even more than that.. just imagine a mission a-la Ad Astra in which you have to deliver a person-of-interest (maybe a scientist) on a grand tour or to a far away secluded place. Imagine that the bigger mission is split into smaller ones that requires you to build specialized vehicles which transport the kerbal.. let's say first to a close-to Kerbol colony, then inside the Mohole then to the top of the Eve mountain, then to the deepest place in Kerbin's oceans, then to sample Dres' rings, then on Laythe or Tylo to some secluded place, then inside one of Eeloo's canyons, then back to Jool for a trip to another star system. You would have to either already have specialized vehicles and tourist transport infrastructure available on all celestial bodies, or you would have to build it. In my mind all this sounds very exciting - mainly because you have reasons to build every time of vehicle you can imagine and adapt to each route and environment - both for routine transports and also for one-shot missions.

What's in the fairing?

I built a dinghy. Then I upgraded it.. And.. now it has wheels and nuclear reactors. It's not the fastest, but it's reliable!

Reported Version: v0.2.0 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Windows 11 | CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 7600X | GPU: Nvidia RTX 4070 | RAM: 32 GB DDR5 I can't use a stabilizer with control surface as a rudder, to turn in water. It basically has no effect on the direction I'm going.. even though I oversized it. Included Attachments:

While even in your quote I literally said: But it's ok, I will clarify my point: it was not the "wobbly rockets" that gave KSP 1 its "quirky charm", it was the engineering comedy of dealing with the consequences of building a rocket too tall. Exactly my point - I want to play KSP 2 to have a great semi-realistic engineering experience in a semi-realistic physics simulator with some spicy astronaut humor mixed it. I don't play it because it's "cute and quirky", I want to play it because it penalizes bad designs in comedic ways with interesting failure modes. That's what I communicated - the wobble is not kerbal, but having a laugh while failing because of bad engineering ..is.

As we build small vehicles and integrate them in larger ones, it's becoming a pain to select them and reorganize the stages every time we make a change. Please, it would be very helpful to be able to group parts as lockable assemblies which can be selected and moved as one. It would be great to also be able to lock the staging for an assembly. And if the locked assembly is a vehicle, we should be able to save multiple named vehicles in a workspace. Importing from workspaces should be done by selecting the desired vehicle from inside the assembly. Also, grouping fuel tanks should be reflected in the Resources Manager. Thank you!

I tilt it ~3 degrees when between 50-100 m/s depending on TWR then lock to prograde and let it do the gravity turn. If it's turning too fast I keep direction vector to the left of velocity vector circle up to 12 km. After 20 km I start to control the angle or the throttle to keep the AP closer than 1m30s. Never go faster than 1600 m/s at 60 km. I shoot for 100-200 km depending on TWR. Ideal orbit at end of burn: ~150 km X 70 km, SLS style with no separate circularizing. It takes a while because you ride the AP but I time warp.

I will not even tell you what happened... the story is in the photos. And this is just the beginning!

It happened to me also. I had to restart the game.

Try KSP 2 and you'll see what I mean..

Game needs more spice like this great material:

And that's without going into text for later missions, for R&D nodes and for parts. There are also all the funny easter eggs with cultural references - like the toilet, the car, the crashed saucer etc. even the Squad logo military gorilla face monoliths (which I hate). Here's more: Jokes about AI takeover: Joke about nuclear war: And of course there are jokes about crashing: And of course there are all the official animations which have a lot of gutsy humor and awkwardness: The snacks references originate from the contraband sandwich on Gemini III, the golf ball experiment actually happened on the Moon... KSP 1 is a really funny game for me with a lot of references to astronaut pranks and dangerous situations.. Squad actually had the courage to do something interesting with the game, they made the kerbals awkward go-doers by design. Unfortunately KSP 2 is going out of its way to be a "cute, silly, colorful" toy for children with a lot of it's awkwardness and humor toned way down. If you think this is all in my head and you can't understand the feeling I'm describing.. so be it. KSP 2 does not have enough edge.

Please stop constantly harassing me. You have all my arguments above about why there's a better learning progression with Stayputnik, a small SRB and control surfaces and why the Starting Rocketry node is currently bad. If you want to talk, bring counter-arguments. I've been very explicit and clear in my reasoning.

No, it is the most valuable learning experience for a new KSP player, and the Starting Rocketry node in KSP 2 is messing that up.

I did not forget about those. For the first suborbital flight it's enough for the player to only have aerodynamic control surfaces and the engine's alternator as an EC source. When the engine stops, EC goes to zero and control stops; when you get out of the atmosphere, control stops. When it comes down in flames, you learn about heating. When it crashes into the ground or ocean, you learn that you need parachutes. That's how you learn about the basics of suborbital flight, before all the other complicated stuff.

I think this is great:

Was it not clear I was talking about the first flight? It's right there in the text.. But still you're mentioning Mun landings..

Which part of this statement is false? Well then that seems to be a failure of research into the years of talks about the matter. Also which part of this statement is false?

Players who killed Jeb or Val during their first KSP 2 FS! flights would disagree. Well then that seems to be a failure of research into the years of talks about the matter. It is just illogical to think it's easier for first time players to learn about liquid fuel engines, throttle control, kerbals, pods, reaction wheels, parachutes, experiments etc. on the first flight.. instead of just a probe, a SRB, staging and maybe some control surfaces. It's a classic case of putting the carriage before the horse.

I agree, that's something I also like very much about modded KSP and it's part of it's DNA. I feel like that part is preserved in KSP 2.

Play it for a few dozen hours and you will see it's presented as a game that fathers would play with their 6 year old children to get them into science and space. That's a great thing! The problem is that a lot of the writing is also for 6 year olds and the game insists on only triggering addictive dopamine hits with "cute silly feel good vibes" without also having enough grounded astronaut humor edge and spice. This comes from a new interpretation of what kerbal means - for Squad they were little green animated courageous and sometimes stupid crash-puppets that you put on actual rockets and shoot them up into the unknown... for Intercept they're cute and silly diverse green aliens with emotions and helpful personalities. Squad kerbals talked back and had scientist and astronaut tongue-in-cheek jokes.. Intercept kerbals just want to be your friends and be happy. But that's just my opinion. At least for me there's an obvious difference. KSP 2 lacks that "je me sais quoi" that gave the first game so much "chaotic good" charm. That's not stock KSP, that's a totally different game akin to RO and Interstellar Extended. Different gameplay, different focus, different vibe.

Disagree with specific arguments and bring counter arguments please.

Which proves you have not read any of my posts in this thread.

It's not just that probes are lighter, it's also the RCS strength and feeling the weight of the rocket, using control surfaces before depending on electronics and RCS to experience what happens when you exit the atmosphere, learning the basics of staging before learning about parachutes. There are a lot of reasons why launching a command pod with a kerbal first is premature and does not let the first time player learn the game in a good rhythm.