Kerbin Launch Coalition

You think that because I don't want rockets to wobble in an unrealistic manner and just break in half due to their being zero rigidity in the joint system that I want to cheat... Gotcha!

As far as suggestions to, procedural fuel tanks and integrated wing fuel tanks. Great job on SORRY so far.

1) Procedural fuel tanks, both in width and length with a nice wide variety of texturing options. Why the developers made the conscious decision to continue having this stack of tanks approach is beyond me. It literally just adds parts, and joints for literally zero benefit, it's actually the exact opposite if you compared a single monolithic procedural tank to five or six individual tanks. 2) Wings with fuel, WHY is this not just a base feature? Like, look to the real world and aeroplanes have had wing fuel tanks for like half a century or more. 3) Part welding when it comes to wings, I absolutely adore procedural wings, but the biggest limiting factor (and again an absolutely pointless waste in terms of resources) is the fact the joints are absolute gash, and the wings flex far, far too much. You could solve this by allowing players to create the wing, using the existing procedural parts and then just weld, making it one single part! 4) Another I can't believe it wasn't included from day one . LIFE SUPPORT! Like for real why isn't this even an option? Why did Squad shy away from adding this in the first, and why are Intercept seemingly uninterested in it? Kerbal Space Program (the original) became an entirely different experience when Kerbalism was installed. Not having life support rewards players for poor planning, or just being lazy, having life support punishes players for not planning ahead. Where are your supplies coming from? When are they coming? This is a HUGE step backwards IMO. 5) Could be merged with the above, but part failure! Again, for a game like this, a niche, quite 'hardcore' simulation type game why is something as basic as bugger, the engine won't relight! not even an option that can be enabled? Why do launch abort towers exist, when parts don't fail? Another Kerbalism game changer that totally changed the feel of the original (for the better). This and 4 should both be a choice, through difficulty settings. 6) More fuel types, Hydrogen, Kerosene, Methane and Hypergolic. Each bringing it's own advantages (and disadvantages). Looking to the real world for inspiration, which the game already does. Kerosene offers the best bang for buck, highest energy density therefore smallest tanks, easily stored with no cryogenic requirements. Hydrogen is a pain in the butt to store, but offers the best theoretical performance but also the lowest energy density. Methane is a nice middle ground, that also happens to be clean burning (for reuse purposes). Hypergolic is simple and tends to just work, also rather dense and requires no real storage considerations. ALL of these factors regarding fuel choices, their tankage, their storage requirements would make creating a vessel, planning a mission a much more involved experience that I think would add depth to the game.

I don't get it to be honest, samey, what does that even mean with stacked cylindrical tanks as the context. I mean, how exciting can a uniform stack of tanks get? Plus the added benefit of going procedural is that it would significantly lower the part count, a part count that is essentially getting you nothing in return.

Removes a ton of creativity... what? We're talking about a sensible remedy to having stacks of the *same* cylindrical tank. How will that stifle creativity and what's it got to do with Juno? 100% agree with this and disagree with Nate. Rockets generally don't just *snap*, so it's more an annoyance rather than 'lol' IMO.

Either that or why not just scrap the whole notion of 'a stack of tanks' and just implement a procedural tank system. Where you start off with whatever width and just stretch it to fit the needs it the vehicle. I mean it's not like United Launch Alliance, for their Vulcan rocket get six individual tanks and just 'stack them'. It's a single, monolithic part. As such it would surely be treated by the Unity physics engine as just a single physics entity removing the issue with attachments and such. I mean, that could be me being idealistic or naive but why not, procedural tanks have existed for quite some time in KSP1.

What did I miss? Why has this turned into such doom and gloom, talk of cancellation and such? These things take time folks, there's already been some solid bug fixes and improvements, we haven't even touched the first roadmap step yet so keep the faith folks.

To be fair, the game is in a more or less playable state (for me at least) right now. There's the *occasional* bug that crops up but the one that was bothering me was the auto-save issue which 'appears' to be fixed. So, whilst there's room for improvement in terms of performance, I'm sure that aspect will come over time. Looking forward to the first roadmap objective being reached! A little sidenote, is there plans to reintroduce engine (and other parts) variants like in Kerbal Space Program 1? Also, any plans to have some kinda of procedural heat shielding for wings, that was one area the first game was rather poor, space planes due to having no real thermal protection.

. But I'll give it a go, thanks! Since the second patch dropped, I'm finding myself increasingly thinking this has been fixed. Either that or I'm getting extremely lucky. Did a few separate saves and the max size of save files has been in megabytes. Is it fixed?

Has to auto-save issue been rectified in this patch?

