tweaked9107

It's just an example of the problem I'm talking about that I quickly mocked up and not an actual build. I can't remember exactly, but the original problem i was having with it was to do with having a seperate rocket within a cargo bay that had a coupling at the top because it needed to rendezvous with another craft. Either way, the point remains. You shouldn't be able to have floating parts that aren't physically attached to anything. Hollow objects should be exactly that but it treats them as if they aren't.

So this is the easiest example of what I'm talking about below. I should be able to attach that outer separator directly down onto that battery, but because I have a dock there, it sits floating in the air above it. If I then wanted to attack something to the dock, I can't because it roots itself in mid-air to the separator instead. It's the same problem with cargo bays. This is a very specific example, but there are several variations of this problem in different builds.

Am I being stupid or is there some kind of problem here... When I use a cargo bay there is no easy way to have something inside it that can detach because it seems to be routed to the cargo bay itself. If i try to route it to the main rocket stack and then put the cargo bay AROUND it, the cargo bay just sits on top leaving a massive gap. It's the same with decouplers/separators. I wanted to have a small dock at the top of a stage and then put a large separator around the outside. The problem is, the separator attaches itself to the top of the dock centrally (even though they aren't physically touching). So then I end up with this annoying gap in the rocket. Is there a way around this that I'm just not figuring out, or is this actually how it's designed? Because it seems a bit crazy to me that I can attach/root to something that I'm not physically connected to. Surely the outside edge of the, lets say fuel tank, should be the bit the decoupler/seperator/cargo bay is physically attaching to. Not the thing inside?

Reported Version: v0.2.0 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Windows 11 | CPU: Intel i9-9900k | GPU: NVIDIA RTX 2080 Ti | RAM: 32GB With the docking clamp-senior I undock the "command" module with my pilot in. The part of the rocket behind is controlled by a probe module and has a docking port both ends with the opposite end being attached to a science lab. I spin the rocket and dock back with the command module so that my kerbals in the science lab can jump out. All of this works absolutely fine. I then undock my command module and flip the rocket back around so that it can re-dock the opposite end with the command module. The idea being that I can then eject the science lab behind me leaving my command module attached to the return stage of my rocket. HOWEVER, when I attempt that final dock, going back to what is effectively the original position, it won't re-dock. They just bump up against each other doing a whole lot of nothing. I can change the docking force, where I'm controlling from, re-load. Nothing works. Mission abort, wasted 3 hours of my time. Included Attachments: OrbitalLabPrototype.json .ipsImage { width: 900px !important; }

Reported Version: v0.2.0 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Windows 11 | CPU: Intel i9-9900k | GPU: NVIDIA RTX 2080 Ti | RAM: 32GB Severity: Medium Frequency: I can reproduce it consistently with the same rocket design Description: After launching my rocket the orbital line is faint and is not clickable to create a maneuver. When you look and the info it says my rocket is "landed". The only workaround is the save the game and go into the save file to change the status from "landed" to "Orbiting" at which point it works fine again. However, after landing my lander on the surface of another planet, the same bug appears upon take off and has to be fixed again in the same way. Included Attachments: .ipsImage { width: 900px !important; }

I feel like at the very least they need to decide one way or the other. Let us pause and take our time messing around with the maneuvers to get them how we want them... OR make it so we have to do them quick, but at least have the tools to get us in the ballpark of where the hell to aim them... ie phase angles etc. Thanks for all the responses though guys. As there is no steam workshop I wasn't aware of half the mods available. I'll be sure to check them out... even if I feel like they probably should be in the base game.

