Vortygont

@GoldForestHere is what happens with my spaceplane without heat shielding. It is about why new heat protection is very important. I have periapsis 45km and apoapsis 90 km. Here is a footage And the tragetic end If mk1 plane cabin could have a termal protection, it would survive the reentry. There are obvious constraints for spaceplanes in ksp because of heat

But my construction is so specific. When I was about 40 km, my space plane needs second reentry, because it has lifting power and not slows down like capsule. It is hard to guide it to runway and it is also quite long. Of space plane is under 40 km, than it has heat problem, so I connect to its cabin a radiator, because cabin heats more than others parts And so it's why we need advanced system of heat protection, to make crafts with any possible shapes. It is for situations, when shape is stable in reentry, but you don't have parts to make what you want, because game doesn't have ways to make heat protection for it. Of course for creativity freedom

Hello, this topic has probably already been discussed, but it seemed to me that it is still suspended in the air, because there is no clear confirmation of adding a new type of heat shield The tools available in the game you can not protect every ship from re-entry, because for this you only have heat shields. I've had many instances where my mk1 shuttle would overheat and be very difficult to land from space. I cheated and reduced the heat exposure in the settings . What if players want to create a starship that will enter the atmosphere of mars from the second space speed or other heavy landers that can't use standard heat shields? Why not add the ability to cover aircraft hulls and tanks with heat shields in addition to the standard heat shields to start with. For example it could look like covering a certain surface of the underside of the craft with heat tiles. Definitely need a parameter to control the amount of coverage. For example the angle of 180 degrees is half of full coverage, the angle of 240 degrees is 4/3 of full coverage. Of course this would change the location of the center of mass, shifting it to the heat shield, and increase the weight, significantly. Obviously the surface area of the plane would be larger than that of the capsule. So they could be balanced in terms of gameplay I think this could enter the game as organically as the other procedural parts - wings and radiators. It will be easier to create spaceplanes, shuttles, gliders like esa spacerider or SUSIE , and others, which will increase creative freedom Honestly I think the issue of procedural heat shielding should be approached in a more advanced way, as about an arbitrarily shaped hull protecting the craft at re-entry into the atmosphere. Probably the mechanics of this part would be similar to the fairing mechanics. Just look at the source of inspiration - NASA's Havoc Venus mission UPD: I created a concept for heat protection for different surfaces, like wings and, plane cabins and hulls Here is a conception for heat protection for wings or another hull type details. If you want to apply heat protection for wing, you open heat category in redactor and choose icon, which looks like an abstract plate with specific texture. This icon with plate means a material you cover your detail. In information window it has a description, temperature and other limits, cost on surface unit, density and graphic of square density on square unit from material’s thickness. When material is chosen you click on wing, and lower surface of wing is covered by this material. Clicking on material you open its properties window, where you can change thickness of material on detail. Also I think there can be advanced settings if you want to cover not only bottom, but front of wing or cabin, and make cover as on pictures below Heat wear of material will be individual for each detail of craft which has it (individual wear of protection for every detail). Concerns, that there will be more calculations, I believe are overstated. Temperature overlay (f11) already exists and heat for every detail is calculated individually already. Other argument that wing now doesn’t consist from many details – it is one detail and probably heats as one detail. Less details – less calculations It will not conflict with traditional heat shields, they are details. I suggest a function of covering of detail by thermal protection Another bonus suggestions: Inflatable shields could be also improved by adding new shields with different diameters and adding wear for inflatable shields:) Also it will be cool to see GIGANTIC heat shields for atmosphere breaking like in bbc voyage to the planets or sun dive The heat details must have significant improvements, becuase reentry is important part of game. I like that radiators will be procedural, it is very useful improvement. I would like to see significant developments in thermal protection, it will change game in good way I believe that it will improve of creation of gliders, shuttles, spaceplanes and other non-capsule type crafts

If you leave the ship in that orbit and don't keep track of it, the mission will probably fail anyway. No, I wrote above that the vehicle is removed after a certain amount of time, not immediately. It would be terrible if you switched to another vehicle for a second and the computer would just erase the first vehicle. And of course if the edge of the atmosphere is touched, the orbit evolves instead of removing the spacecraft I just thought it would be possible to come up with a system that doesn't allow impossible orbits that break the logic of the game. And about the above, you could use a timer and a warning that after time X the spacecraft with the kerbals will enter the atmosphere. In my opinion in the KSP1 it stops the acceleration of time and displays a warning. Such a timer would be automatically created for ships with kerbals in dangerous orbits in KSP2. You can disable this feature in the settings if you think you can keep track of it yourself

I understand that this function cannot be used for automatic re-entry of the capsule for example. It is clear that even if we spend extra resources on this for calculations in real time, the capsule will not release the parachutes by itself, we will have to control it in any case. That is, it will be impossible to land in tracking mode Regarding space junk, I'm left with a bunch of stages on takeoff or return to Kerbin, whose periapsis is about 30km. Automatically destroying the stages would be good for reducing the amount of debris and thus flying objects I was also wondering why not reduce the time objects disappear into the atmosphere, some of them burn up

