Dakitess

Which, eh, yeah, hum... indeed ? Yeah, like, does it change anything to the point ? Does it allow KSP2 to look like a 2015 game ? I won't ever understand that argument. It's specifically why so much graphics mods exist on KSP1 and why they are among the most popular. It's specifically why a new game developed from scratch by a pro team rather than a pile of update along 10 years based on an Indie Game by an "amateur" (as talented as he was !), was the opportunity to build something clean, with a proper updated basis, to allow for an up to date graphics while preserving performance and opening even more to the mod community. Yeah, really, that "So was KSP1" point is really out of my reach.

And still, the terrain and graphics associated remained so damn poor in KSP2. It's aesthetically ugly, which is a personal point of view involving taste, but also technically completely outdated. KSP1 with mods is definitely more worth its appearance than a 2023 KSP2 which looks crap AND very weird, inhomogeneous, almost bugged. Its physic is very perfectible (hitbox), its textures lacks consistency and details (and shaders, and...), it has barely no scatters, even less physical one, the Micro-Med-Macro topology is something between KSP1 and a 2015 game, has not character, no scenery, the lightning interact with every part of the ground so bad (horizon line in the backlight, please, seriously... It's like a staircase showroom xD), it doesn't match the craft colorimetry (or the other way), and the easter eggs are, like... Dropped assets with no transition whatsoever with the surrounding, not the same texture resolution, and react even worst to lightning. Really, KSP2 graphics is a joke.

Did you really put the "Terrain Implementation" along the Pros of this game ? Damn, it looks so aged, so outdated, so clunky, so weird, inhomogeneous, unaesthetic, etc. Especially with the harsh lightning which got quite improved by the last Blackrack efforts, but I find the terrain to be so 2015, technically speaking, and very not beautiful as an art decision (which is more personal opinion). The only way to get it "OK-Ish" is to compare it to Stock KSP1. But doing so, well, I won't elaborate further, it is nonsense to me as it's just the literal bare minimum. Terrain is very precisely what I was expected the most, because it would mean a LOT for this game, even gameplay wise, with proper collision, scenery, landscape to discover, etc etc, I've already repeated that so many time and now there no point to get to it again. Really, terrain and scenery is the key for a proper KSP2... Everything else fade out compared to what it can bring to the table. Look at the trailer again if you want to talk about it, I don't find much people sharing my opinion so I would gladly elaborate again, finally, if there is some people who want to debate that subject.

Haha ESA won't ever do something like this, nor the very majority of the space-related companies and institutions in Europe.

I'll allow myself to bring my own personal opinion about what the KSP2 future could be, from now. We know that the actual KSP2 won't achieve anything past the actual state of the game. Actually, it's "only highly probable", I can't see the future. But even if they pursue the dev one more year to release 2-3 patches to fix the remaining main bugs, even if they push to the Colonies Update because it's 90% done, it won't achieve anything. Colonies need resources, need interstellar, etc, to be relevant. It's only a brick of a whole wall. And I don't see why they would push to this update, because this last hypothetical 10% is always the hardest and would require some fix after that, some patches : more work, more financial debt just to finish an ark, while it won't improve sufficiently the Steam Feedback, won't trigger new purchases ? Nah, I don't see how / why it would happen. That being said, let's assume, if you will, that this is the end of the actual KSP2 game. What now ? To me, the only possible positive outcome would be a new Dev team, a pro one, not amateurs, willing to make money of course, that would announce a "The Real KSP2" in a year or two, knowing that if they actually meet the people requirements, it would be a million sells. "Just" need to be economically viable, which means something less "big" (well...) than KSP2, more rational, more pragmatic, the keep the dev time low and thus the cost low. What would it looks like ? Well, exactly what I expected KSP2 to be : a from-scratch, pro-developed KSP1, embedding all the news techs that appeared the last decade, taking benefits from the new hardware, the news skills, etc. A MASSIVE technical update of KSP1 and that's it, nothing more. Yeah, I know, it's probably already a big work haha, but it's far more doable, to me, than what the actual KSP2 tried to make, while failing at every part of it. So yeah, a big technical update, ready to host, then, for a whole new decade, some updates, be they minor or major, but without any promise, just like we had during 12 years with KSP1. But at least something which would be running well on our machine, and worth to get mods and new official contents along the year, thanks to a clean from-scratch basis. This announce would need to come quite soon, like in a year or two, so that KSP don't get buried too far in all memories. What are your opinion about this ? Do you see KSP2 as needing a whole new content, gameplay, to be worth it ?

