Mickel

Not so much 'today', however over the last little while I've: - killed two Kerbals. There is a flag to mark the spot. - been to Duna for the first time ever. Landed probes on Duna and Ike - have a probe on the way to Dres, which will be another first - found the Mun Arch. Obviously would have flown past it hundreds of times. This time I just happened to be looking the right way. - worked out how to use Soviet style capsules properly - become waaaay more efficient with my launch vehicles compared to the first few games I'm running science gathering on about 10% of standard, so I'm having to spread my wings beyond Kerbin and the moons to reach the 550 points level. All on stock KSP1 with Making History and Breaking Ground. I'm stuck trying to move a rover on Minmus. It has power after I fixed it up a bit. The wheels turn (in the same direction, which an improvement on when I got there). But it won't move...

I am so relieved that it's not just me...

There is a third option. It was a bug, then you suggested that maybe it's not. Then someone goes and asks IG's atmospheric tech consultant whether it's plausible. They confirm your thoughts. Then it gets massaged into a feature, complete with its own biome and science! And we all get a better representation of getting into space.

I attach one end to a probe core, throw a baby engine on the other end, then put four Baguettes along the truss (one each side). Looks more interesting than yet another cylindrical fuel tank.

I still have it on most (all?) of my trips. I've learned to fly around it. Not sure if it's because my PC is a potato.

There is something of an irony here, given the generic nature of science as it sits. If this is a feature, rather than a bug, and there is a representation of the ionosphere, shouldn't this be a biome that we can go and do science in to find out what's going on? Then this information could result in Keri telling us that after a long night of coffee drinking, our physicists have worked out that to stop bits leaking off our ascent stages we need to XXX, and to stop our descent stages melting we need to YYY. There is a potential thread that unlocks a tutorial that people can use to guide them through it. And it gives us a reason to send probes to other bodies. I know some would find this dumb and/or frustrating, and would rather brute force their way through. Others might find it an interesting little corner to delve deeper into. If it's a bug; fine, fix it. If nothing else, the fairings are because they aren't effective. If it's a feature, we're currently left blind, which is silly.

I restart my KSP1 career at the beginning of each year, with harder settings than the previous - the main one being significantly reducing the science payoff to force me out of the Kerbal system this time. Yesterday was that day. It gave me a contrast to KSP2. I spent much longer in KSP1 than I do in a KSP2 session, eking out enough upgrades and science to get me around Mun. Much of it was tedious - crew reports over random spots to make coin to upgrade the dirt patch launch site or lofting engines to some pre-determined speed and altitude for some test. But here's the thing... the sense of progress was more satisfying than I've got from KSP2 thus far. On the other hand... I sent Lucas Kerman and a Science Jnr to the ice on Minmus in KSP2. Hopped around three biomes, gathered up 1,100 odd science points and returned (probably could have picked up another couple of biomes while I was there, but for now at least, the shots are free). The environment (boots echoing as he walked), the music, the sound... So it is, for me. And when reaching other bodies provides that sense of achievement, rather than just another task ticked off, it will be even better.

That said... who wouldn't want to fire up KSP and fire a Kerbal skywards first? Now.. they may come crashing back to the KSC or into the water at high sub-sonic speeds and meet an ignominious end. Haven't we all done similar in the name of learning? I'm all for players learning the 'proper way' of doing things. Who are we, though, to tell them not to? The seasoned vets would roll their eyes at the way this 700 hour rookie does stuff. And I'd tell you to go away because I'm having fun.

And this is the thing... 'real' science (which isn't just 'science' because it needs engineering and art and countless other inputs) is hours and hours of slog in labs by thousands of unwashed post-grads (with the occasional disrupter thrown in), some of which works and some that doesn't (sometimes in a news worthy way). None of that makes a game. Sending Kerbals out into space on some quest that a player determines worthy does.

There are two threads here which get you around your problem. Docking ports are a new gadget. You can work out how to building them and test them on the ground. You can make them with the same materials you already use to build the rocket. You just need to do that in space to prove you can, ie Soyuz 4 or Gemini VIII. Going somewhere and finding something new is what gives you big step changes in capability. Perhaps a new material that allows a more efficient or lighter engine, or a different fuel compound that means you can fit more dv in a given volume (yep, sorry, variations on a theme. others will have better ideas). Maybe you could get there without leaving the Kerbal SOI, but it would take a heap longer. This is an issue in KSP1 - the power of the science labs means you don't really need to. This sounds a lot like 'science points'. However, following PDCWolf's train of thought, you don't exactly see the tree, just the outputs from your general intended direction. On this point, we can agree. If nothing else, all this talk of science has had me doing some basic reading into what did happen, when and how in the '50s through '70s. I know I've had to rethink some of my ideas on tech progression.

Yes. Every time you start a game of Civilisation you have to go through the tedious rigamarole of beating down the barbarians and researching pottery. Every time you start W&R you need to go through the tedious rigamarole of building a store to feed the people. In Syndicate, you have to go through the tedious rigamarole of researching all the kit from scratch. The list goes on and on. That's what 'starting' a game means. You might 'know' all this stuff. Your new Kerbals don't. If this thing goes where it's intended by 1.0 (whatever that might be), perhaps you won't find the need to start over that often. That said, perhaps it becomes a selectable difficulty (or call it tedium if you like) setting so you can opt out. Some players like that progression. Others don't.

A baby rocket bound for Kerbol orbit. Thanks for that. I was trying to see if I could link direct to the Steam gallery. Apparently not.

n/m... can't get the pic to link...

Makes zero sense to be able to copy physical samples. Bring back samples to your Kerbin orbiting station. Transfer to shuttle to return to Kerbin. Screw up landing and lose samples. Doesn't make sense to be able to go back to the station to retrieve a copy. Surely you'd have to go back to the source.

Even waiting for a landing site to roll around while you sit patiently in a polar orbit is painful. Players will learn not to use excessive warp - the hard way if necessary. The game shouldn't prevent us. (that said, I agree with dropping it to 50 when changing SOI for the player to increase again as needed)