Dakitess

I tend to second that, It really does not give any feeling of coherence to unlock techs because of achievements. Of course, it's not completely absurd, because it's a game : it can be understood as a big shortcut like "Congrats for doing that, here is more funds, enjoy" that allow for research and better techs, to go further, please even more Mister President, that will allow for more funds, etc etc. Why not. But yeah, it could have been done better. I don't know exactly how, though, and it does not seems to be an easy task ! Money exclusively, actually, why not. But it loose the advantage of Science to allow people to discover the part gradually, bit by bit, for new comers.

How do you reach orbit at all if parts are exploding at such low speed during ascent ? Only specific parts ? It might be something related to the max temp resistance the parts were given ?

Yes ?

I havent tried the update yet, but have seen 3 videos about it and read some pages around there. Soooo basically, the "Exploration Mode" is still the same than KSP1 but a bit more refined and with some kind of narrative regarding ground anomalies ? Is there any kinf of real "story", a kind of career to involve the player ? We know there is no money and all, but, so no other limitation than research points to unlock parts ? I find it a bit deceiving. Actually, I played KSP1 Science mode for about 5 hours at most, and career 0 hours. I'm not the client I guess, but specifically because I find it poorly implemented and lacking of interest, so I hoped something more deep and more enjoyable for KSP2. I'll try it anyway but your feedback are welcomed about it !

Yeah but... Planes ! I find landing in KSP way way way too easy regarding the challenge that it should be when it comes to shuttle, big massive SSTO, etc. Some random wind would help mitigate that, as a togglable difficulty option if necessary ! Though I would nuance and say that some wobble is still important, more than actually. Except if it implies to maintain a performance heavy system just for some light wobble than I can live without, I guess, to be replaced by something else more valuable indeed.

Agree that in the videos I've seen, it feels really too much rigid, or more precisely, too much solid, rough, robust. It ain't wobble and bend ? Fine, make it snap ! Since it won't be really easy to do so, wobble and struts might be a good thing to fine-tune. Indeed, it's totally not OK to get a very well designed rocket, realistic, with good proportion, to bend over like a wet a noodle. Unacceptable, unenjoyable. But it's neither not OK to get a weird contraption flying straight while it would OBVIOUSLY bend / break. Lot of players were legit afraid of that, to loose a whole part of design visual failure feedback and it happened. Or I guess, I must say, did not try it for now, but videos are quite explicit. I remember reading that part snipping because of over constraint would not allow the player to understand why / where / how it failed. Indeed if the thing collapse suddenly, it's hard to improve it. But just like we have heat gauges, and just like some bridges construction gate have Mechanical Stress gauges, we could have something like this, something that would show the player that damn, this part is having a hard time and will break very soon. I still guess that a legit small quantity of wobble is a good thing, as a physic implementation. It already exist(ed), it's there, we have tool to fight against it when needed (struts), it just need to be fine tuned and, ideally, "logic" and coherent, regarding what assemble is clearly a whole big constant diameter cylinder that should act accordingly. And what it a mechanical entanglement that is a legit point of weakness. What part, even with the same good diameter that below and above, is a legit point of weakness. Decouplers, docking port, etc. There is a lot of intelligence to put in this game aspect, it's not hard (not speaking of dev here), it just need to be thought correctly, I guess.

I'm discovering so many things about KSP1 now that people are getting nostalgic about it ! I've never cared about Kerbals, nor the fictional parts companies, or their description, or the dialogs, or anything like this. I play KSP for 11 or 12 years, 99% sandbox, when we had nothing of this and I admit that I never got hooked but any of this, like, really not. Now that I read it, I must say that I'm quite reluctant to "Humor, humor everywhere". Not everything needs to be funny, with a relief. It feels in KSP1 and KSP2 (guessing, I've only played it 4 hours in SandBox) it's a bit "ha, see, it's funny, yeah, like, 'splosions, snacks, and all ! and him, look at him, he's dumb ! haha !". I've never understand the whole Kapibara thing, like when it was all over the place, I found out quite cringy to be fair. I just might have missed the thing, it was probably funny if people enjoyed it so much x) Was that a reference to something external to KSP at first ?