It's well said. Of course it's just a game. But it actually shaped some part of my actual life, activities, achievements. I left my KSP association when my little girl was born, 3 years ago and I guess I want her to be able to play a kind of KSP in a few years or so. KSP2 was for me the sign that at the very least, we would have another decade of enjoyment with an up to date game to play with. I am not sure I would introduce her to a wonky looking KSP1, be it able to operate on Windows12 with quantics graphic cards haha.

This, a million time, and we definitely are not exception. KSP2 really heavily damaged the KSP franchise to the point that it manages to reduce the joy to play KSP1. It's such an achievement. I'm a very long time player of KSP, countless hours, from the 0.18.2 or even slightly before, I founded a whole association about it to organize Real Life events, Orbital Mechanics in school, I've mastered the Stock Game, I wrote so many lines to help out other people, to invite the new players to properly discover the game and its richness, etc etc. I said back un 2013 that KSP would need a proper pro-dev KSP2 so that it would enjoy new tech, new game engine, a good professionnal and well managed from-scratch development to get the best of it, to allow for more mod flexibility, etc. When it was announced, I was so happy, I let KSP1 down for quite a long time, multiple years, only contributing through my association, something like 500 hours InGame at most during 5-6 years. Because I really needed KSP2 as a fresh start and real hope. Now, well, I don't want to even play KSP1 knowing that there were such a real potential in KSP2, completely ruined. This is what is affecting me the most after so much time and pleasure involved, so much activities, a real part of my life, I dare to say.

All the opposite for me. I expected KSP2 as a massive technical upgrade of an existing game, KSP1, with all the same gameplay and mechanics, and then only, the content would evolve to get new kind of gameplay : colonies, interstellar, etc. And why not a revamped Science mode indeed, even if I only play Sandbox. But we all know how it ended up : a massive technical disappointment. No new tech inside, the very same game engine that had already proven all its limits, with only some correct upgrade at the cost of performance, while adding some weird artifact and art choices that are actually less enjoyable than a slighltly modded KSP1. Oh, and, all of this while not getting the core gameplay of KSP1 during a loooooooong time, and even now, we are facing bugs or incomplete tools that are very irritating. So, when am I going to "invest" more in KSP2 ? When it will be beautiful enough (probably thanks to mods) to not look like a 2015 game, while having all the core gameplay. I don't care much about Colonies, Interstellar, Multiplayer, I just want to play the KSP that I know but on a strictly better version, by a Pro Team, 12 years after the first indie game. That's it. But I would gladly welcome any new content AFTER the core being complete and functional. And aesthetic. And running OK on a gaming computer (which has improved a lot, a good thing, while still something like 3x not enough to allow for big crafts that we were advertised.). Edit : well... Regarding the date of the day... I won't hope for more. I've always been very pessimistic (realistic ?) and I don't enjoy being proving right on the KSP2 destiny. But, well, it's the end I guess. I'll commit more when KSP2 will be restarted from the ground I guess.

DV calculus were already very questionable in KSP1 with no repeatability even on very simple builds. I have numerous cases about it, like simply changing from Engine A to B and then reverting to A, DV would change sometimes... It's for simple builds. For "complex" (like, just advanced, nothing terrible, really), it won't ever show correct numbers. KSP2 is even worse in every part : it makes the DV totally unusable while mods does it correctly (mostly) for years and years on KSP1. I don't get it.

