Sammys Stuffs

Parachutes don't deploy if staged within the atmosphere. If you activate the parachute deploy stage out of atmosphere it's worked 100% of the time for me. I've gotten into the habit of having a parachute stage a little while before the actual post-atmospheric entry stage.

YESSSSS

I agree with everything except B. That feels like tedium just for the sake of tedium. It might make for a fun optional difficulty option but it would really narrow the scope of an early science mode playthrough, and not in a fun way. Especially repeat playthroughs would be bogged down. A is a must have for me though. It's so disappointing to do an experiment only to feel like it was less tangible than the science in 1. Even the mystery goo, which is a play on the weather rock joke felt like it would teach SOMETHING vs all these intangible push button get points KSP 2 parts.

Reported Version: v0.2.0 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Windows 10 | CPU: AMD Ryzen 9 12 core processor | GPU: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 super | RAM: 32 gig I was attempting to test a Tylo lander and so I cheated it to approx 80km Tylo orbit. The actual teleportation worked just fine however when staged the camera would suddenly lag heavily behind the craft (nearly half the craft speed relative to surface it seemed?) and the craft itself became a contorting blob of otherwise entirely functional parts (it had not disassembled at all). Going to bed soon but will happily reply to all questions in the morning. So if I don't respond quickly I am probably asleep. Included Attachments: 2024-01-1400-47-16.mkv quicksave_501.json

also honestly yeah. I kinda dislike the focus on super super far future (science fiction, let's be honest. Grounded albeit but entirely science fiction) concepts like full interstellar travel instead of focusing more on near future/modern projects. Colonies I don't mind so much because we have things like Artemis going on right now and a Mars base isn't too far off from that conceptually. KSP 1 just felt more grounded I guess? Idk.

https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Gas_planet_2 (just posting the reference again for quick access) under the section of naming it had the names and descriptions of each moon of g2: Eeloo: Planned to be moved to orbit the new planet. There would be geysers on it that could knock vessels away. Daphy: A very small asteroid covered in "Fluff" that was collected from GP2's rings. It would be located within the rings themselves. Potatus: Another small moon. It will have a high inclination relative to GP2. It will rotate extremely fast and be shaped like an oblate spheroid. It would have been white. Fonso: Will be about 300KM across, and will be the second moon to hold an atmosphere, which will be two atmospheres dense. The extremely mountainous surface will have peaks that stretch into the vacuum. Fonso is a very cute name and is a very fun concept to me.

honestly I would adore this. I've been playing for years and have always wondered "what if" for the Kerbol system having more planets. Although I disagree with them being analogues. KSP 2 has leaned into giving a lot of it's planets their own unique identities. Dres having a ring now being one of the big ones. I hope they push the envelope just a little bit doing this and make some more interesting concepts. I really took note of that one planet having a 2 atmo atmosphere with mountain ranges extending outside of it and into space. If we get G2 I'd hope we see that moon in particular.

