PDCWolf

Only stars above certain apparent magnitude are visible near the Moon, and they have to be bright enough to puncture through scattered moonlight from almost 400000 kilometers away, which isn't much. This effect should be greatly diminished when you're closer to the moon, and we see that clearly on the Apollo astronaut's accounts. They could see stars whilst looking away from the Moon and hiding in the shadow. Again, my original point being: "Even in space itself, if there's a planet, or moon, or even a small body like an asteroid reflecting the sunlight, or the sun is on the scene, there should be no stars" I'm sorry for not being able to embed pictures downloaded from human eyes. I posted the closes thing which is non enhanced, natural exposure images. The first bit, explaining the effect, I agree. The claim you derive from that requires at least some citation.

Funny you'd answer only to that bit ignoring the primary sources (transcripts and pictures) whilst quoting a secondary, and even tertiary sources. He mentions not being able to see stars in multiple occasions (daylit surface, daylit orbit), yet journalists are quick to jump to explain the man himself, whilst not sourcing their own claims on the same and other documents. Lastly, you end up giving me the right as I've been saying this entire time that if there's something bright on the scene, stars shouldn't be visible, too bad it took you like 5 posts to get to the adaptation argument when it's the same thing I've been mentioning all this time. As for cameras, it's a no brainer that they can only capture stars by compositing multiple exposures or by specifically overexposing anything else in the scene to get stars to be visible. Cameras shouldn't be the discussion because there's no discussion to be had there.

Sorry, no. My sources include eyewitness accounts. Cameras can see and not see stars in a lot of situations depending on their settings and lenses, which yes, most commonly would result in no stars during daylight or with any strong enough light source present. In fact, if you read the article I linked when responding to another poster, you'd see that Saturn image is a light enhanced version of the original, in which you can't see stars at all. As fas as eyes, the principle remains the same, except we're locked to not seeing stars when enough light is present, made clear on the Apollo transcripts. I also think you greatly overestimate the effort required for such a simple feature, whilst underestimating the benefits.

All the text describes what's visible in the image. It goes from Saturn itself, to its rings, and then extra details visible on the light/contrast/color enhanced version (which is the one where you can see stars).

Wrong. As per the detailed description of this image (https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA08329) there are no stars visible. The fact that you'd point out the orion belt on an alien sky is not just fantastic, but also very laughable. Astronauts on the Apollo were never able to see stars when on the daylit surface of the moon OR the daylit side during orbit: https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/12256/what-did-the-sky-actually-look-like-from-the-moon Apart from explanations, here's the direct link to the conference where they explain this phenomena https://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/FirstLunarLanding/ch-7.html There's also two transcripts from EVA 16 and 17 on the moon that also reflect this. On top of that, it is literally a visible effect, it's not camera science or anything of the sort. If the moon is out, there is no stars near it, even the smallest sliver of new moon is enough to hide at least a couple stars. Same thing if you just plainly go outside and turn on any sort of household-power light, it'll wash out a lot of stars. Now the sun, and the sunlight reflected by celestial bodies, is enough to make stars not visible in most conditions. Edit to add the fact that this same conversation has been used as hoax material. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#Hoax_claims_and_rebuttals In this article, absence of stars is a topic in itself, citing how astronauts themselves couldn't see stars as well.

A Saturn "eclipse", sun blocked by the planet, no stars. Very last twilight on Mars, before complete nightfall, Earth is visible, but no stars. Wide field from "Pale Blue Dot" image, sun visible from 5 Billion miles. No stars, Earth is barely visible. Squares in high detail, rest in low detail and blown up in exposure (should make stars easier to see, but the sun still washes them. It's something every basic mod for KSP 1 does in literally 2 lines of code, changing the opacity of the skybox inversely proportional to light sources.

[Moderator's note: This post, and its ensuing discussion, were originally split off from another thread. It's an interesting KSP2 suggestion, but didn't really fit the topic of the other thread, which is why the moderators have split it into a topic of its own.] I left this comment on YouTube, but I believe it'll held a higher value (and bring some REAL discussion here). So I'll just copypaste: Another thing I can do here is leave evidence. 67P blown up in exposure to bring out the very dim comma, yet it still obscures stars: Pluto. A dim object VERY far from the Sun, also brought up in exposure because it lives in perpetual twilight (get's less sun than 67P, almost 10 times as far away from the Sun). Still no stars: Apollo command module orbiting the Moon during it's daylight, no stars.