Hoooo so cool, the guy who wrote the whole program of OptiGT just released an English Video to showcase its use !! It's not the article and I've not seen it entirely but I can already bet that you'll be amazed

I really don't even know what could please me about that colonies content. I guess I want it to be challenging as well as beautiful, aesthetic. To be able to finetune the colony on a very specific place, like leaning against a cliff partially with the launch pad overhanging over a canyon. The kind of aesthetic and terrain adaptability we've seen in the original trailer, that's it. But since the actual terrain is miles (sorry, light-year) behind what we saw in the trailer, the lightning and colors so weird, the physics not quite on point, etc, I don't see how we will end with some very basic quasi-flat station with some buggy overhang pillars tentative that will float a some meters above ground, missing the shadows, or not fitting the ground textures definition, etc. Yeah, quite pessimistic about it, since Terrain and Aesthetic is what I consider as the top priority for KSP2 and it's nothing to say that it under delivers a lot.

Hey AdiYoP, thanks for your interest ! Unfortunately, yeah, the team is moving from a website to another one and it's manual, so not all the article has been transferred so far and I can't reach the original article as I am no longer part of the team. Sorry, I'll reach you when it's back

It looks really nice indeed ! How many FPS do you have with which kind of PC ?

I'm afraid it would look really bad and would only be some kind of very rare specific location, not a credible terrain feature that you'll try to find by yourself. I would love cave as well, but as something that I would randomly find or look for, not these very messy easter egg, very badly implemented, with different shaders, different lightning, different textures, etc. Terrain tech in KSP2 is so deceiving, this is exactly what I was expecting the most and what actually bring the less

I did not try SSTO Ascent Path in KSP2, but what you describe is a bit different of what we have as an optimal in KSP1. In KSP1, using Rapiers Only, most of my SSTO has a very simple optimal path to orbit : SAS ON, proper take off, nose at 1° above the horizon and... That's it. It will accelerate very strongly at low altitude and the rotondity of Kerbin will naturally and very progressively raise it up without any input, thus without sacrificing any sudden AoA change. I tend to Lock Prograde past the 8-10° above the horizon to avoid the nose to get too high and it even improves the last minutes aerodynamic, when all what matters is to get as fast as possible in closed cycle. That's all. Sometimes I have to "Power Dive" : take off, climb gently at 1-2°C above the horizon until I reach 2-4km, Mach Aerodynamic barrier would prevent me to go faster : I lock prograde, thus falling nose down my velocity vector, so that aerodynamic is as good as possible, to help the Rapiers kicking past the 400 m/s. Past that point, it will continue to accelerate and you're good to go, without adding another(s) Rapiers which would represent drymass, just because of the Mach barrier.

I've wrote a bunch of Tutorials and Missions for KSP1 and I like to alternate between : - Construction tutorials : your first rocket for instance - Navigation tutorials : manoeuver nodes for instance - Specific skill tutorial : RCS placement and docking for instance - Milestone missions : to the mun and back My KSP1 global tutorial was planned with theses chapters : 0) Presentation and hands on KSP 1) The basis of rocket design 2) Lift-Off, orbiting and Gravity Turn 3) Manoeuvers Nodes and basic transfer 4) To the mun and back (1st Milestone to exploit the 3 previous tutorials) ---------------- 5) Design a station and its modules (introduce the docking and thus the RCS placements) 6) Rendez-vous and Docking 7) The logic of interplanetary Transfer 8) To Duna and back (2nd Milestone to exploit the 3 previous tutorials) ------------------- 9) How to build and control a basic plane 10) How to build an SSTO and the ideal path to orbit 11) The atmospheric Reentry 12) To Laythe and back (3rd Milestone to exploit the 3 previous tutorials) ----------------- And I did not get any further but we would have some Advanced Rocket Design (aesthetic, performance optimization, etc), Advanced Orbital mechanic (Oberth effect, Bi-elliptical rather than Hohmann, Gravity Assist, etc), Buoyancy and boat crafting, etc. I wish we had something like this in KSP2, with more intermediate missions, more distincts chapter, some repetition, etc.

