Vl3d

Seriously, what am I supposed to do with a 3x time warp hard limit at ~40 km altitude? There's no way I will ever visually survey celestial bodies at this speed. Discoverables aren't even really visible if you are above 20 km anyway... This is not fun and it's an absolute waste of time if you play the game because you want to explore and find new stuff. What am I supposed to do.. ask other players about discoverable locations or search the web only to get spoiled? ... exploration mode, yay ...

Please do not make the heat shield look charred in the VAB when reducing ablator amount. The problem is in the flight view part of the game.

Please also mention what speed you had when heating occurred, alongside altitude and max. temp part parameter.

Also why is there a "Remove Flag" notification visible in Map View?

I used to argue for this, but looking at how the dev team wants to cut all "fluff" from the game, I have to support the decision to make all antennas relays.

I do not doubt that there is some fine tuning needed to the parts heating, but I do want to stress that it's normal to heat up while going ~2000 m/s without a heat shield in the upper atmosphere. When posting information about altitude and max. temp, please also post what speed you had when heating up.

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 Jool should block all light falling on Laythe (see image). I assure you the angle is correct - Laythe should be in Jool's shadow. Included Attachments: .ipsImage { width: 900px !important; }

I can confirm that it has happened to me also. Sometimes no matter what symmetry I choose, I can only place one part. Exiting the VAB to then KSC and going back to the VAB seems to fix the issue.

I confirm it's still a problem. But it seems to happen at greater distances.

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 Also, trying to add fuel lines from the side booster tanks to the main first stage tank does not work. Included Attachments: buggedcraftfile.json .ipsImage { width: 900px !important; }

You have to be specific. Lander cans have 750 K max temp, command pods have 850 K. All should explode on any orbital aero-braking reentry.

Not only that, but the damn size of the pixels is different for the "arrow", the pixels of the checkboxes and the pixels of the icons.

Add burn time parameter to SRBs in Part Picker statistics - self explanatory.

I agree, it does not feel right.

Can confirm that sometimes I have to press Spacebar 2-3 times to stage.

Can confirm this happens when also using "merge workspace" into the current one. The vehicle name changes.

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 think this is a missing feature or a bug. What's the point of planting flags if I cannot see / control / switch to them? I wanted to see locations I've visited, but I cannot. Included Attachments: .ipsImage { width: 900px !important; }

Totally agree. Another thing: I've advocated for a very long time for greater distinction between probe and manned missions. I feel like now, with this minimalist CommNet system, there are even less reasons to do probe missions. Basically, you are only incentivised to use probes if you don't want to strand or kill kerbals. I think it's kind of sad.. probes were my favorite because I cared about kerbals. Now.. kerbals are just lemmings.. totally disposable. No real reason to use probes anymore. On the other hand, one could say that the only reason to use kerbals is taking soil samples and crew reports, because manned / unmanned vehicle control is about the same.

I always pay with partial control enabled. Head canon is that the probe is preprogrammed to execute simple maneuvers and basic landing. Also, when transmitting science, all you need to do is wait for LOS. So, yes, I understand the devs decision and Nertea's point. But.. launching comms satellite constellations is really cool! I want a reason to do it. I know we're going to build logistics networks with delivery routes, but that's a long way off.. and comsats are awesome.. and I like the lines in map view.

The tech tree for antennas: Why is the RA-15 at 300 kg considered XS size? Why are RA-100 and Communotron 88-88 unlocked in the same node? The bigger / heavier one should be unlocked before the deployable one. Why are RA-100 and Communotron 88-88 both SM size? IMO RA-100 should be M and Communotron 88-88 should be XS. I don't even know what to do with this feedback... @Dakota maybe it can be added to a list? Thanks!

So, my thoughts: I am happy that all antennas are also relays now - there was really no point in having that distinction; I'm confident occlusion and signal lines will be implemented at some point in the future, along with an antenna planner and a distance visualization tool in map view; I don't think antenna signal strength is explicitly needed in the base game, but I believe both transmission rate and electric change requirements should be variable depending on the distance; I also think that antennas should not have a hard max. range defined. The transmission rate should go down and the electric change requirements should go up according to the distance and antenna type, for all antennas, without a hard limit to the range; @Nertea has not clarified how stacking multiple antennas on the same vehicle works; It is not clear to me how differentiable the antennas are during gameplay - it depends at which Tear these get unlocked. I'll look into it...