This is a crosspost from the discord suggestions channel that I made a few days ago around midnight. Figured I'd send it here to see if it garners any thoughts: I've seen weather floated around conceptually but every time I see them it's the simple idea of "some wind would be nice." With very little further elaboration. That's fine, but I think it would be constructive to fully break down what weather could and should be in kerbal space program. Firstly, players would need a way to account for the weather system. Random and unpredictable challenges should be left as a fail state for players who haven't properly planned for the mission they are currently sending out. For this I suggest two parts that would be categorized as science parts. These parts are the orbital weather platform and surface weather station. The orbital weather platform is a simple small part. I'm imagining something similar to the orbital survey part from T4 with some minor tweaks. It can survey weather for the next three days on the planet it's orbiting, but only scans the surface in a 30 degree cone beneath itself. This means that if you have a high enough probe it can scan up to half of the planetary surface. But never more. This would encourage players to learn orbital synchronicity and to have 2:1 probe networks set up on planets that they are trying to land on. And would give a decent foresight into what the landing zone would look like ahead of the player landing. Meanwhile the ground weather station would be a larger part, akin to the manned orbital survey station but designed for a ground base. It has two modes. One mode has it being operated by two kerbals, whereas the other mode has it being operated by an AI that consumes 10EC/S doing so it would cover a smaller surface area (around 50km radius?) But be much more accurate and expand out to a week in the future for its weather predictions. this ground station part would flesh out early game outposts before you really get into the bigger colonies Secondly: What would weather mean? Sure there's the obvious. The minor annoying spurts of soft winds on Duna, the potential for a strong tropical billow on Laythe. But just a simple physics force being applied to a rocket is incredibly simple and not as fascinating as these planets could be. So I would like to break down some potential special weather conditions for planets. Eve: Coastal monsoons and hail. Coastal monsoons would be a further increase wind force that is capable of lifting even small sized parts off the surface, and would cause actual significant danger regions on the planet beyond its current difficulty. Hail meanwhile would be a much more direct threat. Any exposed to the atmosphere part with an impact tolerance below a certain threshold would be pelted and eventually destroyed by shards of hail made of metal (I believe Venus rains metal? A fact check would be appreciated). This would further Eves status as the games final boss, with weather out to destroy the player. Kerbin: Light weather. To avoid being overwhelming kerbin only has light weather effects, basic wind and the occasional overcast sky that can cut down on solar panel efficiency. Duna: Dust storms. Massive clouds of dirt and loose stone that could be seen from orbit in some cases. These dust storms would range from category 1-5. Each size on the scale would decrease the usability of solar panels by increasing percentages (-10% at level 1. Up to no functionality at all at level 5). Level 5 storms would be exceedingly rare. This would make duna slightly more hostile against solar reliant probes and would increase the value of batteries. Laythe: Tropical winds and electrical storms. Tropical winds would be very short duration powerful gusts that could disorient planes and blow parachute landers off course. These would be more unpredictable than most other weather but would also be not nearly as decimating. Electrical storms. Overcast storms that cause ripples of lightning on the horizon. Due to the nature of these storms your batteries are all stuck at half their usual capacity. And the skies would darken as solar panels again decrease in effectiveness. Sorry about the length btw. But I think its worth it as weather has so much potential beyond just "wind makes ya move a bit inconveniently." And has a lot of opportunity for furthering player expression as to how they get around these issues. Imagine a permanent Eve outpost and how it would need to be able to shutter itself to withstand hail for an extended period! Or a small battery farm on a Duna base in case they get stuck in a category 5 dust storm for a long time! Overall I think this would make for a worthwhile addition to the game without being too punishing to the unknowing new player. Overall just a couple loose ideas to float around on how weather could work. Have a lovely life folks.

Not exactly as it was before of course. But from everywhere I've heard they removed it in 2. I think it would be very sweet of the devs to give it a proper polishing and return it eventually.

First landed probe on Eve and I've tried everything I can to circumvent this bug. I've tried basically every parachute deploy method I can think of. And at this point I'm worried I just have to give up on it. Does anyone know a way for force deployment of parachutes in atmo?

yeah a way to place and manipulate maneuvers with more delta V than a craft has is just logical. That one baffles me that it isn't in game. My nuclear tug was bugged the other day and showing that it was still half fuel but reading out "0 Delta V" I was able to complete the rest of the mission without maneuvers, but a newer player likely wouldn't have been able to.

I like to use them visually mostly. And for probes since they're light and can spread stuff out cheaply. I like using them to separate nuclear engines/generators from any sort of crewed modual or radio equipment since that just makes sense to me even if there's no direct gameplay benefit.

heavily depends on the rocket for me, especially because I have reentry heating turned up to 200% on my save file. Some pieces are prone to overheating even before the particle effects start so I need to be pretty careful about how I chart my ascent and at what speeds I hit different heights in atmo. For the most part I do my best to be pure verticle until about 5-10km and from there it's heavily dependent on what the craft is and what I'm doing with it.

IRL from what I can tell through some cursory research Aerospikes are more effective in thicker atmospheres so I think it may be intended. https://aerospaceweb.org/design/aerospike/x33.shtml

I'm sorry for being so upsetting. I just think it'd look nicer, not that it would be more practical. Turning a plane to face north at all is incredibly easy. It's just that the current KSP 2 KSC looks a little ugly just from being overly generic. Having more variance in runways would spice it up visually. I hope you have a lovely Morning/Evening/Night etc.