It's actually really not a big deal if it stays as is, indeed. I don't care too much, I just find it not very good, and it feels way too forced, so it can be better for sure. But it might be the least of the priority, clearly, and we can totally overcome it : it does not mean that it should not be mentioned as something to improve / correct

This, a thousand time. I really "hate" this kind of forced humor, everywhere, anywhere, all the time. It does not serve any purpose, it's annoying and quite puerile, because of repetition. Yeah haha okay, coffee, haha, I got it, hehe, addiction, so fun, and Kapibaras, haha look at their big nose, lol, it's funny, it's big, and they go to space, or perhaps, or we don't know, but whatever, Kapybaras, and coffee addiction, cause we all love coffee and all are addict to it, and it's fun, just like big Splosions, always, way more fun than actually succeeding a mission, don't get too serious, c'mon, it's a game, crashes are fun, and eclipse as well, haha, Jeb crashed its face on the ground and still live. Lol. Yeah, sorry for the rant. Regarding the topic, I did not watch the tutorial except the Gravity Turn one, which is very good as a very short "basic" which does not teach everything step by step. I think it's the best Tutorial format, a 2 minutes animation that won't go in Gameplay details, so that the community then handle the 20minutes long docking step by step tutorial. It ensures that tutorial actually don't ruin the Die and Retry aspect of the game, the proudness to succeed by ourselves, while in the same time giving just enough information about physics and global advices to not feel abandoned. It needs to be declined with all the Tutorial topics that we usually looked for in KSP1 : manoeuver nodes, RdV, docking, interplanetary transfrt, aerobraking, Gravity Assist, landing, but also some Craft design tutorial, about RCS placement, CoL/CoM, optimization, and so on.

This presentation, and especially the visuals are stellar, for real. Really really nice. As an occasional Orbital Mechanics / KSP teacher in Engineering High School / University, I've been trough all theses explanation in pretty much the exact same order, but with about 3 to 4 hours courses content, detailing every aspect of it and using KSP as the perfect support to learn and feel how it works. I'm clearly not at the point of doing that kind of visuals which are very helpful and well thought ! It's a shame I'm such a bad drawer haha.

I don't understand what could be the problem in KSP2 if you're handling that perfectly in KSP1. Where do you struggle more, what do you find different ?

Yeah 1.3 is really the lowest TWR you wanna have. To suit some RolePlay crewed mission for instance, this is what I do. Otherwise, best performance is around 1.8 to 2.2 depending on the rocket (sounding very aerodynamic tiny rocket can get way higher as an optimum). It really changes everything. Can be hard to find the sweet GT spot though, 1.4 to 1.6 is the easier. Really, forget about that "drag" losses, they are so marginal if you're doing a proper GT (which is optimal regarding Drag) and if your rocket is correctly designed, i.e. without an atrocious fairing or something else. Even though, you can still do a GT and win a lot, you'll just have to adapt and do a "round" GT, not an agressive one, to get a bit higher than you would than with a proper design. By the way, here is my tutorial about Gravity Turn. It's in French, but you all know what I'm talking about :p It won't sound as "pro" as other, regarding the audio and so on, I'm not a Youtuber, but i'll humbly admit that I consider this video as one of the most comprehensive regarding this topic.

Thanks haha

Yeah 1.3 is really the lowest TWR you wanna have. To suit some RolePlay crewed mission for instance, this is what I do. Otherwise, best performance is around 1.8 to 2.2 depending on the rocket (sounding very aerodynamic tiny rocket can get way higher as an optimum). It really changes everything. Can be hard to find the sweet GT spot though, 1.4 to 1.6 is the easier.

