Dinlink

I second the Capybara mascot concept xD... And there are good Capybara astronaut art out there to take inspiration. Like: From @chiguilouis Instagram artist. Capybaras make cute little mascot for space fering simulator xD

Another possible issue that can be taken care of is a too high TWR while in low atmosphere... I explain myself: The simplistic Arodynamic center shown in KSP takes in account the center of pressure for ideal lift... But drag is a complex beast... And on flight, if it gets too high can make your rocket tip over (and break it apart if you are using FAR mod) ... That usually happens when TWR goes beyond 2 on the lower atmosphere, making the rocket to speed up dangerously within the thick part of the atmosphere... Form your screenshot we can observe a 1.7 TWR that can go beyond 3 on vacuum... That indicates that is probable that you're reaching TWR higher than 2 very early on the ascent... So I would recommend to try to throttle down your engine so you start the ascension at about 1.3 TWR and only reache 2 and above where the atmosphere start thinning (between 15 and 30km) I hope this can help you finding the solution to your issue.

It's true! I forgot about that! I got so used to the "right and sensible way" to make a rocket take off, that I forgot that at the beginning when trying FAR I had to re learn some bad non-sensical practices from stock game... As previously said, FAR kinda emulates aero-elasticity limits, and aero forces are punishing. So, making a high turn manœuvre during flight (rocket ascension or acrobatic airplanes), the vehicle will tend to split into tiny pieces due to high mechanical stress due to aero forces... On stock game, I used to correct my bad executed rocket take off during flight, fighting aero forces... As rockets have infinite strength resistance, even if the rocket bend, you cloud safely perform non-sensical in flight manœuvres... Of course when I tried that in FAR ended up with my rocket in pieces xD... My brain learned that fast, and now is intuitive for me to just try a nice gravity turn, and let the dance between aerodynamics and gravity to bring my rocket to orbit... Another nice thing I learned with FAR is that drag force is a thing!, at least for rocket ascension stability... That means, if you try to go too fast during rocket take off (something like TWR 3-5) ... Your rocket get unstable, flips and brakes into tiny pieces... That I learnt fast and forgot it existed too xD... So I would summarize, for the aero forces in FAR, for rockets have the following impact: - Brake your rocket into pieces of flying sideways at high speed in the atmosphere - Make your rocket turn around (unstable) at high acceleration during take-off (as result of high drag) Hope you find my experience useful

In my experience: - Aerodynamics stability during re-entry feels more accurate (no unstable nonsense from stock Aerodynamics if you have something more complex than a single command module) - Re-entry is faster and hotter (so, heat shield is almost mandatory for any mission beyond low kerbing orbit) - Making airplanes to take-off can be hard. One must take care of lateral stability with far back big fat tails to ensure lateral stability during take-off - Once in the air, the airplane flight almost by itself, just fixing tail trimming, no RCS needed - Stalling is a thing - You can recover from a spiral stalling, but Its difficult I started using FAR because stock was terrible predicting aerodynamic stability during re-entry... And then I couldn't return to stock Aerodynamics because it felt so fake face to all FAR improvements... The only annoying thing that I faced with FAR was the take off stability issue. Stability tools are not that good helping reducing the design loop of trial and error... And I'm not even sure if the lateral stability is that punishing in real life... Maybe is a bad interaction with the terrible friction model of stock game...

Let's go! Let's develop Capibara Space Program, Cute capibaras rinding dangerous space capable contraptions xD... Don't forget to include n-body physics and accurate aerodynamics!

Yes... But the reason that Helium is preferred over vacuum is because at standard temperature, it can excert pressure about the same as the atmospheric one with very low density... So it balances out with the external pressure and the structure of the airship only has to withstand its own weight and the weight of the load (ISS)... A vacuum airship would have to resists the stress of atmospheric pressure... And with known engineering materials, there's no structure that can withstand atm pressure while being lightweight enough to float... (at least that I'm aware of) That sounds more plausible... But the main difficulty still stands, that is, to find a light weight, strong enough material that can hold a significant amount of a thin gas like helium without significant loses. Strong enough to be able to sustain the stress of it own weight plus ISS weight plus internal gas pressure... Light enough so that the added weight be insignificant relative to the provided lift capacity... Another way to see it, is that the average density of the whole system must be less than the air density... And as I mentioned before, I'm not aware of any magical material that could do the job significantly better than the usual ones that leads to our five Zeppelins solution

Not quite... The "sphere" that should contain the Helium must be structurally sound to resists the weight of the ISS and its own weight... Comparing to the largest ever built airship ( the LZ-129 Hindenburg )... It had a capacity of 200k m^3 of Volume and had a dead weight of 118tons (stripping it out of fuel and other devices)... So it could have an available raw lifting of about ~100tons ... Then you would need about 5 Zeppelins to hold the ISS... Totalling a million m^3 of Volume, and an extra half a million tons of added weight... And all of extra engineering to make that monster structurally robust and capable of soft re-entry...

6.25 kiloboeings (A Boeing worth of Volume was calculated as the maximum cargo volume + the maximum fuel capacity of a Boeing 737-800, that gives about 80m^3)

While looking for official information on the status of the studio (Intercept Games), the published (Private Division) or the holding company (Take-Two Interactive) I stumbled onto a month and a half old article from IGN : https://www.ign.com/articles/take-two-ceo-on-intercept-roll7-we-didnt-shutter-those-studios In the article its asserted that the Take-Two CEO Strauss Zelnick told to the article writer that they didn't shutter the studios (Roll7 and Intercept Games). And when asked if WARN Act notice and other reports were a sign that Private Division could be in trouble, Zelnick responded "I don't think so.... We just tend to leave those announcements to the label...". But "the label" (I guess, the publisher, Private Division), has not made any official announcements that I am aware off. So I tried to search for insights on the situation and stumbled into the LinkedIn of Intercept Games, finding for myself the overwhelming quantity of open positions from the former employees. The job descriptions/about/articles offered me some perspective on the situation of KSP2, and I wanted to share that with you: And some warm words from the producer:

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.