You... Eyeball your TLI ? xD Haha, I always set up the perfect manoeuver node, the ideal hohmann transfer that tangent the Mun Orbit, then I move the manoeuver node while paying attention to not touch any of the axis, and game on Even after 8k hours, I would not eyeball that specific part ^^

I guess the equilibrium with be natural : very high ISP, whatever Thrust (as long as it's still coherent), but very very massive and dedicated fuel (or not). Just like you won't stick a NERV onto a small craft, where an LV909 will perform better since it's more light than the Nerv is efficient. Math about it are quite easy and interesting So yeah an interstellar craft using interstellar HUGE engines would not suit any use for local platenary system. But I don't see the dev forbidding their use, and they better not to, it is KSP, let us play the way we want and we will DEFINITELY see some emergent gameplay about it, some RolePlay using this gigantic parts, etc. This is no doubt that a 2 giant engine, nozzle to nozzle, will shape a magnificent sphere-ish to hold some RolePlay habitat that would shield the crew from any radiation, etc ^^ As a side subject and as already said in other relative subjects, I really really really really (really (really)) hope that they will balance the Interstellar accordingly to the actual physic. Yes, have fun with speculative technologies, high ISP, etc, this is part of KSP. But don't mess with physics : a given quantity of fuel with a given drymass and a given payload will achieve a specific DeltaV, not a capacity to reach another place by magic, without entrance relative velocity to kill at destination. I really hope we won't be able to stick thousand on tons of payload on top of a giant interstellar contraption : even a tremendous quantity of fuel with a incredibly efficient engine, won't achieve a 10% of c if the payload is big or even medium. So yeah something like basic Tsiolkovsky equation and not another system like whatever the payload as long as you assemble "this engine" with "that quantity of fuel" and you're good to go. Real physic, real transfer time (with Warp, hu ? ^^) that have real impact on crew. I want to feel the need to shorten the transfer time, and for that, to bring even more fuel, to feel the tragedy of the Tsiolkovsky equation which imply that I would have to triple the fuel already absurdly enormous. Or... I will reduce the payload by a tiny bit, reduce the dry mass of that many tanks, etc Something really challenging, it's end game, after all ! Best intuitive solution would be to enlarge the whole star system to a multi-star one, just like we go from planetary view to star view, at another scale. So that we actually really eject from our system, travel in between and reach another one wich a perfectly fine and logical speed entrance to cancel at the arrival. But I don't know if they will do that this way, I guess, it might trick it and it would be fine as long as it's coherent. We don't need to actually travel from a star system to another one.

That would change soooo much things for a game like KSP. In the good sense, obviously. I dream about that for a KSP3, be it in 15 years. Normally, in 15 years, StarEngine being the nowadays tech, it should be doable by the KSP3 team xD

Same, I would let that to the mods.

I really see it as an other kind of fuel, really... And it feels to me that people who don't want to bother with that are in almost defending Infinite Fuel since, damn, I don't want to bother with constraints. It's an hyperbole, an exaggeration, I guess, but we are not really far from this, are we ? Why maintaining the fuel constraints and not add something that is very similar and RolePlay / GamePlay relevant, which is the LS, just another resource, but not lacking interest since it's mainly depending on time rather than DeltaV ? I really feel like having an alert "20% crew resource left - estimated at 1.2 years" is really cool as it might imply a trade off because of your tight initial margin : you have enough DV to "cut" the transfer trajectory with a high-energy fuel costly back to home, that might save your crew from starving. Or you calculate it well and you're fine, doing the initially planned hohmann transfer, which might be 95% of the time since you can take some margin and I don't expect LS to be very "sizing", very impactful compared to a fueled crewed interplanetary mission. Just... Just a ton or two of drymass that you'll consume along the way. Yeah I don't really understand the reject of LS arguments. But it's fine, I just state that base on what have been written, I (I (I insist)) don't get how it can be a bad thing for KSP2. I would actually add more relief to it, more constraints, while not making any kind of microgestion but rather some RolePlay relevant addition : crew sanity, especially, depending on available pressurized space for the total crew, and the mission duration. See in my previous message for "details". Edit : and if it is made optional via a difficulty toggle, then it's pretty much like Communication, which is fine in KSP1, isn't it ?

This. The throttle. I don't know if you're trying to make fun of us, but how did you elaborate such a rant and such resistance to explanation when you... Just failed to zero your thrust ?... Seriously. I'll even guess that you made out this video knowing that you'll need to use that thrust error to mimic the issue you were describing, since at 0'38" you indeed have a "drift" that suddenly disappear by an action of yours : to cancel properly the throttle rather than having that tiny 0.5% of gas. C'mon... Edit : OR this is totally honest, you're using a HOTAS or something else to control your thrust, and your dead-zone is really not wide enough and you got plenty false cut-off. I might even bet on that ^^

Wow this looks like a very little gem to discover !

