Kerbart

Not just high altitude. i have an Okto2 consistently blowing up once it passes 10k on ascent due to overheating. Going maybe 500 m/s at that point. It's inside a 2.5m fairing, if that matters. Had to turn of heating to get it into orbit.

New players will mainly wonder if their boomsticks have the oomph it takes to go to space. I don't think they're throwing the game aside with a disgusted look an their face saying “can you imagine, this game STARTS with methaloc instead of kerosine?” For most, knowledge like that comes from playing the game, not the other way around.

And I don't think the tech tree should purely, only, and exclusively be tailored towards first time players. It's very important that the game doesn't provide extreme hurdles for first timers, but that doesn't mean that options should be not available for experienced players, who can have all kinds of reasons to pick them over liquid fuel engines. Even if some players don't see the point in it. "It's not needed because I personally don't want it" is generally a position that's hard to defend.

SRB's are still my goto if I need raw thrust. It's a lot easier to improve TWR with SRB's than with liquid fuel, especially if I don't need that thrust anymore when some of my LF has been burned up, and we're higher up with enough velocity to worry less about gravity losses. Of course, I could throttle down at that point, but I'd rather just run 100% throttle all the way with staging in between than managing thrust. Call me lazy. Designed that way, my launch vehicles also tend to be simpler.

I don't know about KSP2 but in KSP1 the wimpy HG-5 a;ready struggles as a relay around Minmus. I doubt it works all the way to Eve. Nertea mentioned that all antennas (antennae?) are relay antennas. Take a look at the range, if they're not rated for that distance they won't work.

Doesn't it just heat up the entire craft? Which could be also be interpreted as instant heat transfer.

Yes it does. I know because I haven't found a way to remove parts from symmetry in flight (if you adjust spring strength individually on landing legs you can straighten out a craft landed on a slope in KSP1, but I haven't found out how to do it in KSP2)

Don't be rude. If I have to assume anything it's because you're not sharing anything. Don't yell at people for "assuming" when they're trying to help but are working blind and you refuse to elaborate.

I agree that it looks a lot like we're here for advanced bug testing and not a lot else. @Nate Simpson perhaps do a video on how player feedback so far has influenced the direction of the game, outside bug fixing?

More mass, same cross section. That's not going to help you slowing down, It's going to help you maintain momentum From what I understand, engines are modeled as cones, I assume to reduce drag by "streamlining" the rear end of a rocket. Not only are you maintaining your cross section, you're reducing your friction coefficient That stuff mounted underneath the heat shield will heat up. And from what I understand of the new heat model, transfer its heat a lot quicker to the rest of the ship Engine + tank have substantial mass, so IF they heat up, the capsule is going to be a lousy heat sink for them. Meaning that once heats starts flowing from them to the capsule, it's not substantially lowering their temperature so that flow will continue A picture will at least give people a chance to see if they can reproduce the issue and elaborate on the problem. This not being your first rodeo might exacerbate the problem. This configuration might have worked in KSP1 but things have changed, so perhaps now it changed. Your design is likely solid, but the assumptions you based it on might be off.

On the left side we have people complaining that the tech tree is not realistic, the game should offer full access to all orbital data without mods, etc, etc "because of reality" On the right side we have people who want FTL drives and planets filled to the brim with (alien) artifacts, etc "because of gameplay" Neither side is right or wrong but all the devs can do in that regard is provide some balance. We have rovers on Mars and the Moon. We've been to the moon. It's a very desolate place and the current renditions of those planets in KSP are spot on. What exactly should we interact with, without robbing the game of its character of accuracy? I don't expect an answer to it, but that is why it's such a problem.

In KSP1 you have to activae tweakables in the settings In KSP2 it's in the part manager, ut you might have to twirl/unfold that option open to see the 6 axis options for RCS thrusters. When [;aced with symmetry you only have to edit one of them.

Would you mind posting a picture of saif craft during re-entry. On the off chance you're doing something to either design or orientation of the ship that the game doesn't like? At the very least we can learn from it.

I find it easier to skip docking mode altogether and just use IJKL for translation (HN fwd/bck). If you do need to fix your orientation it's easier to do without having to switch back and forth to docking mode. And as mentioned in nearly all the responses; turn off yaw/pitch/roll for the RCS thrusters. That should make it easier. Good luck!

