tstein

Yes I feel that there is indeed a shoehorning of the game (and of the expected users) in the explorers category. For me that is utterly boring. I already stopped playing the game again because the mechanical challenges are already too few. I prefer a single system with 2 moons and great deep mechanics that 9999 unique planets with shallow mechanics.I cannot care less for colonies and almost nothing for interstellar, the same way I care nothing for the hairstyles of kerbals.. KSP2 is still as of now targetign to be an inferior game to KSP1, I just try to be optimistic they change it a bit.

I would prefer if the game gave us CLUES and we coudl pin point it ourselves. Missions markers are , imho one of the wort mechanics ever invented in history of gaming.

I still dislike it. I dislike any downgrade of game complexity that created meaningful challenges.

People are still ignoring the measurable fact that the heat generated at 68 km is almost same as the heat at 40 km This is completely WRONG. The heat due to drag shoudl be a logarithm function of height but it is a lineat function with a very big B component.

No I would not mind if it was only one planet, but I am not a selfish person and I recognize that there are people that have other targets in the game. Would be very nice if most people were able to look outside their own little boxes of interest and understand people have different focuses in this game. Having lots of parts maek the game more fun, becuase makes the engineerign challenge more complex since it is harder to make a rocket or as few rockets as possible to collect all the science. Sure woudl be nice if the shapes and masses of the experiemtns were significant to help force some engineering decisions.

But that is what YOU and a part of the players care in the game. The travel the reentry. That for me is BORING. I care only and ONLY for the ship assembly and tryign to circunvent restrictions. The more tools and things I have to try the better. People need to realize KSP players are not a monolithic type.

Again, under your logic why to have more than 1 planet? Why to have more than 1 Engine? Sincirely that logic makes zero sense. Under our logic, it is better to SCRAP Science COMPELTELy, because why to even have 1 instrument if you can have zero? Seriously. No I do nto agree it is an illusion. IF science gathering with different instruments is an illusion then there is zero reason for the game to exist. We should have 1 premade rocket that we select it and fly everywhere. Your way of thinking is the anathema of my way of seeing the game. Supension of disbelief is critical for a game to be good and the several instruments did help on that!

Unless you add oceans and underwater compelx exploration where you can find treasure chests hidden by space pirates!

That is not so much the problem. problem is at 70 km zero heat at 69 km I am toasting

But we could have several instruments that you cannot fit all on the same ship. For example if a drill required too much space and mass to be sent alognside a atmosphereic analysis tool unless you used clever construction, that woudl be interesting. I woudl have added DOZENS instriments (but that use space, nto like the termometer in KSP1) that woudl push you to use your brain. How to protect thsoe instruments in reentry? Make that if they are nto well palced they lose their data. Also make that you cannot push the instruments to inside the ship trough clipping. I did had the illusiont hat I was collectign different data, because the data had meaning semantic wise. barometer feels like somethign that makes sense to know if there is or there is nto atmosphere in a aplent. temperature is somethign completely different and make sense in much more environaments. Soil samples are also very obviously different.

Under that logic why to have physics? why to have reentry heat? why not have unlimited thrust? Limitations are ALWAYS what makes a game a challenge and fun comes from challenge. INf act for me unlocking of parts behind experimentation is DUMB. The only part that made sense in the career was exactly the economics. IF I coudl I woudl play acareer mode where sience only get me MONEY and prestige and all advancements I get with MONEY. Unlocking a new engine because I got a sample of moon soil makes zero sense and feels dumb for me , IMHO.

N never made my rocket climb so fast for starters, so I had no problem during ascent. But aerocapture is simply impossible now, even a subtle one that would demand a dozen pass by is impossible.

I had to up to 68 km. At 67.5 the ship burned to a crisp.

Something I noticed is hat atmosphere density scaling does not feel right in the heating department. At 68 km atmosphere should be very faint, but a 2500ms vessel already starts to burn very fast. I think the main gripe people are facing is related to that, the heating scaling up with atmosphere height needs some tuning.

The one thing I can say against the wind proposal is. wind, with exception of hurricane level ones, is a very weak force compared to the aerodynamic forces of a rocket plunging trough atmosphere at 800m/s, so might be a lot of work for something that affect you only at very start of ascent. IT coudl on other hand be relevant on descent, specially on other planets with dense atmosphere.