There is an interesting moment in the game. I watched the spent rocket stages and noticed that although their periapsis is about 30 km, but they do not burn up in the atmosphere, unless you switch to them, or fly close to them. I would add a function so that the game recalculates the orbit for such cases. The game looks at the intersection of the orbit with the atmosphere and decides exactly how to recalculate If you do not observe the device with a periapsis <30~50 km, then for some time the game simply removes it on the first turn. If you suddenly want to look at it, then the game, knowing the parameters of the orbit, approximates the movement in the most rough way and builds the trajectory of re-entry into the atmosphere, without simulating anything in real time. At least you all saw that mechjeb perfectly builds trajectories of re-entry into the atmosphere. The spacecraft in the global map will move along the trajectory until it intersects with the surface For the case when the periapsis is not too low, you can do another. The game calculates a new orbit after passing the atmosphere and the time of exit from the section of the orbit passing in the atmosphere. And when that time has passed, the game simply changes the old orbit to a new one, and the spacecraft finds itself in a new orbit at the exit point from the atmosphere. The case when you observe the passage of the spacecraft in the atmosphere can also be adjusted by approximation, rather than calculating the resistance force in real time

I'll say a thought that's already been said here. I believe that the player should record the route by manually navigating the ship. I do not think that the game will add an autopilot, which will very accurately fly the route from takeoff to landing, which you have built on the map of the system (unless there will be a similar mod). The route you flew manually, of course, must be repeated under certain conditions, such as a certain relative position of the planets, the orbital parameters of the target and the availability of a certain amount of necessary resources. The concern is that the computer may not be able to follow your route exactly because of its machine precision, but you can build a route with a little dV in case the course is off course. I remember the developers promised to add a maneuver planner, why not automatically include it so it will make a little self-correcting for example Hohmann's transfer on some part of route using the dV reserve if it suddenly missed the target while building the transfer. And this function will of course be turned on, if the player flies past the ship performing the route or somehow interacts with it, because you don't need to spend extra resources on unnecessary additional calculations

In the KSP you have constant value of different types of radial simmetry (radial n-symmetry, where n = 2, 3, 4, 6, 8). I suggest that it is possible to make unlimited number, so you use all numbers, for example 5, 7, 9, 10, 13 and others (imagine 28 or 33-symmetry!) I think this feature could be implemented as a line (e.g. in the bottom left corner as usual) that shows the number of symmetry and circle, divided into n parts. This parameter can be changed by entering another number from the keyboard to the line I belive that realisation of this function will be very easy (just attach each part through the corner 360 / n automatically), except problem with big numbers, where details can cross each other. The most important that it is of course obviously make construction much more comfortable and you don't need to use several times one n-symmetry mode and level parts by eye (I think you can also level details in new scheme mode?). It would be nice to see this feature in ksp2, which would make the constructor even closer to the ideal;)

? In the game the acceleration of gravity decreases as you say, maybe you are confused with the value of the constant from the game reference for Kerbin at the surface?

I think that stars would be needed to make gravity maneuvers near them at the stage of development, when you do not have hydrogen metal engines and other very advanced technologies. It would probably be interesting to see challenges with interstellar flights on low tech Although such flights could be useful for studying deep space and the structure of the universe in general. Or imagine that the desired and promising star is still relatively far away and you don't know how to fly such distances yet. Wouldn't it be easier to practice with a notional Barnard star that would be relatively closer? This way you can quickly practice the technology There doesn't have to be a goal, just something to fill the space so as not to ruin the plausibility of the simulation and give the player an experience, maybe comparable to reality

To make the simulator more realistic, shouldn't we add regular stars in addition to star systems with planets? I believe that if you add N star systems in a game about interstellar travel, and you will have only N stars, it will look unrealistic, unprofessional and not in line with the concept of the game The game would feel fairer if you had more freedom to fly to different objects in the galaxy, such as that star kebler23878 over there, even if it has no planets. I believe it takes much less resources to create stars than planets because for stars we don't have to think about topography, geology, concept. You could make an autogenerator of stars along the lines of a star catalog that would randomly set radius, age, mass, type, and maybe location. Stars can have similar textures and other features because they are not as unique as planets Perhaps in science mode, you will be added to the eyes or other bonuses for studying a star of a certain type In my opinion, filling space with stars makes the game more realistic and similar to what you expect from such a game than just having N more systems with planets

Sounds like imbalanced. Seen this idea a few times, are there any design challenges and weaknesses with this engine? What technologies can it be ranked with in the technology tree?