Am I missing something or some sub-menu somewhere or does the game really not give you the tools to do the job? For example, it's kind of important to know the best launch window to get to another planet - phase angle etc. Am I missing the tool that tells me what the phase angle is to the target planet, or does this just not exist? Also, they REALLY need to make it so it's easier to fine tune your maneuvers when trying to intercept planets, as well as having the option for the engine to automatically cut off when your maneuver is complete. I know its a "game" but it's difficult to be accurate given the tools we have and doesn't feel "realistic". Finally, what's up with not being able to set maneuvers when the game is paused? Is this a bug or by design? Again, I know it's a game but it feels silly to have to do it quickly on the fly when in reality all of that would have been calculated before lift off. I don't want everything to be automatic as obviously that would take some of the fun away, but at least allow me to pause and think. I'm not an ACTUAL rocket scientist.

Okay so I haven't read this WHOLE thread so apologies if I'm just re-stating what someone else said... I couldn't agree more with this. I'm new to the game since the Science release just before Christmas, and as much as I'm enjoying the challenge of building rockets to get me to certain places, the whole mission/science element isn't really working for me. I agree with others that I don't just want everything handed to me in sandbox fashion though either. I like the challenge of being limited in some way to what I can build and rather than building a super do-all system that gets to most planets from the word go, I have to build within the confines of the technology available to me. I do also think this is why the financial system of the previous game would of been nice to see at least as an option in this one as well. As far as how to tie in science, like Cubinator said, it should be related to the missions you've been given/chosen. Made up fantasy alien race of Kerbals or not, it should mimic real life. You are offered a set of missions to choose from and a financial budget to go with it. So for example, land a Kerbal on the blue planet X - $10million budget. You accept the mission and get a nice healthy $10million budget to go along with whatever money you've also made from other missions or contracts. You can then unlock certain parts using said budget, but only if you also have the science to back up the invention/design of these new parts. For example, I spend part of the budget to design and launch a rocket to send a probe into orbit around the blue planet-X to map the terrain. The probe maps the terrain and finds that the now named planet Aqua is blue because it is actually completely 100% water with no land. That then triggers the ability for me to now unlock a new flotation device designed for landing a heavy lander on water. I don't HAVE to unlock it, I can choose to attempt the mission without it, but the data is clear, I will need it, and therefore I spend part of the budget to have that part invented/designed or whatever you want to call it. Sometimes you will always need said part, other times not but it would definitely make it easier. That parts existence (unlock) is then tied to the fact that it was NEEDED and therefore someone had to invent/design it. There would obviously be multiple examples of this for each part and sometimes you will find out the hard way (god bless Jeremiah who drowned on planet Aqua because we just went straight there and didn't realise it was all water), but at least there will then be a point to the science. At the moment, the way I find out planet Aqua is all water is by either A, landing there and going "o excrements", or by doing what I do for all other planets in KSP2, google them and find out. Want the know the lowest safe orbiting altitude of Duna? Google. Want to know the phase angle for an Eeloo intercept? Google. Unless I'm missing something, these should all be things the game is teaching you through the missions. And rather than have me land at a specific point on Duna because there is a special alien monument there that we somehow just KNOW about, why not have me find it through Terrain mapping, or how about I do terrain mapping and see there is only one viable landing spot on the planet and then I stumble across it naturally. I also wouldn't want the horror of failed rocket design and the learning by failing experience to bankrupt the agency and cause anyone to rage quit the game forever, so when you revert you get your money back, if you so choose. That then gives people the option of playing how they like. You can go all out hardcore and every failure costs you dearly, or you can revert and chalk it up to it being a GAME and the experience of learning. Anyway, that's just my random two cents.

Okay... so I made a rocket with two OKTO control probes to test a Mun landing. They both went up as one and separated once I entered Mun orbit. One stayed in orbit whilst the other went down the surface, took some samples, and now has returned to orbit. After much fighting I managed to get the two docked, but now the game is only acting like I have one probe (it does show two up in the g-force window). The problem is, the probe the game has decided is the "lead" probe is the one with the small engine with no fuel left (the Mun lander). The opposite end has plenty of fuel and an engine to get me home with. The engine in question that I want to use is also no longer showing down the right hand side either. I assume it's something to do with how the damn thing was originally staged, but still, I should be able to control either engine right? Any ideas?