Dinlink

I don't what's the point making predictions and arguing using as base nonsensical data... Or at best data with huge uncertainty... Steam Spy estimates are about half the value of the Play Tracker for KSP1 and about double of the KSP2 values... Then you compare ratios... Of course they will have about a factor of 4 in difference... But how do we know the real or approximately real uncertainty of the base values so we can propagate this uncertainties to the final estimations... How can 2 entities be off from each other in about a factor of 2 in opposite directions on the same metric?? I think it would be more productive to find data of better quality than arguing over data full of uncertainty (almost non-sensical)

Hello!, in my experience with FAR, Is a common issue to have to iterate many times trying to have a laterally stable take off... Tipically I would iterate putting the tail farther from the center of lift, making it bigger and checking the following on the FAR design Interface: 1. Calculating the stability derivatives for runaway speeds (Mach ~0.2) and verifying everything is green 2. After that, simulating lateral stability plots, specially "q" parameter perturbation (if I remember well). I made a simulation setting "q" to 0.1 and plotting stability for 500-1000 steps... Then I verified that the curves were converging, I mean, oscillating but reducing it's value to a single value, not skyrocketing to infinity 3. Making a bigger tail and iterating again I have tryied tweaking the friction on wheels too... But without too much success... In my experience what has helped is having a big fat far back tail... Or many tails... A multi tail could help... I hope you find my experience useful

Ferram is not a simple fix... It improves aerodynamics at the cost of making the understanding of aerodynamics a worst experience... don't get me wrong, I can't play KSP without Ferram, and i love the improved physics, but the interface and the player experience is deteriorated... The opposite is true for orbital mechanics, the greatest achievement of KSP: making orbital mechanics enjoyable without oversimplifying it... And of course, on the original, Aerodynamics and plane building is an almost "inconsequential aspect", and for that very reason, a prequel that would make that aspect consequential would worth it.

... And that's where you are wrong. KSP has an oversimplified, terrible experience on airplane building and aerodynamics... it doesn't go even close to the "beautiful intricacy" that you can enjoy for orbital mechanics... A prequel would have made sense to further develop the lore of the Kerbal world, and bring a better, more physically accurate, enjoyable (with all the beautiful intricacies) aerodynamics... so often simplified and disregarded...

The Rock always wins (yes you can't beat the Rock even with a Super Hornet with a rail gun xD), so @Kimera Industrieswon! Rock-paper-scissors-shoot, anything you want to do!

I was seriously considering just that, to write them, and asking them nicely... But after the dust settles down, and it become certain that KSP2 will be completely cancelled. By the way, thanks you for the transcript, it was really funny to read

Let's just blame the physical constants to have just the right value to allow conscious life to exist...

I don't find this idea especially naive or Far-fetched, given than ESA have partnered with KSP developers in many ocasions in the past like: https://www.esa.int/About_Us/Branding_and_Partnerships/Kerbal_s_Shared_Horizons_launched_with_real_ESA_missions https://www.esa.int/About_Us/Branding_and_Partnerships/Rocket_science_for_everyone " Philippe Willekens, the head of ESA’s Communication Department commented: “The ability of games and gaming to really engage and involve people is wonderful. It allows everyone to experience the challenges and excitement of real space exploration for themselves. The work done by the development teams at Private Division really take this to the next level and it’s a great honour for ESA to be part of the KSP story.” "

ESA seemed fond of the game, and it would aling with the objectives to make space industry and technology more visible in Europe and the world, among other things, like inspiring new generations...

I can't wait to share the joy of building and exploration with my friends with the upcoming feature of Multiplayer along with colonies and interstellar travel!!!

I find them annoying too. About the realism: on the contrary, they are not realistic at all... The wing tip contrails appears on the core of the strongest vortices (main wing) on very specific conditions (high lift manouver, high humidity)... The more familiar contrails generated by the passenger airplanes are caused by the jet engines exhaust... So, I do agree, they're not a good addition... nor realistic nor pleasant...

What about to let it in the original version voice (Kerbalish language), with subtitles? ...

Well, among other questions, I asked if It could teach me Haskell... It answered positively... But just gave me some hyped summary of the features of the programming language and general recommendations aplicable to learning anything...

There is your natural ocurring "Uber permanent magnet": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetar It can get between 1 and 100 billion Teslas... So.. I think physics doesn't forbids it ... Just that it could be a little inconvenient to use as a rocket nozzle...

KSP 1 has realistic gravity... That's the reason behind rockets following elliptical trajectories and following the Kepler equation in general. What KSP doesn't do is to have the most complete model of N-Body dynamics which takes in account the small effects of gravitational pulls of the rest of the bodies in the kerbolar system... These effects would translate in unstable orbits and special region in space like Largrange Points... The TWR is shown relative to the reference surface gravitational acceleration of the body in which SOI your ship is flying. This is the right way to report the TWR so you can easily calculate the acceleration of your ship "on the fly"... And have a sense of the capability of the ship to take off from surface. It wouldn't make sense to report the TWR relative to the local gravity field, given that would make more difficult to swiftly calculate the acceleration and would loss it's meaning of giving you the sense of how good is your ship on supporting its own weight on take off/landing.