KUAR

You're a little behind the curve here - if you look at the latest update from Nate he's acknowledged that it's a high-priority item for the community. Hopefully that means they're looking at alternatives.

It appears so, lots of moans about it above. Doesn't really bother/affect me but I appreciate that for some people it's one step too many.

This is one of my big wishes. I don't like using the Cheats Menu and Lazy Orbit for this because it feels...cheaty. It also makes actually getting to the planet and landing on it anticlimactic if you've already warped to orbit, proven that you can descend, seen the scenery...then you have to go back to the launchpad and do exactly the same thing in the same place, the only difference being that this time you flew there rather than warped there. A matrix-y or otherwise obviously simulator-y environment where you can test your decoupling, RVs, descents, ascents etc. in atmospheres and planets you can self-define or set as scientifically measured parameters from real Kerbolar planets would be awesome. Do you think a real space program does quite as much trial and error as we do in KSP? Feature Request: Mission Training Simulator - KSP2 Suggestions and Development Discussion - Kerbal Space Program Forums

It's something I've mentioned once or twice, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. I reckon that gathering science about a place should enable future missions to be made easier. Just off the top of my head - performing an polar orbital scan allows you to access a 3D terrain model back at KSC and pick a landing spot in your desired biome / elevation / slope, a bit like KerbNet. Perhaps you need to actually be on the surface and take samples to enable materials analysis and thus identify ore locations. Perhaps identifying exoplanets requires solar-orbit telescopes. Perhaps dropping a probe through the atmosphere allows you to measure the atmosphere density and gravity, giving you the right number of parachutes for a given lander and allowing you to model the dV requirements to get back to orbit. Basically, I find trial-and-error with real bodies quite tedious. Not only does it make the actual landing a bit anticlimactic after you've "nearly" got it a dozen times, but also unless you space-warp you've also got the launch, circularisation, transfer and capture to do repeatedly. Real space exploration is done in baby steps with lots of research, modelling, etc but the first thing I did when I got KSP2 was strap together an Apollo-style Mun mission, blast off and aim to get Kerbals to the Mun. A half-dozen failures (and a dozen bugs) later, I had it - but I don't think that's the way it should go when you have a career mode.

I'm in two minds on this one. Yes, it's far more wobble than I'd expect to see from a 2-stage inline rocket. MechBFP is quite right, that's a pretty extreme torque you're applying. I can't normally get my large rockets anywhere near as twitchy, they're far more sluggish! Has the Labradoodle just got loads of gimbal? Honestly, if an actual rocket was being wrenched around that hard I'd expect it to snap in half, not wobble!

I'm definitely an advocate for this if we can have a high-fidelity sim mode (and as long as there aren't game-breaking bugs!).

Good catch Anth! By the time I finished the bug report it was nearly 11pm local time so I didn't test that...I only found Narwhalz bug report this morning. I agree that's the most likely culprit. Curious that their physics is different - is there any documentation around that? A shame - I like the tiny cubic, it's a really useful part for small/lightweight satellites!

Reported Version: v0.1.3 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Windows 11 Pro | CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-8750H CPU @ 2.20GHz 2.21 GHz | GPU: GTX 1050 Ti with Max-Q Design | RAM: 16.0 GB (15.7 GB usable) I have a small craft with a DAWN Xenon engine. It's powered by 3 x Gigantor solar panels in full view of the sun. I encounter two bugs: Under timewarp, the engine no longer provides any thrust. The orbit, which changes as expected when at 1 x timewarp (approx. 0.06-0.07 m/s2 and an according change to AP/PE), appears to be "on rails" when under any degree of timewarp 2 x or greater. Potentially related, so including in the same bug report; also under timewarp, unusual behaviour of the EC resource is noted. When at 1 x, it behaves as expected (remaining full throughout as panels are generating 3 x the demand from the DAWN). When at progressively greater timewarp, the EC value drops by an amount exactly equal to 0.2 x the timewarp! That is to say, at 10 x timewarp the EC is 203/205; at 50 x timewarp it's 195/205; and at 1000 x timewarp it's 5/205. Included Attachments: BuggyCraft.zip [Anth12 Edit: Two Main Causes:]

I think there is a very good chance that this is related to my bug here: The symptom where the objects connected directly to the tiny cube strut fall off is common. My theory goes that the fallen objects remain part of the ship, and so the camera centers on the combined CM of the now detached fuel tanks and the remainder of the ship. Perhaps they are still "attached" but the rigidity / springiness / some other value of the joint is zero allowing them to move?