Because of the new launch date of Artemis I, will there be a new or expanded or redesigned version of Artemis I recreation? I think everyone fan awaits for it

Not in a command capsule, but in an all-terrain vehicle seat:)

I didn't mean that tubes will be procedural, I mean you must connect modules to to be able to move between them without EVA. The fact that the crew flies from one star system to another in planes all this time sounds ridiculous

My idea is to make the arrangement of modules in the kraft more meaningful Logically, if the habitate modules are not connected by any tunnels or corridors, then to move between them, you need a minimum of EVA. But according to the logic of the game, since these modules are part of the same craft, kerbals can still move between them. For example kerbals can move between modules of this craft I propose to make a system that resembles the fuel delivey system for liquid engines. If engine not connected to fuel system, then it can't waste fuel. And if module is not connected with the interior living space of the spacecraft, then kerbals can't move to this module from anothers. For example right connected modules look like these: On the second picture you can see that modules are connected with tube. And I suggest that tubes can connect habitate modules and/or this function can be made by another parts I propose this change to make the assembly of kerbals crafts more meaningful. This adds a new layer to the assembly process, related to the proper planning of module placement and it will add a bit simulation to the space exploration simulator. I think with this fix will make game immersion is felt stronger, if I may say so. I assume that such a system is being developed for the colonies, but I am not convinced and do not know if it applies to spaceships I thought about this idea after seeing this interstellar ship with planes Of course, although it is pre-alpha, but it is unclear how the crew will get to the planes, except through spacewalking And now my fantasy, which may not appear in the game: if you can't connect some modules on interstellar ship, you can make transport, which is connected to ship's structure and can to drive on it like on rails 500m from the living bays to landers, which saves weight on the long 500 meter corridor I hope you found my idea about realistic movement between habitate modules interesting and convincing

I think you should rely on KSP 1 stock spacecraft, because there there were no replica of real spacecraft except ESA update. I think in KSP 2 will be stock crafts which is shown in dev videos and in steam screenshots. And maybe there will be stock crafts with next-gen tech to demonstrate new parts capabilities

I disagree, because in some video or post there were medium tanks. For clarity - 1.85m - medium, 2.5m - large. You can see on screenshot medium tanks And also we know that there are details with bigger sizes - Large (of course), X Large, XX large Here is another copy from the ksp wiki about the radial size: Tiny / 0.625m. Typically used for probes and nose electronics. Small / 1.25m. The most common size, and the primary size available at the beginning of the game, and about the same relative size to kerbals as the Redstone's tanks to humans. (DLC) Medium / 1.875m. This size is based on the Russian R-7 rocket family and the American Gemini program. Large / 2.5m / Rockomax. This size is about the same relative size to kerbals as the Atlas V or Falcon 9's tanks to humans. Extra Large / 3.75m / Kerbodyne. Styled after NASA's real-world Space Launch System, which uses Rocketdyne RS-25 and RL10 engines. (DLC) Huge / 5m / Kerbodyne S4. This is styled after the Saturn V rocket used in the Apollo program. It is notable for not having ready-made engines of this size; the player is supposed to assemble custom engine clusters to move Huge rockets. UPD: here is screenshot of sizes for engines

I do the same thing, but I think it is intricate way, because maybe fairings in KSP1 were not considered to be used in this way. But in KSP 2 may be interstages with the same mechanic of working as fairings

Can you please give timing of this video

In KSP1, when you connect the decoupler to the engine, it creates a protective cover of the same diameter as the engine But if you decide, say in order to save weight, that a smaller engine is enough for you, you immediately run into the above property. This property can't always be corrected, because not all engines have a models with a different shroud diameters. As a result, the shroud will not be the diameter of the tank, but the diameter of the engine, which is very inconvenient in flight This problem in KSP1 is solved by installing the engine to a special part, the engine plate, which can be used to make different configurations of the propulsion system. But there is a disadvantage - the engine plate adds weight to the craft and, still, has, a limited number of configurations for engines I propose to get rid of the engine plates and allow players to install the engines as they want, which will expand the creative freedom. The idea is that after you create an any engine configuration on a stage, you put a decoupler that matches the diameter of that stage and it covers all the engines with one shroud that matches the tank diameter of the stage and decoupler. This will make it much easier to create crafts. And it will be better, if shroud could change its shape. For example, if lower stage tank has another diameter, you choose decoupler of its diameter and shroud would look like SLS universal stage adapter. I believe that creation of any interstages depending on the size of the parts will benefit the process of creating crafts. Crafts would be more diverse and there would be less hassle with creating non-standard crafts

Add details and dimensions of parts (e.g. fuel tanks) as in Making history I and many people probably like to build compact rockets rather than taking a lot of extra fuel or emptying a tank because you couldn't find smaller tanks of the right profile. Since its introduction the medium 1.875m size parts have been present in many of my crafts. And the Huge 5m parts are extremely handy for interplanetary travel and taking out huge structures without too much hassle I don't think making another size tank will be harder than the other features, but it will increase the creative space for players from the very release of the game and in its base set. I hope for understanding