I mean if you've reduced yourself to nitpick 99.99987% from 99.999999999% in my dumb example just to have any point at all, might as well call it over. Lastly, all those kerbals you named clearly have some intelligence to them, even if they're not astronauts, something that still can't be said about every motorist on Earth. Canonically, with the evidence present in the game, Kerbals are smarter, and more capable than us. They only have a high disregard for safety rules, which is understandable for beings that can resist upwards of a 100m/s impact on their heads.

99.9999999999999% of people operating cars didn't invent them, and 99.999999999999% of them won't ever go near a rocket. Kerbals, on the other hand (and with our current knowledge), are all trained astronauts, with varying degrees of capabilities, something almost every single human in history could only dream of.

This is more like devolving. The idea of Kerbals being 40k orks or anything of the sort was left behind when the barn debacle happened. Of course, the models being incredibly low quality didn't help, but the idea in general was obnoxious and generally disliked as well, which is why we don't have the barn anymore (thankfully).

Shameful how y'all forgot what Bac9 wrote up. I'll quote: Far from 40k Orks. This was posted on this forum, but given the changes it's been lost, however Bac9 got the article on Gamasutra as well.

Rules link doesn't work (yes, I know they are in the OP) and there's one missing detail (assuming positive since not mentioned): Are there limits to how many entries per participant?

These are all elevated from my own concerns with KSP1 + What's been raised from KSP2 confirmed stuff and media. It's a mishmash of questions in no particular order Will KSP2 start with everything KSP1 already has mechanic wise? (including DLCs like breaking ground's robotics?) During the launch & ascent gameplay scene from the trailer, stars were still easily visible even when the sun, and later what's probably the mun's surface were visible, will that be fixed? What about part size variety? can we expect the same tiers? More? Less? With the codebase rewritten, was there any change to how RAM is managed? (like, right now almost everything is loaded at all times, will that change?) Ansel support? Multiple launch sites? What about scenario creation? that one really forgotten feature that has been probably only used once with public, downloadable results. What -else- can they say about the really low framerates on the pre-alpha gameplay? (other than "it's an alpha" of course)

I'm gonna follow up on what Hoioh already said: They are more specific than limiting. If you were to read over them quickly, you'd realize that they have few goals in reality: Create a craft that looks and works like a normal airplane and land it -also like a normal airplane- on the VAB roof without abusing the game and/or game engine in any way. It's a legit design and demonstrate contest that doesn't allow another "see how you can bend the rules/break the game and still count" type of situation. More specific to what you say, the 4:1 wingspan to body length ratio rule is (it also says so in the post, in nicer words) another patched hole to stop entries from abusing wing spam. It is a known fact that in KSP you can just keep slapping wings on to stuff and get better and better results with every single surface as long as you maintain balance. As I already said in the op, VAB roof landing challenges are not new, thus I added an, in my opinion, needed twist by stopping the most common ways to easily complete the challenge. Creativity is not a finite resource, nor is it limited to certain applications either, so I don't think we can say that the rules kill creativity. Same thing for fun, it's not limited to a single concept or way to do things, those two things are personal and subjective.

Done, it's highlighted. It was outside the first spoiler because it's not a rule specific for the aircraft itself, but for the whole game, no physics mods or part mods or anything, only those that provide information, which are already pretty useless for this challenge.

Mechjeb for information is fine, not sure about the flaps or cockpit (or any other part tbh) My reasoning is as follows: Stock has its own balance and it's something everyone can measure their creations against. I do not know how AP+, quiztech or other mods are balanced, specially airplane oriented ones, because stock KSP is spaceplane oriented so most stuff is both heavy and powerful. This means I either have to check all competing mods' performance part by part against their stock counterparts to see if they are compatible and if you aren't getting some form of advantage (even if not maliciously ofc) by using mods. Blanket banning part mods also allows me to keep regulations mostly unambiguous. So yeah, your entry is in breach of a rule, it's deemed as a non competing run, sorry!

