Superfluous J

I used to do this for regular launches in KSP1. I'm a bit rusty but if I have time I can at least get to orbit I think.

Trial and error, tons of math, or find a website.

In no real order: TWR info in VAB. Tank priority to dictate fuel flow (if this is already there and hidden somewhere I apologize, I just found I wanted it yesterday and didn't poke around much) Photo mode when paused Decouple pause from time warp. I should be able to pause (with ESC, preferably) while in time warp without having to slow down first. Pe/Ap/An/Dn info on the orbit, with numbers visible by default (or at least the option to set it that way). Procedural parts (i.e. wings) should not have separate UI controls to modify them. Widget-like controls like when rotating parts should be on the wings themselves to adjust width/length/thickness/angles/etc. All in-flight UI elements should be moveable. Maybe a "set up the ui" mode where you can drag them around, then lock them so you don't accidentally move one. Every function and every key should be able to be defined by the user. If I want max thrust to be the Insert key, so be it. Cities and towns (with buildings) and roads (connecting the cities and in the cities) on Kerbin. All over Kerbin. Let me define how restrictive time warp should be by altitude. I'm a big boy and can reload from quicksave if I crash due to warping too much.

Becasue I'm looking at both. I need to see the navball (and other ui elements) AND the bottom of the craft at the same time. Unless you're suggesting I toggle with F2 back and forth so I can see the navball, then the ship. Not only would that be jarring, but it'd add yet another key to the 16 or so that I may need to hit at any time. I am focused on speed, distance to the ground (which in the UI is usually wrong because it's not the distance until I land, but the distance until - if I crashed - the pod would hit the ground), horizontal velocity, ground slope, and possibly the location of things on the ground I'm landing next to or (if I'm feeling especially daring) on top of. Personally, I tried it both ways and liked left better. I tried right first, so it's not just "I did it first so liked it most" but I can't tell you why I just do. I also tried it midway between center and edges, and didn't like that either. Regarding top and bottom, I like my UI elements on the bottom. No clue why. Regarding having the option, yes every UI element should be moveable. I've not seen anybody argue against that. It feels great.

Unless you show me the widget that lets you shape those like a TIE-Bomber or Darth Vader's TIE, I'm'a gonna go with those are static parts. Also I thought those were solar panels, not radiators. But my lore isn't as loreful as it once was.

Nah. Atari was doing it over 40 years ago.

Like every other piece of information we have about the upcoming patch, I do not have enough data to know if 7 parts is good or bad. "We're serving a 7 course meal" "Awesome! What's first?" "This grain of rice."

I hope you can pick a mission you accepted in the VAB and it'll tell you if you have the DV/TWR in each stage to do it.

Yes anything short of "what we can see on Mars and the Moon with current photographic technology" is subpar and must be derided as "so early 2000s"

Just browsing the first page, seems like most of what was wanted is what we're getting. Less clicking, more interesting experiments, not just slapping everything on every ship and right clicking 10 times each biome. Everybody won't be happy with it but everybody won't hate it, is my best guess.

I didn't know there was a list of parts in the node. All I've seen is the name of the node, in an area where I'd expect an engine not landing equipment. What parts are in that node?

I had a thought today about the "Mun Landing" node. What if that's a node you have to unlock by completing some form of mission/contract, and the mission/contract the player accepted was called "Mun Landing"?

Sometimes I'm alooooooone.

Well it's slightly misplaced in the Hype thread.

One thing that's important to note is that when NASA does a science project, they MUST tell us what happened and show us the pretty pictures of the far side of Jupiter and all that. When a private company does a science project, it's generally in their best (read: financial) interest to keep it to themselves.

Removing things that aren't necessary - or would actually make the game worse - is not "watering down." And without knowing every single aspect of the game that's not come out yet, we cannot say with any assurance that any of these things they're removing are necessary, or even beneficial. I've seen far too many EA game threads with people complaining that lack of Feature X or existence of Feature Y will totally ruin the game. Then the game comes out, and it turns out that Feature X would have been dumb along with everything else, and Feature Y fits in perfectly. Frankly it's just more reasons for them to not bother telling us anything and just dropping the entire Science update all at once.

We have mentions from Intercept that imply that there will be no experience. They have not to my knowledge addressed whether or not there will be traits. --- For my opinion, why not both? We don't ask if a certain movie is a romance or a comedy. It's okay for it to be a romantic comedy. So why not a simulator that has rpg elements in it? And base building, and automation, and and and.

Not at all. One for each size level seems more than enough for me.

NASA has a budget that - if they don't spend every single penny, will be slashed the next time budget appropriations come around. If it's corruption the entire US government is corrupt. Please don't comment on that as you basically can't without discussing politics. I'm trying to avoid it by hiding behind an "if" statement. Private companies have budgets that - if they don't spend every single penny someone gets a fat bonus at the end of the year.

I never liked the implementation (games should give you better stuff as you progress, not hold back essential controls - especially while you're learning how to play!) however I liked that the progression existed. I hope they have a plan for it, and just haven't told us yet. I can't think of a good way to implement it but no one's paying me to build a game so I get a pass Here's a thought, what if probes could ONLY use those buttons? No fine control at all. In order to WASD steer you NEED a pilot. That's how probes work in KSP1 when you have no comms. And you can do a surprising lot of things with just those buttons.

I agree as well (Person who's been outside at night a lot here)

what sort of non-repeatable experiences that we cannot share in common were you hoping for in the game?

Here's what I do. Instead of hiding threads, I tell a search which threads to show. Top of the forum->Activity->My Activity Streams->Create A New Stream. Check everything you want to see, including using the gear icon to drill down into exact forum sections. Want to follow KSP2 modding but not modding discussion? Easy peasy. Want forum games but not the rest of the Lounge? No problem. Save it, and then bookmark it. That is YOUR feed. If a new forum section comes out, you can even edit it and add that section (remember to save!). That is how I visit the forums. I almost never go to the main page anymore.