DoomsdayDuck555

in the interview a month ago they stated that many devs wanted proper commnet but they needed to prioritize milestones first.

is TWR set for vacuum? that might make enough difference.

What do you mean? Your previous rockets had their thrust limiters set to half their values?

I recently watched Nate’s interview and it really seemed like the devs are trying to bang out the roadmap stuff quickly, then they will go back and add QoL and requested features. For example, Nate mentioned commnet systems, science archive, and alarm clock all as things that the team wants to add but are prioritizing below roadmap.

I kind of agree. While 2's effects look much higher quality, with more polish, the way you can see the vessel through the plasma makes it look much less intense. On the other hand, 1's effects like much more rough and janky, but they convey the intensity of re entry better. I think the transparency through the plasma really takes away from the effect.

I could see us potentially getting a peek at the internal bug priority list, but if they gave out a timeline for major updates then they would have to either rush out the updates to meet the deadline, or they would have to go back on their word about the release dates.

Reported Version: v0.2.1 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Win 11 | CPU: R5 5600x | GPU: 3070 | RAM: 32GB I’ve noticed that ablator doesn’t ablate more than 5-10% regardless of re entry conditions. For example, on lunar re entry with a periapsis of around -10km and hitting the atmosphere at 3000m/s, I only lose .01 tons of ablation from the .20 in the small heat shield. Although I don’t remember the exact details, on a re entry from jool at around 8000m/s, I only lost .05 tons from the .20 total in the small heat shield. Re entry heating is set to 100%, and I’m wondering if this is intended behavior. If it is, I suggest changing it because re entry doesn’t pose any big dangers with the current behavior. Included Attachments: .ipsImage { width: 900px !important; }

ok I didn't know about the wedding, and I though the break was late january for some reason. that makes sense

Maybe it's just me but I feel like besides the latest KERB there hasn't been anything for the past 3-4 weeks I know they just came off of a break, but wasn't that over a month ago at this point?

I don't see any reason not besides the use of dev time. I think that they would be good ways to teach long term use of nuclear generators, jool gravity assists, and testing out new engines. Also, assuming they would be far enough away, manned missions may require orbital assembly outside of kerbins orbit.

I’ve done multiple jool returns at 7-8km/s with a pe of 25km and it uses around 2-5ish percent of the total ablator.

Reported Version: v0.2.0 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Win 10 | CPU: R5 5600x | GPU: 3070 | RAM: 32GB In the description it says "designed to perfrom the same experiment" instead of perform Screenshot:

Yeah any fall into water is survivable for me.

1. advantages to small probes - more/larger/preclustered xenon engines and more miniature science parts 2. Hydrolox and kerolox fuel types and engines 3. Basic life support 4. Large landing legs that are sleeker when folded/something in between wallaby and the next smallest landing leg 5. XL engine parts 6. A bunch of historical parts - 1.875, saturn V, and soyuz 7. Robotic parts 8. Mini SRB's (mites) 9. Better RCS - larger RCS 10. Transfer window overlay in map screen

I don’t want read all 5 pages are people still arguing about where the nav ball should go?