Well, there seems to be a lot of dev info on Discord that did not make it onto the forums. Not that I've been asking about CommNet for months without getting any answers. Such is life for second hand forum citizens.. you're either on Discord all day or you don't get to talk to the devs. I can only thank providence that Dakota is still engaging with us here. Nertea, Destroyer of Fun — Yesterday at 2:17 AM i hear there are some questions about commnet and im here to answer them if they're here Spork Witch — Yesterday at 2:18 AM yeah! I was asking about whether occlusion and vehicle links were implemented at this time. I was told occlusion / LoS is not, but that if there's a commsat in range, you'll bounce off that back to kerbin. Further, is there a distinction between transmit-only and relays? I notice we have all the old commsats, wasn't sure if they ALL function as relays now, or if there's still the same split of RA=relay, others are Tx only. Nertea, Destroyer of Fun — Yesterday at 2:23 AM Generally All antennas are relays by default, they can bounce signal back (we didn't like this distinction) Line of sight is not a thing, there is only distance as a concern Connectivity between vessels is a simple matter of ensuring that they both have antennas that have ranges that qre equal or greater to the distance between them. So if 2 satellites are 100 km apart, they both most have antennas of rating 100 km or higher to connect Nertea, Destroyer of Fun — Yesterday at 2:26 AM Commnet and occlusion was extremely forgiving by default settings in KSP1 and we didnt feel there was a significant difference between soft occlusion and no occlusion for EA launch. Lots of the depth people would want requires a set of supporting visual and planning tools that are a fair bit of work to design and build Nertea, Destroyer of Fun — Yesterday at 2:32 AM I think there's a thing I wrote in a devblog of everyone playing KSP with different goals in mind - everyone has a thing they prefer, whether it is building vessels, making comm networks, etc. We can always take player feedback into account in driving plans and make changes at that point. Nertea, Destroyer of Fun — Yesterday at 2:33 AM dev hat off, I hate commnet and always turned it off in KSP1 Nertea, Destroyer of Fun — Yesterday at 2:34 AM I mean that goes back to need - a question we always need to answer is that, given all the ways people play the game, should you 'need' to do any particular thing? That could significantly impact what someone else wants to do. It's a fine line Spork Witch — Yesterday at 2:37 AM which is why it was always a toggle, but KSP is also about education. Learning about line of sight communications, and the need to set up satellites in particular orbits is a REAL WORLD learning thing, and also an orbital mechanics one, a core focus of KSP. The easiest way to properly position satellites is to launch them all at once, using resonant orbits. Without this constraint, from occlusion, you remove the one thing in the game that would actually direct someone to learn about these things. Nertea, Destroyer of Fun — Yesterday at 2:39 AM Yep, understood Nertea, Destroyer of Fun — Yesterday at 2:35 AM I think I could say with some confidence that increasing commnet complexity has to come with more viz and planning tools Nate Simpson — Yesterday at 2:39 AM A lot of us like all the detailed line of sight/relay features in Commnet and it's definitely a thing we want to revisit, but as always we're having to balance multiple priorities. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That being said, here are all the current antennas in the game, for comparison purposes:

I would argue you do not need a transfer planner for interplanetary missions. Having "next / previous orbit" buttons (not yet added) combined with moving the maneuver node around the orbit and checking the 1A:1B / 2A:2B encounter distances (added in KSP2) should be enough to easily get any transfer right.

It's really not a nostalgia or inter-generational KSP 1 vs. KSP 2 thing. It's just shallow vs. deep interpretation of kerbal culture. Deep is knowing the actual reason why the snacks jokes started: There's a real danger that the thing (KSP 2) can start to resemble a caricature of the original (KSP 1). Instead of really smart and punchy engineer / astronaut humor, you get shallow interpretations like "aw cute little green people with cat ears on space suits, snacks everywhere, planty a flagy and scratchy his butty" etc. That's why I am really, really, really looking at the OG Squad team and the veteran KSP 1 players at Intercept to keep the quality bar as high as possible for the humor and spirit of KSP 2. The whole kerbal lore was built on "the smart peculiarities" of the game. It would be a real shame to lose that because some people think "kerbal" only means "cute and friendly". KSP 2 needs an edge.