tomk

Hi, Since watching few reviews on YT of ksp 2, I've noticed that by default, crafts are put together by rubber fasteners. I know that this might be a fun new feature, but for start at least a toggle would be nice to use a standard steel fasteners to make rockets more rigid ! Also rubber fasteners tens to loose their tensile strength while exposed to near 0 kelvin temps. Another good reason is that at the moment launching any rockets looks (paraphrasing from YT) "one blue pill short of a party". (I know that this a worked on problem, but I thought that this post had to be made for posterity)

With prices of gpu's these days I wouldn't be surprised if gamers sold their chairs just to afford it, so don't be surprised if they play on "The Engelbart mouse"

pinch on trackpad ? Look, I think you seriously missed my point here. Point is not that - "not everybody has a scroll wheel" but rather: - Not always what may see as a simple solution might be a valid choice from multi-platform / multi-hardware interface design point of view. I don't know why they didn't go with the scroll wheel, but I wouldn't assume that they didn't had their reason (even if invalid) for it.

Not everybody has a scroll wheel.

Huh ? first time I hear of "steam flatpak" ... I'll give it a shot, maybe in some future ... (also I did change proton to experimental and had no luck on my steam)

I would say don't bother - I've bitten the bullet and I can report that result is "no cigar" " Failed to initialize graphics. Make sure you have Direct 11 installed, have up to date drivers for your graphics card and have not disabled 3D acceleration in display settinas. InitializeEngineGraphics failed "

quite, my bad. Every time I approached wine in last 10 years it was requiring me to do library kungfu, and most of my rigs are dev rigs ... if I had a dedicated rig for games it would run as well windoze, but that would be sacrilege ... and frankly through the pandemic cs and ksp kept me entertained because it did not require any faffing about.

Dear @Intercept Games, beside features, will it also support multiple operating systems ? I'm asking, because it feels to me that pretty graphics are creating a lock-in into DX ecosystem. ( Anyone typing now, suggesting VM or VINE, please don't ).

(yet another dumb idea of my): Maybe it would be nice to have control surfaces automatically disengage operation out of what is considered an atmosphere ? I might be asking to much of a realism, but I can't remember space shuttle to flap it's ailerons while chasing Hubble in the orbit Or maybe a "disable all control surfaces shortcut that one can bind to an action group" ?

X15 was hung by explosive bolts, prototype engines sometimes were attached to strato bombers by those, fearing usually use those, before mentioned helicopter propellers to allow ejection seats, early air to air missiles used those before reliable latches were developed to allow non-flexing characteristics during supersonic flight. My original point was that it's slightly dumb to have to use decoupler and do the offset kung-fu to occlude it from otherwise clean design just to have something like a drop tank. But it seems that general consensus is against so far.

I just wanted to clarify that I wasn't opting for every single part on your design magically have a pyro bolts mid flight that one can just say "heeeeey I don't fancy that with me anymore, so let's just ditch it" but rather than it has to be vehicle design stage choice. But thanks for clarifying about the ModuleDecouple.

Sorry guys, but there seems to be a bit of misunderstanding creeping in. I've NOT suggested that all parts should be attached by "explosive bolts" (or "tommybolts" [TM] ), but that a specific two parts in VAB can be highlighted together and marked as "joint by explosive / pyro bolts" and that it would give another event in staging events. IF that functionality already exists via hard points (never heard of it) than it's a moot subject. Side note: taking engineer out, just to the detaching, seems "suboptimal". ps. drop tanks are something that might be close to some heart, but if we want to have more extreme example: how about detaching wings / engines mid-flight ... possibly for comedic effect, but one can see a purpose in that ... the forces working on decouplers will make it slightly more problematic, but standard attachment that can be "rapidly unfastened" would give better options (in my stupid opinion).

@Snark we'll, mod is a certain way, thou I did had ksp melt down on me due to to many mods that I'm afraid of suggesting more mods. @Kerbartif we're going to attach blame by name ( ) I would suggest "tommybolts" - rolls of the tongue a bit easier ;D

Well, decoupler is a separate part that is designed for pushing things apart with a force in predefined direction, while as pyro fasteners are just replacing existing fasteners. The fact that people use decouplers and try offset those into the model is just making it less and less realistic, while also providing unnecessary flexibility to the joint, while pyro fasteners by definition hold two parts as well as standard fasteners. From engineering standpoint - pretty big. Let's maybe start that in real world a ksp style decoupler consists of "explosive bolts" and other parts that are meant for pushing objects apart ... while ksp does not have a very simple functionality that is used day to day like reusable attaching point, simple hooks, straps etc etc. I don't think there is a single person here that did not experience staging error. Further to your point, I don't think that every single attachment shall be automatically detachable, but the parts that you chose during a design process. Further further to your point, electricity is not needed to be present all the time - some explosives initiators can be triggered from things like piezo source, which could be initiated with as much as "hard smash on a FIRE button". BUT I wanted to pitch something that is more in line with real world designs however so far general consensus is that people don't want that. ps. I've edited original message, since I've used "separatrons" in place of "decouplers" - sorry, it was a long day.

Hi, I don't know whenever this type of functionality actually is planed or not, however I would like to pitch it: "explosive bolts". In real world sometimes there is a need to disconnect a part immediately without the need to actually stop for service. One example might be propellers on helicopter to allow eject seats to engage without flying pilots into those. Those things usually are not meant to come together again, and honestly I think this was really missing from original version. Radial decouplers are a good thing, but those are meant for disconnecting and pushing apart stuff, wheres explosive bolts are only severing hard link with parts and let physics do the rest. For example having a long range ssto and needing to use radial decoupler (while occluding it from the view) for a drop tank seems less realistic than simply an eternal tank hanging under a fuselage that can be separated by few explosive bolts. Another example is carrying things for transportation together, but then not being able to disconnect those without use of decoupler or some other kung-fu. We all know 3 part challenge and people smashing parts onto hills just to get the dry mass down, or how people jump through hoops to have stuff attached in cargo bay, or having to use decoupler (that again was meant for pushing away propulsive parts) for what is a cube satellite carrier and radial decoupler being larger than a cube satellite it self. This could be made an option, when selecting two parts together in hangar and marking "attached by explosive bolts" that would expose another staging event. Also in real world those don't really carry that much weight penalty - usually in tens or hundred of grams. ps, maybe an engineer could reattach those ? but hey, it's just a whisfull thinking idea