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.

The forwards-sweeping wing version of supersonic drone: 1) With a Goofy big tail (It flights like a charm, no SAS): 2) More serious version (a little bit roll unstable on take off, but stable cruise flight, no SAS): The @The Aziz's train is just a rocket in disguise that takes off from the runway , you just need a TWR greater than 1, and hide some flywheels for control. i added 8 small flywheels inside the cargo bay which gave me total control of this pseudo-supersonic-train: Pesudo-train sonic flight: At mach 3 in low atmosphere: I don´t know why so much PTSD with FAR... The rest of the game is about the same difficulty as making planes that flight perfectly with FAR... or even getting Grand Piano to flight (SAS and TWR>1). Rules of thumb to make plane with FAR: same as Stock KSP, and a big tail, far back tail or multi-tail... in my experience take-off runway problems with FAR are normally related to having not enough tail to get laterally stable (roll/yaw). Second recommendation: use only trimming, because SAS tends to oscillate too much, a stable plane flights by itself. FAR (and aerodynamics and airplane design in general) Just needs a guided tutorial like stock KSP. When I started playing I didn't took any tutorials at first, killed Valentina, felt terrible and closed the game... and didn't tried again for months... but when i tried again i did the tutorials, and now I have more than 600h of gameplay, playing career in hard mode. I have learned a lot about Orbital mechanics and rocket design well beyond my wildest imagination. I think with FAR would be similar for everyone if it had a well made guided tutorial and documentation.

The Expanse: No serious Kerbal would believe a show where spaceships comes without snacks... Who goes into space without snacks?? Nonsense...

This is a supersonic, probe-controlled airplane drone for simple science exploration and reconnaissance that was made by me using FAR tools to flight with FAR aero physics : I dont know if you find it uncreative or unreasonably difficult to design. It flights just fine, without any SAS, just trimming. It is gliding at relatively low speeds. It was designed to be performant for supersonic, so maybe not the best example for gliding. The first pictures shows the FAR overlay, that gives a lot of insight on how the plane is behaving, the most important parameter for me is the Lift-to-Drag ratio L/D, which for this glide is about 7... Real jet airliners and combat airplanes normally get L/D about 20... and specialized planes can even get to the range of 30... But Kerbals being Kerbals, we can assume they don't use airfoils, but flat sheets of metal... which could justify the crappy performance of their planes xD... The second picture shows more of the details of the plane. I think a realistic aerodynamic model does not hinders the player experience, but enriches it. I do agree that for KSP2, the user interface should be a lot better than the presented by FAR mod... and approachable tutorials and documentation should be included to introduce the player to the basics of aerodynamics and airplane design, like it probably will be with rocket design and orbital mechanics, which are concept about the same complexity or even of greater complexity than the aerodynamics knowledge needed to design airplanes in KSP with "realistic" aerodynamics physics engines like FAR.

I must disagree, I have found FAR mod more fun and useful than stock aerodynamics... FAR is not unforgiving, the opposite, it helps you to design planes that fly by themselves, it helps you to know your plane before you even launch it... It's true that the User Interface is not perfect, and that's what I would expect from KSP2, to improve the user interface expérience while keeping a realistic aerodynamics model. You don't need a ton of tutorials to build a good plane, in fact with FAR is just looking one graph, the lift graph and one number, the speed for sustained flight. FAR even helps you to position and size the tail of your plane to have an improved and smooth stable expérience (with the stability graphs)... Which in FAR user interface is not that obvious, but with a nice interface building planes would be as easy or easier than building rockets.... What's sets KSP apart from all the other games is its capability of making realistic simulations approachable... If we remove the realism of KSP we end up with another run of the mill "space game"...

Stock aerodynamics is so broken, that you can stabilize a rocket only by adding boosters, because, even if the center of lift indicates that your rocket is unstable, the fake drag of the boosters automatically stabilize any rocket... If it's about intuition, I think this and other derivative behaviours get very not-intuitive,. Like you drop the boosters and suddenly the whole ship is unstable... Or if you add any part to the command pod, it's automatically unstable on re-entry... And so on... In my opinion, simplified Lift/drag per part makes the game not intuitive and frustrating when trying to play with the aerodynamics (No SAS flywheel control).

The meaning of a pre-order of the Early Access would be to show our support to the development, and show our commitment to support the beauty and masterpiece KSP series are, even if unfinished. I see it more of a symbol... The devs have been honest, is not about flashy trailers and smoke... Is about to continue supporting the development of KSP and beyond!

I don't care what ppl are saying, I'm hyped! Even with all pre-alpha footage!, Now, when the pre-order of the early-access?

I like docking... But I have never used RCS... Just point each ship to each other and make a nose-to-nose dock... It's even easier when you have SAS target tracking on both ships... Lateral docking could be done without RCS too, just correctly aligning the ships with a nice reference... For example one aligned normal/antinormal and the other prograde/retrograde. Rendez-vous is what makes me impatient... I'm still experimenting on which would be the shortest fastest way to get a rendez-vous (in less than a full orbit), that does not require infinite DV xD...

I have done a detailed walkthrough of an example calculation on this thread: Hole you find it useful!

I don't know if the hardest... But the most stressful docking I have ever performed was an emergency docking to save a Kerbal that went out of fuel trying to reach low orbit from the surface of the Mun... The Kerbal was on a small exploration wheeled rocket... And I miss calculated the DV needed to reach low orbit and got stuck on a suborbital trajectory without fuel with an AP of 14km... Luckily I had an automated (probe-controlled) fuel delivery rocket in a close orbit... I had to rush for an intercept trajectory 40km or more off target, get into a rendez-vous in suborbital trajectory with both rockets falling towards the surface of the Mun... I made a quick nose to nose docking (No RCS) and transfered all the fuel to the Kerbal ship ... Then I completed the burn to get into the low orbit with the Kerbal ship at about 8km altitude... Letting the empty automated refueling rocket to crash into the surface of the Mun few moments later... Saving the Kerbal in the process