I have nothing to back-up, I make a habit of deleting autosaves and stuff after I've done *a* mission to prevent the game breaking. But I'll give it a go, thanks!

You able to point me in the right direction of this 'fix' as the game is unplayable right now, as it grinds to a halt after about an hour to an hour and half with the same recurring issue.

Yeah I'd agree, though in a much more unilateral sense. Weather in general would be an amazing addition, I'd rather have weather than a fair few of other things to be honest, but it's behind stuff like part failures and such for me. That said, I guess it would depend on whether it could be implemented and whether that could be done without a significant performance impact.

I am encountering an odd issue with fairings, and it 'only' occurs when fairings are being used. So what happens is, no fairing and the rocket is stable, it's a solid entity. Add a fairing and everything contained within the fairing seems to misbehave and the entire upper stages leans and oscillates to the point of the rocket destroying itself. The navball shows that there is full control inputs occuring, max roll, max pitch when no controls are being touched. Struts make zero difference, I've tried two struts, four struts, thirty struts and there's no improvement. The issue seems contained to the large and extra large fairings. Also upon fairing jettison, the pieces cease behaving like they're objects affected by physics and just launch themselves off straight down toward Kerbin.

I had that exact piece of code repeated about two and a half *MILLION* times like, 2.584Gb auto-save files that outright broke the game. Had to erase all the save files, but this isn't an isolated event and has happened three times now in a couple days. Thought it was something up with laptop to be honest but I'm seeing a fair few people reporting the same thing.

I have this issue in rampant fashion. It's a game breaking bug to be honest, I had three 2.384Gb auto-save files after playing the game for about an hour and a half. As soon as I reached Duna it just broke, froze almost constantly for like 30 - 40 seconds at a time.

Why would you even be bothered? Minmus looked dreadful, not it's rather attractive.

The whole science gathering, experiment system needs a complete rebuild. Kerbalism-esque 'gathering time' should be stock, the whole idea that one can do an ultra high speed flyby of Moho, and gather detailed gravimetric data is just silly. You need a much bigger push to have to stick around, I unlocked entire tech tree almost using nothing but unmanned probes and flybys in Kerbal Space Program science mode. Kerbalism on the other hand is an 'all in' affair, you're forced to enter an orbit of target bodies to conduct science gathering, and then that data cannot be instantly transmitted back.

I *hope* so because the lack of basic needs for Kerbals is one of the most immersion breaking things in the stock game. No disrespect toward the developers intended, but something akin to Kerbalism should be part of the base experience, with options that can be toggled and tweaked before starting a game.

My RTX 3070 mobile handles the game fine too, to be honest I'd be willing to wager that 95% of the performance issues are CPU side anyway. It's like the first game where a single (of sixteen) cores is maxed out, with some light loading on a couple of others. So physics is still being pumped through one chonk of a thread through a single core, the GPU can't be a bottleneck if that is the bottleneck. My 3070 doesn't even get that warm when playing on highest settings at 1080P with max anti-aliasing.

Why not just make Kerbalism stock, it's a game changer that makes the game what it always should have been.

Without a doubt colonies is the thing that peaks my interest the most. That and how multiplayer is going to work, but colonies first and foremost!

I found the videos we saw from the likes of Matt Lowne interesting to be honest because it's not how I feared it would be. It does appear *very* slow at times but it's a 'smooth' slow at least, there doesn't appear to be jank, stutters, that sorta thing. I think most Kerbal Space Program players can deal with that for the time being. The big question mark is, can the developers improve this significantly? It's also worth noting the game seems to speed up a lot after the transition to 'space', which suggests that the aero model might be the root cause of that, I dunno. Kerbal Space Program (the original) had the same tendency, where any slow-down and stuttering tended to be reserved for in-atmosphere flight. That said, I would have expected after three years of delay that the performance would have been better at this point, but I do *really* like a lot of the GUI and interface changes, those are really nice.

As a RTX 3070 user, on a laptop with a 1440P 144Hz screen. The GPU is absolutely considered high mid-range at that resolution and 'overkill at 1080P'. Now I've got no issue running at 1080P since 1440P on a 17.2" screen isn't all that noticeable but I expecting the game to run well with high settings at least at 1080P.

Sorry but no-one in their right mind thinks the £700 (or more) RTX 3080 is a mid-range card. 2060/3060 is solid mid-range, and even then I think the 3060 is still well above what most Kerbal Space Program players are using. I'm quite looking forward to seeing how it runs (or doesn't) on RTX 3070 which is by all metrics a higher end of the mid-range card. Still really looking forward to getting my hands on the game because I'm eager to get a look at the 'bones' of the game cause there looks to be loads of nice ergonomic touches.