kdaviper

Even though the studio is shut down, they still seem to be uploading new dev branches to steam

The point was that vanamonde is not a CM.

This was how I discovered superluminal speed in ksp1

I have experienced 3 issues with parachutes: one was fixed by changing deploy settings The second was fixed by ending time warp ( I did not realize time warp did not reset to 1x after entering atmosphere as it did in ksp 1) The third was maybe related to a symmetry bug of some sort as half of the chutes from a certain set refused to open when the other half worked fine. While I agree that it did not make the game unpayable for me, I can see how it can cause frustration and there is the potential for a game-breaking experience if the first two work-arounds consistently fail.

I wish they had drawn a compass rose on the floor or had the cardinal directions indicated in the walls

WHERE'S BILL!?!?!?!? https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=fN205oH05YI&si=i1-CSg60PKfrrNwn

With no different information than anybody has seen thus far.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5437163/ No time to read this yet but here is a review of 45 papers about narcissism in leadership roles

What use is planning a maneuver when the outcome can be vastly different than your plan?

Here's an experiment: in ksp2, plan a 1000 dv maneuver with a rocket with a 1.0 twr. Now plan the same expenditure with a .01 twr. Notice any difference?

You can always add moar boosters!

Has anybody noticed any difference between the models? I assumed they were the same but haven't actually compared them closely. Smaller methane tanks would open up some opportunities for tiny planes. I would even like to see smaller jet engines. Maybe an rc-sized radially attached jet or something.

Likely never

One does not need to complete missions in order to unlock tech, they merely serve as a potential pathway for new players and yet offers some challenges. I do think there is a lot of room for improvement however. For example, I think it is an astute point that there is no mission that requires docking when it is a core mechanic and opens up so many mission profiles. As far as the tech tree is concerned I don't think that is bad that decisions must be made between parts. However I do feel that planes are sort of jimmied into the tree and their tech cost does not necessarily reflect their usefulness. Perhaps they could be integrated into other nodes and the node cost or science rewards could be adjusted slightly to compensate.

So are you upset that they listened to the community and changed their mind about implementing a stop-gap?

Candidate 5 days ago as well

Totally forgot that anybody who purchases an early access title is entitled to inside information. My bad.

No they are not. Repeating this again will not make it any more true.

I don't think adding tracks would be a huge obstacle, as iirc the wheels in KSP are essentially just skids with rotating textures iirc. From what I understand they would have to change the shape of the collision mesh and artwork that corresponds to the new shape. However if the above is true I don't see how they would be able to articulate over terrain and if that was desired they WOULD need a major rework

Thing is I have built things using similar construction methods as you and don't have near the problems. I've had problems with the docking ports but only when disconnecting them from decouplers via staging. I've been able to attach them to each other as well as attaching parts directly to them and then undocking to separate.

None of the teasers have but the Dev diary with nertea about thermals showed some sketches and concepts for ground based colonies

I think the purpose is to replace ksp1-style surface bases with physics-less surface bases that don't suffer the same drawbacks bases as ksp1

I hate to say this but I think KSP2 has it out for you.

How do you typically attach your nose cones?

To put it simply: it's complicated.