Vl3d

That still doesn't make sense from a marketing point of view if they want to attract new players. EA sandbox is not very newbie friendly. But use whichever parts you like and need to explore the Kerbol system.

PS: The tutorial mentions "gravity turn" but does not explain it. And I'm not ashamed to say I've never done a gravity turn. I always manually controlled craft on ascent. I just now understood that you have to pitch and then lock to prograde instead of using WASD. Thanks @rmaine for making me curious! @Ghostii_Spaceplease pass on that we need a dedicated tutorial on what is and how to do a gravity turn. I've wasted so many hours and so much energy on manually controlling ascent until now.

We won't understand gravity turns if people keep confusing them with craft rotation. There is torque like rmaine said caused by a force that doesn't go through the COM. That's not just gravity. How could gravity cause torque by itself on a free falling body? It can't. A vertical pen falls to one side because the COM becomes misaligned with the point where the table pushes on it. Same for rockets. The confusion has it's origin in the fact that we're accustomed to thinking that the non-gimballed engines thrust always goes through the COM. But when gimballing the force components get separated at the point where the engine is, not at the COM. What is a gravity turn? It's just a parabola. It's the path any moving mass takes when acted upon by gravity. It's always there when a velocity vector is not aligned with the vector of the gravity. It's why orbits are curved. It has nothing to do with the direction an object without thrust is rotated or the shape of the object if there's no atmosphere. Aerodinamics are a way to passively keep the orientation of the craft in line with the velocity vector. Conclusion: rotating your craft passively using a gravity turn only works when in an atmosphere. Otherwise you need gimballing or RCS or reaction wheels. But where do the real DeltaV savings of the gravity turn come from? From not needing to spend fuel to rotate the velocity vector (not the craft!). And from minimizing drag loses as the craft is generally aligned with the velocity vector. Still, there are also other factors to take into account.

Most likely. I feel like there's some level of trolling going on. But I'm still not blown away by the clouds. They're to much like haze, too transparent, not compact and well defined, not layered. And there's no marketing for the game. And no info about very important new game mechanics like the mission planner and life support.

It looks like they're procedural. Are the tips made from wings?

That's some high level teasing. I have to say that this image is impressive. Beautiful! And what's with those booster tips? ...

Let me give you an example of why this is a very useful feature but requires manual decoupling. Let's say you have a craft with two arms that each are connected to the main tank using 1 decoupler above and below a decoupler and a hinge. You don't want automatic separation of all decouplers. You want to decouple the first ones (above), then move the hinge, then decouple the last ones (below).

This is a good idea. It goes hand-in-hand with tank grouping (for easy fuel transfers).

I like www.phys.org

Amazing graphics bring new people to the community. Welcome, @DrBelupo

Really how hard is it to just turn up the graphics to ULTRA for a few screenshots? I don't even want to see a video.. just a few epic images of everything turned up to 11.

We're talking about what new players will think of the game and how appealing it will be for them in 2023, not what us veterans think.

100% KSP is a more attractive game for me and I play it more with the visual mods. Stock KSP looks really dated. I explore for the sunsets and vistas and anomalies.

That's exactly what I wanted to communicate.

"An update on Kerbal Space Program 2 and how we're enabling players to travel from planet A orbiting star B to planet C orbiting star D, continuously, without any loading screens, pauses, faked out transitions, "warp drives", or other trickery. We're simulating a multi-light-year spanning 3D volume at a sub-millimeter level of resolution, and enabling players to travel to any point in that space if they can build a ship capable of making the journey. Unprecedented in gaming." https://www.linkedin.com/posts/paul-furio_kerbal-space-program-2-episode-5-interstellar-activity-6920089169021014016-J_5I

Facts: 1. The words that came out of Nate's mouth. 2. KSP2 is releasing in 3 weeks after years of delays. 3. Most sales for a big franchise sequel happen at initial launch. 4. Marketing's job is to convince new players to buy the game, as we are already sold on the idea. 5. Graphics matter for people who have never played KSP before.

I agree with this if we're talking about KSP1 players that know the gameplay is good and have very specific desires from the system under the hood. But we're already buyers. Marketing is promoting new tutorials and focusing on attracting new players. You need to promote good looking graphics to boost sales, not show the game on minimum settings.

Dislike my arguments. I don't really see anyone else asking for the high level of graphical excellence that was promised to be delivered. I mostly see people coming up with excuses for shortcomings. I see modders working as volunteers for years to make KSP look amazing and then I see some players say "graphics don't matter, I'm sure someone will make a free mod for that". No, I'm sorry, but that's not right. It's not fair to expect any improvements for this game from the community. Respect the modders and respect the value of the money you will pay to buy the game. The stock product has to be good. The graphics have to be as promised so the game sells well. And I'm sure they will be, I just don't see it yet.

Do you have graphics mods installed? Which mods are the most installed on CKAN? How many installs do EVE & EVE Redux have? Out of a total of ~5 million KSP sales how much is that?

I don't want to have this argument. Graphics are very important for KSP. Besides.. Mr. Nate Simpson: "It's very important for our game to be visually impressive. It needs to feel epic. There have been a number of visual mods for KSP1 that have raised the bar as far as what's possible and they continue to come in. (...) These would include things like EVE and Scatterer and Outer Planets Mods, those are all sort of things that show what the minimum should be and obviously we want to exceed that drastically." http://forum.purdueseds.space/pspodcast/episode2/ 1:12:10 Also Mr. Nate: "We've set ourselves a very high bar of quality. The game has to performant across a wide range of machines. The graphics have to be peerless."

Out of curiosity, did you join the forum because you saw the new volumetric clouds somewhere? @DrBelupo

Yes, everyone is different. But the graphics is the first thing people new to KSP see.

Good for you! People who have not ever played KSP will look at the graphics first, the user experience second and the gameplay third.

It's not like that. And a few people do not represent the whole forum. I don't really see other people being wow-ed by the recent screenshots either. Most put it on being an EA release, but I just want to see 50$ worth of WOW. I'm sure it's there, just not revealed yet. Like I said, the parts look impressive, some planets from 2020 also look good seen from afar, GUI looks nice. Can't really say anything about gameplay or physics. I think I'm actually having a balanced critical approach to things.