Totally right, typo haha ! Can't edit, there is new rule (I guess) with a limit edit time... Arf ! I hope it's not really the case OR it will be fixe ASAP as I won't ever launch this way after such a good experience in KSP1. It would not make any sense, like, at all. No launch will suddenly pitch by 10° at high speed, this is absurd, even for a game. Edit : misread the Vl3d quote, my bad, you're not saying we should angle 10° at 10km, but rather that the angle should not exceed 10° by 10km. Which I still strongly disagree, of course, it would be a VERY vertical non-Gravity-Assist ascent, very unoptimized, something like 10-15% less efficient than a correct GT. But it might necessary with the actual KSP2 release, did not try it : if it's the case, yeah, I confirm, it's very very bad, but we would have seen way more complaints about it I guess, I did not see anything about it, past your experience.

I had a whole article about that, with some diagrams and abacus to be able to get some proper real Gravity Turn based on the TWR at liftoff, considering that it's design is OK-ish. We spent something like a hundred hours coding an empirical method to plot the very best PitchOver Speed and PitchOver Amplitude, with some automation and some variable, and then coding a whole Perfect Gravity Turn kOS code, quite better and more versatile than the Gravity Turn mod for instance. Unfortunately, this article is lost at the moment, we are transiting from a website to another one. I can anyway provide this abacus : It shows the PitchOver Speed trigger and the PitchOver Angle amplitude, relative to the LiftOff TWR. How it reads : for a given TWR, say 1.5 which is quite a "normal" TWR, you can Pitch Over at 14m/s and 65° (from the horizon, so 25° from the vertical), or 62m/s and 85° (so 5° from the vertical). Both would perform quite similarly, BUT the lower the amplitude, the better : you don't want to pivot 25° abruptly at high speed when you can do otherwise and smoother : it would be unaesthetic, dramatic for the structure even if KSP would allow it, and can lead to loss of control because of the AoA, even if at those speed and with gimbal, it should be fine. You'll say : it depends on the rocket, yeah, of course it does ! It depends of its Solid to Liquid fuel ration, the TWR of the upper stage, but also the Sea Level to Vacuum ISP ratio, the Stages mass proportion, etc etc etc. Of course. But you'll find by experience that the very main parameter is the LiftOff TWR, assuming that your rocket has a "normal" configuration : not a crazy large fairing, not an anemic or overpowered 2nd stage, not an unrealistic asparagus mess, etc. Even though it would be a good start and it's easy to spot when a GT is going too low or too high within the first 30s (or even sooner) of a launch Also : most of these parameters are addressed in the final code, the OptiGT kOS script, which handle many things. It's based on a dichotomies approach but include some shortcuts and clever adjustments, as well as a very very nice GUI ! I would love to get your feedback about it, it's for KSP1 but I'm pretty sure a lot of us are still using it. Don't see it as a cheaty autopilot, more of a Perfect GT finder, to learn how it's doing and develop the "sense", the feeling of a good GT. And it's very very handy when you're optimizing every drop of fuel as well :p https://github.com/PhilouDS/opti_gt Anyway, as a way shorter answer to the question : I always, alwaaaaays to the Follow Prograde method, the only good looking GT method :p And with quite some experience, I can perform a perfect GT in a couple tries as well as ensuring that the first one with be "good" at least It's very satisfying, and it's soooo much more efficient than any other kind of ascent trajectory. Ho, also, never ever throttle down your engines. NEVER. I've never encountered a single rocket launch when it would be preferable. Change your engine if it's too powerful, you'll gain Mass and ISP most of the time. Be aware that Atmospheric drag is WAAAAY over estimated by players, Gravity Losses are the most important one. At least with a proper GT, of course, in follow prograde :p It does not prevent you to do an active GT though : you feel you're leaning too fast ? Hold that SAS button a couple seconds, it will help a lot, especially if noticed during the first 15s of flight ! There is some "key points" that 90% rockets will follow : 25° from vertical at 3500m, 45° from vertical at 8000-10000m, 70° from vertical at 25000-35000m. The very first 2 key points are essential, they can vary, a TWR = 2 will lead to something very aggressive with 45° as soon as you hit 3000m, especially for light sounding rocket, but for 1.4-1.6 TWR, you'll have a good feeling of a GT being too low or two high with theses key points.