I think there is a very good chance that this is related to Narwhalz bug here. The symptom where the objects connected directly to the tiny cube strut fall off is common. My theory goes that the fallen objects remain part of the ship, and so the camera centers on the combined CM of the now detached fuel tanks and the remainder of the ship. Perhaps they are still "attached" but the rigidity / springiness / some other value of the joint is zero allowing them to move?

Reported Version: v0.1.3 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Windows 10 | CPU: Intel Xeon E5-2678 v3 @ 2.50 GHz | GPU: GTX 1080 | RAM: 11.98 GB When using the attached craft, on igniting the second stage the camera no longer centers correctly on the remaining craft (2nd stage). The second stage disappears off the top of the screen. Attached is the craft file. Inside is the save file too. The bug is repeatable: Place the craft on the launch pad Stage once to burn the first stage Point straight up - no need for any steering to replicate the bug Stage once to decouple once first stage complete Stage once to ignite second stage Two other bugs, possibly related, were noticed. On initial rollout to the launch pad, I got CommNet error messages. Secondly, on igniting the second stage, a toroidal fuel tank from my payload seems to disappear off the bottom of the screen. Included Attachments: BuggyCraft.zip

I would like Science to be integrated into a "simulation / rocket test" mode. One of my bugbears has always been that, to test a complex vehicle, you need to cheat-warp to a planet and actually descend/ascend. I particularly detested this the first time I created an Eve return vehicle. Otherwise, you're repeating the same launch and interplanetary transfers time and again. The first time you land on a planet ought to be a special occasion, not spoiled by the fact that you've warped to it a dozen times already to test that you've got enough parachutes or that your rocket survived re-entry without flipping / disassembling. Once we have enough information about a planet, we can generate "simulators" for certain planets where we can test rocket designs, either landers / rovers / ascent modules. We should start by knowing almost nothing about the Kerbolar system. We could start by identifying the planets near us using orbital telescopes perhaps. We've now identified that they're there; they have a name. Perhaps we know their mass. To get more information about a planet - atmospheric density, temperature, surface gravity, surface composition, rotation speed, etc. we need to deploy probes with scientific equipment.

Longtime forum observer, new contributor. Definite +1 for this. I've always thought that it should be a feature and thought I'd hunt for other people commenting before starting a new thread. A real space agency simulates and models their craft extensively before sending them on missions. In KSP we often test our craft by rolling out our actual craft, then warping to an orbital position or a surface coordinate of our destination body. After we've tested half a dozen times like this, somehow the mission actually feels anti-climactic. Plus it's an inefficient way of testing your craft. I'd like a "consequence-free" environment where you can submit bits of your craft for testing as if in a simulator. Access to the environment would be via the VAB. You would configure your "launch assembly" as per normal and, instead of sending to a runway or a launch pad, you'd send it to a simulator. The simulator would be a single-planet environment. The planet would be bare and featureless most likely, certainly monochrome with no surface scatter, and some cool graphics could suggest it's a simulation. Basically, it shouldn't feel like a destination in itself. You would configure its physical properties on entry. Perhaps, if you'd been to and scanned a given planet with a probe, perhaps gone through the atmosphere and landed with scientific instruments, you could auto-configure to simulate a real planet's physical properties (atmosphere, gravity, axial tilt etc.). This would encourage exploration and science. You would then select your preferred situation - stable orbit or landed being the most two common options, to allow you to test entry to or ascent from an unexplored body. You could select various other "cheat" options guilt-free too, perhaps infinite fuel/unbreakable joints/disable KerbNet etc. If people like this option, Like the post at the top and comment to keep it at the top of the forum!