Sea_Kerman

why should blade pitch on the tail rotor variant be just bindable to yaw? let us bind anything to anything!

One thing I think should be looked at is the parts manager. Improvements I can immediately think of are 1. reduce the whitespace. Currently you can chop the vertical height of the thing in half without cutting anything off, because there's so much space between entries 2. Currently you can't look at 2 different parts of your craft that don't happen to be directly next to each other in the parts manager. Perhaps allow opening up several windows or breaking out specific parts into their own windows a la the old PAWs. 3. Remove fuel tanks from it if all their actual functions are in the resource manager

I too support SAS affecting trim instead of direct control inputs

I think it should be possible on big craft for specific things, an electrolysis cell to turn water or ice into hydrolox isn’t a big stretch.

I really liked the sort of emergent minigame Scansat created, and it’s a lot more interesting and satisfying filling in the “fog-of-war” than just getting a probe into the “correct” range of orbital parameters then clicking a button and instantly getting the science/a map.

I was hoping for some sort of scansat thing, perhaps the orbital science one will do it. It's really cool to have that sort of "minigame" where you need to get into the correct orbit and resonance and stuff, and of course it takes some time. And you can of course do more specific maneuvers to dogleg over something you want to get more info on fast.

Bugfixing straight-up doesn’t work this way. There’s basically 5 stages. 1. I know there’s a bug 2. I can reproduce the bug 3. I know why the bug happens 4. I have a solution 5. The solution works None of these actually map to amount of time taken, and progress jumps back and forth around 2, 3, and 4 constantly and unpredictably. Thus, having a “progress bar” is not really useful.

Of course with all these options we have to set a sane default that will work for most things a new player would want. Perhaps dynamic, secant, end velocity — Also, didn’t they fix the plane change drift issue?

I like it, and it gives a good reason to make big cool-looking interplanetary vessels instead of just a little capsule on a big fuel tank.

On the topic of the "copper makes green flame" bit they talked about, maybe that could be an effect when a part is near its temperature limit.

It would be cool if the planet surfaces filled in fog-of-war like with various levels of detail as you Scansat the surface (Scansat mechanics pls), then get better images of specific areas from your lander’s cameras/kerbonauts’ eyes

On the topic of part switching, interesting to see that restock, and I think even stock ksp1, has a bunch of options for how engines connect to the tankbutt (boat-tail, full diameter frame, minimal truss) but ksp2 has none of that.

I agree with the person above asking why editing a maneuver node is like the one thing you can’t do while paused/at timewarp 0x Also, in general, good news seeing things getting moved to “Fix implemented and verified”.

I definitely agree with the “KSC is at the bottom of a gravity well” thing and think it should be emphasized. I was thinking, for the KSC, instead of having slowly-filling resource pools, why not have your contracts/science/whatever allow you to buy those resources? Thus it’s “fly rockets to be able to make more rockets” instead of “time warp a bit to be able to make more rockets” and it’s also a lot more in-line with what you’ll be doing in colonies (make rockets out of resources) except in colonies you have to harvest them yourself.

And also a colony sort of has to be vertically integrated, that’s what makes it a colony and not a forward operating base.

Yeah the nozzle narrowing doesn’t seem right

Haven’t tested current patch

Odd, they seem to work ok for me https://youtu.be/zJwiyDwzYX8

A mode to have the node automatically do this and calculate a sort of secant to your trajectory centered around the node would be nice. Perhaps that would be the default mode, and the current mode would be the "long burn" mode.

I think that the actual geometric placement of the struts should matter, in that making triangles and trusses is good.

I definitely agree with the overambitious/bold characterization, not the incompetent one.

The issue is actually mis-tuned PIDs. Too much gain, or too little damping. Making the control surfaces slower might actually make the problem worse, because then the PID (if it were tuned correctly) wouldn’t be able to react as quickly and accurately.

Also, there’s a LOT of empty space in that UI design, it could probably be compacted to 2/3 to 1/2 the height without even changing the size of the text.

I'm imagining a testing simulator thing where it brings up a sort of map view like the tracking station, populated by your current exploration data (like planets being featureless spheres unless you have topographical and image data from doing a scansat), you select the refrence body, then you can set an orbit or a location on the surface, then spawn a craft in. You'd be able to set specific resource levels for testing stuff like COM offsets, or doing infinte fuel stuff. Possibly also adjustible gravity.

One example of science giving useful data is ScanSat, where in the process of doing the experiment you get a fairly useful set of maps for the planet, integrated nicely so no need to tab out into a wiki and copy coordinates and stuff. Ooh, an idea I had: part testing experiments that give actually useful data on the part, like a series of engine test contracts that give science, and also the thrust-mach, thrust-altitude, thrust-isp, etc. graphs for that engine