Alleluia, finally a good docking tutorial ! I lost mine on an ancient tutorial, and was too lazy to rewrite it from scratch, knowing that there were probably people actually writing tuto how I do it myself AND with the same method ! This is so unusual to see the "active-retrograde-redirection" rather than the "kill velocity, accelerate toward the target, kill again, and forward again", which lead so many beginners to endless orbital drifting... So, yeah, it's not in french but it's easy enough to understand so that I can redirect people in need here

Aside of the physic explanation, this is why you basically never want to cancel your relative speed. This is the EXACT reason why people following step by step tutorial don't understand why they are drifting around their target, warping, cancelling speed, going forward at 2m/s and 2km distance, warping, drifting, and so on : you're never travelling in straight line, you can only consider it when traveling at a good speed to distance ratio, otherwise the orbital drift will be even more important than the forward speed you gave to your craft... I don't understand how / why people keep canceling speed rather than doing the retrograde-active-redirection, when you pull / push it toward the target indicator, keeping all your momentum, only reducing it partially when approaching. It's easy, very practical, very relevant, way more efficient RCS / Elec wise, etc. Don't cancel your speed at 3km to give it back 20s after. And you do it, fine, it works, but only if you push toward the target a sufficient speed regarding your distance. 2km ? 10m/s is fine, this is plenty time to react. Any less will make you drift...

Thanks for that performance crash test, so much effort x) It seems to be a very nice multi modules station ! MANY parts looks completely off-placed, like some Kraken disassembling : is it a "stable" appearance ? Like, can you observe all the part being mis-aligned ? Are this mis-alignment getting worse and worse ? I'm not talking about the module being no properly docked, or noodle effect, but a tank being slightly / vastly not aligned with the direct closer one while it should be perfectly stacked like in the VAB. How many parts ? I might have missed it, sorry.

Yeah but... The tutorial could totally introduce the players to this UI feature, isn't it ? Like, "you can use this aid to know what part comes directly compatible to the previous part diameter used, but feel free to do otherwise, Craft Design is all about freedom and creativity !"

Ha yeah, physics, I would even trade some graphics for proper destructions, including ground impact craters :p

Seems in the range of KSP1 for "legit record" which is nice. I guess the allowance to be nose down and plunging and the no-requirement to recover successfully the craft can help reaching 1900+m/s but I did not try it so far. Thing is, in KSP1, you could go WAY faster in low atmosphere and thermal was the limit to play with. Is it still the case here ? Would your craft go past 2000m/s at horizontal flight and sea level with 1, 2 or 3 rapiers, @Periple ?

Do you really feel it as "you can only pick these for that" ? If its behavior would be to "grey out" other options, I would agree, but a slight highlight ? A light contouring ? And again it would be plenty obvious that it's just an help regarding diameter, nothing else. You would scroll and explore tabs as usual, but when diameter is relevant, such as for a decoupler, a battery, a heat shield, you would have that slight highlight / whatever emphasis to immediately know it will fit the previous diameter, and that's it. The easy-to-ignore actually feels important as it mitigate a lot your points. It's just... an aid. That you're totally free to ignore, non invasive (because designed and integrated accordingly, of course). And it could totally be togglable as an option. I don't understand how it would send a wrong, non-creative message to players, and I'm speaking as a huge legit-clipping player that use a lot of non-conventional parts at non-conventional places ^^ I don't know, I have the feeling that we've seen this multiple time in game (or maybe software ?) but I might be wrong, I'm trying to find back where / in which context.

Like, when you're building quite quickly with muscular memories, you always know that you've used the X200-32 Medium Diameter, and now that you've moved toward the battery section without really paying attention, you're 100% confident that you'll remember that you're looking for Medium Diameter, that you'll be able to read it (and other will), etc ? Cool. I'd rather have so very easy-to-ignore highlight of the good battery diameter. I'm 10/10 and 12/10 in visual acuity, so totally fine, and my memory is OK-ish if I pay attention, but I would actually use that feature a lot rather than mistaking AGAIN with that damn decoupler which is not the good diameter because I swear I though I used the MD and not the big one. Again, at least KSP2 now shows well more conveniently the diameters, but it's not hat easy to read depending on screen resolution, visual acuity, etc. I really struggle to see the point here. I'm fine debating about suggestions, but there is a little tone of bad faith and weird irrelevant resistance, I may be wrong though, I respect others opinions. Just respect mine, especially when I try to be constructive about it.

It's getting better, but nope.

Haaaaa fair enough... Damn. Or, it would be the Real Solar System with the actual real specs that are legit for orbital speed, system stability and so on, while the original one would particularly weird, with ultra high density etc. It still possible for the game, not so much in reality.

Yeah, yeah, I know, simple Game Oriented suggestion It needs to be refined !