kdaviper

A realistic solution would be to have command modules that sent control to the next stage at the moment of separation, so you could have a small core in each stage. Not sure how feasible it would be to implement but iirc this is somewhat how real rockets operate.

I think adjusting the aggressiveness of SAS response go a long way in reducing the oscillations. This would help planes as well as we have seen how SAS is overcorrecting compared to ksp 1

I wonder if this is why the 6-way adapter in ksp1 is so heavy...

I don't disagree with a lot of points here. Sadly I feel that the decision to use unity was likely an attempt to cut costs. Also I wonder how a unique engine would effect modding if that is indeed a long-term goal.

What if they treated decouplers as a part of the parent part instead of as a discrete entity? Just add their mass to the base mass of the attached part to avoid trying to simulate a large mass differential. Maybe even have a function that merges other high differential connections or applies a smoothing function to their masses somehow. Also would it be possible to treat only part of a craft as unpacked? For example if you have a payload inside an undeployed fairing, could you treat the contents therein as packed so that they are treated as one object?

In order to have a custom engine from the ground up, you would first have to make the engine. Secondly you would have to make all the tools that all of the non-software-engineer devs would use from the ground up.

The problem seems to lie within reading comprehension in my opinion. Just because the communication doesn't say what you want it to, doesn't mean it's not communication. Just because you interpreted prior communication as some kind of promise, doesn't mean it was intentionally misleading.

And their job... And future job prospects...

Probably has to do with time zones if I would imagine.

The way ksp2 estimates trajectories is completely different.

Ksp 1 already had an option to switch from sliders to numerical input. It replaces the interface instead of cluttering it up with more.

Also at less Delta v required to get into orbit!

It has been like this since the beginning. Iirc they have never stated otherwise. Why not both?

It means, iirc, that they have fixed some causes but not all of them

I wonder if they plan on an official mod store like Minecraft uses on bedrock edition

Yes

Maybe that's why they don't sell BMW:Early Access

Let us not confuse anecdotes with actual statistical relevance.

Personally, I am conflicted when it comes to this subject. The wobbliness itself isn't fun, but it does present a challenge that is satisfying to overcome. I have watched gameplay of Juno where the entire ship is simulated as a rigid body and while that method does offer a clear advantage in predictability and performance, the gameplay seems sterile and boring. If there is an alternative method of providing structural feedback that doesn't lead to slithery noodly craft and doesn't take a worse toll on performance I would be unironically interested in seeing it.

What good is it if the answer will be "we don't know" or "that's not my area of expertise?"

That's all that was supposed to be in the hot fix unless I missed something

And so are people's reaction to this fact

The drag issues they were fixing were only for horizontally constructed craft. Perhaps they didn't spend as much time testing vertically constructed craft since this isn't where they were working.

It solves at least some major problems. Also this is not an exhaustive list of fixes and features, only a discussion of what has been previously posted as the top ten bugs.

And iirc June 20 was the target date, not anything set in stone.