Vl3d

I would say because of fuel/mass efficiency and use case. Spaceplanes (which are actually also manned craft) are useful for reuse and going into low orbit (meaning you need to transfer crew and have stations), terrible for high speed atmospheric re-entry needed for manned exploration.

Profound. I would add: why even try to bring crew back?

It's more than that, I don't have the desire to do anything for KSP 2, I'll leave that to a new generation of modders. I also don't have the free time anymore to work on a mod, and would rather do other things. I actually understand where you're coming from. People seem to always assume "someone else will make a mod for that" and don't realize the gargantuan amount of unpaid work required. That's why I think we should ask the devs first for features and only if we have no other choice talk to the modders.

As there has been ample discussions about how to improve the science system (Kerbalism ongoing experiments system, more parts and experiments, telescopes for initial discovery, getting actually useful information for gameplay, interesting and unique biomes etc.), I think it's very important to talk about the thing that I believe it's the greatest problem with stock KSP1: tech progression and design incentives and limitations. Because we might be getting life support and new gameplay elements like radiation, resources (materials and fuels etc.) in the future, in my opinion the KSP2 tech tree should mirror this from the start by combining and balancing uncrewed space missions with historical progression. Because I am experimenting with Kerbalism I tend to prefer the structure of Unkerballed Start and Simplex, but Stock also has it's merits. We need incentives to protect the crew, but also use the crew when tech is limited. We need to risk probes for experiments, but protect crew for prestige gain. We need incentives to strive for more advanced tech instead of strapping on more basic boosters. We should have reasons to build small for probes and big for crewed missions. It's one of the hardest things to balance and get right. How should KSP2 tackle tech progression? What are the merits of some tech trees compared to others?

Oh my... Hat off. This combined with Parallax 2 sets the bar in orbit.

So we know that there was a launch tower in the original KSP but it was removed because wide craft clipped into it or sometimes collided into it and we're getting destroyed on liftoff. Nate said that in KSP2 the tower is back and it is automatically placed at an appropriate distance away from the craft so as to not interfere. 1. My request is to also have umbilical arms (could be just visual, not solid) that retract when we initiate the launch sequence. 2. Also having a short ~5 second countdown + animations and sounds for engines igniting / turbines spooling up would be great. 3. Frosting on rocket, ice falling off, venting, sparks, birds flying away, dirt on tower to show it's age? 4. I would love to have the possibility of replaying launches with images seen from multiple camera angles. 5. Modular Launch Pads mod had a lot of cool designs for launch towers and pads. I would like to see this type of diversity in KSP2. 6. I love launch clamps, they're very useful. Would like to see some diversity in this area also. We have seen the orbital versions, but how about some that retract by rotating, like the umbilicals? Also explosive bolts animations? 7. The smoke from the launch looks good and decelerates true to physics but the puffs could be blended better together. 8. Are we also getting working crawlers and an actual animation of the rocket moving from the VAB to the launch pad? 9. Launch tower custom design? Catch arms? Cranes? 10. Also what other details about the runway (longer and no more hitting the lights at the end of it), VTOL launch pad and launching sea craft? Please make launching rockets look spectacular!

The launcher is ok. Just fix it so it works and fix the remaining bugs please!

I agree that kerbals should be moved on EVA from one module to another if there is no direct access tunnels / corridors. It makes no sense to teleport them through railing. It looks bad and there should be incentives to design beautiful and logical ships.

Thanks a lot, I installed Tetrix and it works well with Simplex Kerbalism, progression is balanced. Just a thought: I have to say that as much as I find Career Mode grindy, I also find Science Mode OP. The "add unlimited number of boosters" way of getting to Eeloo with only Swivels really bothers me. It's true there's some balance in the fact that decouplers, solar panels, antennas are not unlocked at the start but... Science Mode is just not for me.

Exactly.

Subassemblies are already confirmed. They are saved in the mission workspace. It looks like each stage and craft is treated as a separate entity. They can be merged to create bigger assemblies.

I think it's already implemented as the orthogonal viewer in the VAB.

What I'm saying it's that the system would be useful both as an interactive 2D graphical Mission Profile Planner and as a final Mission Report. But that's just an inspiration for how it would look like. The planner itself can be represented in a lot of ways. The most important thing is that it's integrated well with other systems like the craft designer and the scientific information repository that it has triggered notifications for when we are on the real mission.

That's actually your idea, not mine. I just want the planners in 2D abstract graphical form like the images . Sure, they can also be integrated in map view as maneuver / action nodes, alarms, etc. But the point is to see the whole mission in one simple image with text.

Imagine something like these visual mission profiles, but editable and with alarms / notifications. It would also be really cool to have something like this generated at the end of the mission.

Actually it's not only the roadmap.. I've been searching for the journey / mission planner in the gameplay images also. And yes, I think it's good to have a thread open for discussion for most points on this list:

That's why we REALLY need this:

After reading some forum comments I realized most KSP players got so used to using DeltaV maps that they actually forgot how much <trial, error and writing information down> is necessary to play the game without wikis. Without getting bogged down in details I can give a few examples. Without maps and wikis each player would have to do experiments and find out: - how much DeltaV you need to go anywhere - proper launch windows for all destinations (so we can launch directly to target instead of wasting time in orbit) - the TWR you need to land - atmospheric entry altitude / angle - when and where to deploy science experiments - the correct altitude to deploy parachutes etc. So clearly we would benefit from having all this information accessible in-game after doing the appropriate experiments and missions to get the data. Also it would be really useful to be able to plan a mission in detail before launching - to have a place to write down each step and action we plan on doing (which we can adapt later while we are actually on the mission) and get some alerts to remind us of the mission plan. So basically it would be really useful to have a Journey / Mission Planner integrated in the game, where we can really thing about all the abstract mission requirements and steps. Some kind of graphical way to represent a plan like: 1. Take off ... DeltaV required to exit atmosphere: X 2. Stage 3. Jettison fairings 4. Circularize ... DeltaV required to circularize : Y 5. Deploy solar panels 6. Burn for Eve ... DeltaV required : Z 7. Stage while on direct intercept trajectory 8. Midcourse corrections 9. Deploy deep space experiments 10. Enter Eve SOI 11. Final adjustments to atmospheric angle 12. Retract solar panels 13. Atmospheric entry 14. Jettison heat shield 15. Deploy drogues 16. Deploy parachutes 17. Deploy high altitude experiments 18. Deploy landing legs 19. Land 20. Deploy solar panels and experiments etc. We need a dedicated Journey / Mission planner that is linked to the craft designer, the science system and the planetary information repository! It would improve the game a lot. PS: also this allows us to have some really cool ideas down the line, like editing logistics automation, auto-piloting, basic Visual Scripting Language template code generation directly from the planner, which we would be able to edit and expand later.

Hard no to this. Trial and error means you have to learn how to do unit and integration tests and iterate on existing designs. It teaches you engineering method.

Amen!

What level should the science rewards be at for UnKerballedStart to be compatible with Simplex Kerbalism?

What level should the science rewards be at for UnKerballedStart to be compatible with Kerbalism?

Has the bug with the landing legs slipping on any terrain been fixed?

Wow, a short SciMan comment!

I feel like the fact that the KSP2 Road Map does not mention Life Support is very worrying. I profoundly do not agree with being able to send kerbals on long deep space missions wearing only their suits. It messes up the whole game balance and it just feels exploity. It is absolutely unrealistic and cheapens the whole engineering challenge of sending crew into space (as I mentioned in the OP). We need at least radiation protection, living space and temperature, snacks, (clean) water and (clean) air. The game is incomplete without this.