Exactly, and this has been brought up in other threads as well. My fantasy is sadly limited here, but in fairness, so is that of the KSP dev team which makes my assessment hopefully remotely adequate: Those hundreds, thousands or perhaps even dozens of discoverables are hand made. Each and everyone is beautiful, unique and provides unique ways to interact with. Covering Duna alone will probably take 3 years of development. But what a sight to behold! The discoverables are procedural generated things you'd expect on a lifeless planet (we do want the game to be fairly realistic). That means... rocks. And rocks. And rocks. But also: more rocks. Some can be picked up. Others can be drilled. Maybe photographed. Not for Science points though, or you could complete the science team on the surface of any problem provided you're going to grind, and that's something For Science is not intended for. Instead of rocks, discoverables can be artifacts. Even if they're 30 km apart (20 miles in Freedom Units) there's going to be dozens of them even on Minmus. I doubt anyone wants that What can be done to make exploration mode more exciting? There's a missed chance here, sadly. And it's hiding in plain sight in the Monument missions: the monuments are located by radio signals Initially there's only a radio beacon direction finder. You'll have to land multiple probes to triangulate the monument In subsequent tiers, the beacon finder can be DME (Distance Measuring Equipment) enable. making it easier to triangulate Eventually, an orbital scanner can be used. Maybe two or three models each with an increased range—you won't find the location until you fly over it, within range. Bring on the polar orbit scanners! Multiple monuments can exist on a planet, some with signals so weak they cannot be detected from orbit. And at random locations so you can't just walk up to them based on what's in the Wiki because that's not where they are planted. Monuments can be weird alien stuff we have now. Or Unobtanium deposits. Water wells and other colony related stuff. If I can come up with this in 30 minutes, anyone can, to a point where I'm practically forced to believe this is what the devs have in mind after brooding on the game for multiple years. It's within the realm of the current infrastructure of the game. It leads to an exciting hunt. It requires exploring, doing instrument readings and doing something with those readings. What's not to like?

Well, just like prior to FS you could use a Lander Can as a reentry vehicle, but I never did, because you really shouldn't. At one point there might be a comm network. And I'll be happy that I set up my 2 satellite polar relay network. And it's a fun exercise.

One theory is that when you hit “save,” you picked the auto-save with that name. And the vehicle name for an autosave file reverts back (don’t get me started) to “fly safe” Clearly an area open to improvement

And I mention that in my post, but that mysteriously didn’t make it in the quote. What exactly, do you envision to be scattered all over the place but unique enough that we don’t get that and here’s another [xyz] feeling? With Astroneer you ransack those wrecks for scrap, but aside from that they’re repetitive and boring.

The part science part where KSP engages the player is real-world physics and that still exists. Seeing thrust, fuel, gravity, mass and many other things interact. Why do you need the rocket equation instead of simply using average fuel mass as an approximation? Can you derive it? There's a lot of classroom mechanics subjects that can be "verified" with KSP and can be experienced in ways otherwise hard to realize. The KSP1 science experiments themselves are a lot less useful. Maybe barometer and temperature readings in relation to altitude but barring some automated continues recording of that, or getting altitude together with the reading, but otherwise? Can I use the seismometer readings in the classroom? Or the magnetometer? Even the game itself did nothing with the readings of the scientific equipment. Granted that is a direction the game could have taken, in theory. But I invite anyone advocating that how exactly a different temperature reading would tie in with unlocking the tech tree. There are many things that fall short of what twe want them to be, and certainly the science interface currently has shome shortcomings. But getting rid of the tedium of reading a handful of different instruments, whose readings in the end really don't matter, is not one of them. The distinction between data (can transmit) and samples is reasonable and I'm fine with everything else just being "science."

Yes, and even in the tracking station. Switching to the vessel from map view (instead of tracking station) fixed the issue. So this seems something Tracking Station related.

Ok, I filed a bug report. Regardless of current behavior is intended or not, we all agree that vessel name should be tied to the vessel, not the workspace.

It's not a bug, it's a feature. When you look at a workspace file you'll see that the assembly name is stored in the root of the workspace, right next to the workspace name. "Metadata": { "VersionString": "0.2", "Name": "Communications Satellite", "VehicleName": "Comsat 1", "Description": "Medium relay capable of geostat orbit.", It would make sense to have the vehicle name attached to the assembly nodes but for some reason the decision was made not to do that. I agree that it would be very helpful to fox that.

Clearly, yes. Based on this post I went back to the VAB, taking up the challenge to have two vessels in one workspace. After a couple of minutes of frustration—the VAB insists on centering the view around the first vessel—I had to search online to learne that [Home] allows re centering the view in the VAB. There's no other way of learning this. The tutorial doesn't cover it. It's not carried over from KSP1. Without knowing this trick ("developers hate it when you do this!") using a workspace for multiple vessels is nearly impossible.

The problem isn’t the workspace concept. That’s for people who want to utilize it, and if not, then they don’t. the problem is the bad implementation around it: Only one ship name Ship name defaults to “fly safe” instead of workspace name Spamming save folder with autosaves Despite the autosave spamming, not autosaving when launching No “save” option, only “save as…” and it’s easy to save in the wrong slot I think that most of the resistance against it comes from the bad interface, not from the workspace concept itself.

And that's a concise list. What troubles me is that Intercept "explains" the 10 month period by saying they had to prioritize bug fixing. But we expect the other roadmap updates to be rolled out much quicker. My biggest fear remains that they consider the bugs fixed and that the game will remain in its current condition for the remainder of its life with an occasional annoyance being addressed. I might be wrong. I hope I'm wrong. But so far, the pace in bug fixing has been atrociously slow. That seems to have been due to priority given to For Science. With the promised acceleration of milestones it only seems more priority is given to the milestones. Obviously, bug fixing will then be relegated to a lower rung on the ladder. The game now has some goals, providing more focused play. And it's better. The numbers, and thrilled reaction on the forum show that. But: it's better, not good. Far from good. The only reason it's so much better than before is because it came from a really, really bad and dark place. I hope Intercept will recharge their batteries over the holidays and get to work in the new year understanding that.