Amazingly done, props for posting a close attempt as well! As zolotiyeruki said, that breaks rule nº 11 - All landing gear must point parallel to the direction of flight, your second suggestion breaks rule 2 and probably rule 10. Zolotiyeruki here is taking as much as he can from rule 3 for example, but his craft is still inside the regulations. There's a lot of rules for this challenge, but they are in place to ensure the craft presented are not trickery based crafts but actual engineered solutions within a set of constraints, whilst still allowing for some creativity. VAB roof landings may not be new, but a tight set of rules that eliminates common cop-out solutions (no disrespect to those ideas though) is

Here's another example of an entry that counts: https://streamable.com/ebbms

As the title implies, your goal is to land on the roof of the KSC, however, this is not your every day land on the roof challenge: Tight engineering restrictions make this a true challenge, one for the can-do-all types. You have to be good not only at engineering an aircraft that fits the rules, but also have the hands required to put it where I ask you to, in the way I ask you to. You might post any attempt with any craft for fun, but competing runs must adhere to the following: Procedures & Rules: •To create a fair experience for everyone, mods are not allowed for competing runs, in any form, save for information mods like engineer. Parts, physics or skill affecting mods (such as airplane plus, FAR/NEAR or mechjeb's autopilot respectively) are definitely not allowed. Again, for clarification: NO MODS - Even if not doing so with malicious intent or even knowledge, you might be gaining advantages over all-stock entries. With the tight regulation margins of this challenge, that's something I can't allow. •Create an aircraft that meets the following criteria •Your aircraft, once built, has to take off from the default runway without any kind of assistance (towers for example), and land at the two helipads on the KSC rooftop. The flight and landing have to meet the following criteria: Lastly, to validate your entry, your aircraft must meet the following criteria after completely stopping: As you can see there's no score system, a successful landing with a craft that follows the rules is all you need. I'll probably make a badge or something to include in your signature. TL;DR - Short, precision landing competition for "standard" aircraft, except the runway is the two helipads on the roof of the VAB. Have fun. You can post entries that don't follow the rules as well, but of course they won't count. My attempt, includes F3 screen to show that nothing fell off after that little slide lol: https://streamable.com/7r7mm

No word on this?: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/178960-reentry-modules-are-draggy-uncontrollable-garbage-that-will-flip-a-rocket-90-of-the-time/ Even if they are supposed to be launched inside a fairing, they are disproportionally draggy and unaerodynamic in general.

So, I removed FAR. Problem is still there. That makes me point to proc fairings, although they work fine on other rockets. ¿Payload with too much parts? ¿Too complex? Happens if I remove the inner fairings too, so nested fairings is not the problem.

That should clear up any confusion. Maybe.

I've been further investigating since I made the last correction to the description, this is what I got now: The problem not only solves by jettisoning the boosters, it also goes back to normal after jettisoning the fairings. So I suspect that it is some kind of procedural fairings/FAR interaction causing the problems. I'll be back in a second with some pictures to illustrate.

Been investigating for the last couple hours, still no clue. However I edited the OP with additional and corrected information. Seems to be related specifically to radially attached parts exposed to the airstream. Radially attached parts inside a fairing have no problem whatsoever.

Well, the problem is pretty simple to explain: Whenever I attach a solid booster or liquid booster, even the simplest (nose cone, tank, engine) , the game lags to hell and back. When I press launch, the game works at normal FPS until after KJR starts doing its magic. After physics are fully initialized my game drops to 10 fps. Once I jettison the boosters, FPS automatically jump back to 30. When they crash/disappear I get another FPS boost which takes me back to the normal 40/50. Happens with anything radially attached and exposed to the airstream (not with things radially attached but kept inside a fairing). Happens when the parts are attached either to procedurally generated parts, stock parts or mod parts. Happens at all symmetry levels, even x1. Happens with any radial decoupler Happens even If I'm not using decouplers (i.e. non detachable boosters) I don't know how long this could've been happening so I can't track exactly which mod caused it. I normally build mono-column rockets without boosters. Mods I'm using: LOG: https://www.dropbox.com/home/Public?preview=output_log.txt