KerikBalm

Is this confirmed? What about when you pilot a multi kerbal ship in multiplayer. Personally, I never cared for the focus on Kerbal customization in the first place. This proposal is just more irrelevant diversion of resources from what I care about Well, people often speak about gender and sex (but from an etymology standpoint, the meanings are reversed) We only ever see 1-2 biological sexes in a given species, for fundamental reasons that should be valid for aliens as well. Of course the biological sex could be like we see in Yeast, with mating type A and mating type Alpha, and the ability to switch mating type. Or as in C elegans, males and hemaphrodites, and so on. I also don't see why gender needs to be codified in the code itself. "Male" and "female" kerbals should behave the same. I don't object to allowing mixing of "male" and "female" features. Why not. Gender is many non-mutually exclusive things. It is a political subject, that's just the reality Indeed, just allow Kerbal customization, with traits unrestricted by a male or female status, and be done with it. No more labelling. Its already something they've focused on, even though I really don't care if all my Kerbals are 100% identical clones, and Kerbal biology is such that they reproduce by asexual budding. Well, before Valentina, it was just a set of identical looking aliens. One could write off any resemblance to a certain human gender as coincidental/irrelevant. Then valentina came in, and the parallels with human sex/gender became obvious

Like... a panther? :p Well, I don't know of many heroic figures from native American tribes. There are some famous figures, like: Geronimo, Hiawatha, Sitting Bull, Tecumseh, Pontiac... But they don't seem like good names, and many are in fact tragic figures (not surprising given what happened to most of the Native American tribes). And to illustrate the point re: 5th gen fighter profiles:

Its not that heavy, and its got a very good TWR. Compared to something like an F-15 or a SU-35, it is positively light. Its profile is a bit "fatter" looking than previous aircraft, but so is something like the J-20, its the nature of aircraft that carry their weapons internally My bad, drop the numbers, they aren't useful. Phantom IIs are out essentially of service. There won't be any confusion. I did check though, while development started in WW2, its first flight was 1947, not 1945

Phantom (2?) Lime the F-4 Phantom which was a successful multi-service fighter, "phantom" also evokes the stealth factor. But I do like "panther" too

Yea, it's not ideal in kep 1 using a bunch of ore tanks and jet engines or breaking ground rotors+ lifting surfaces for propellers (generally more if a hassle than jets, but what else can you do on Eve or a mod world like Tekto)

I think they said no to "teraforming", which could be something like being able to change duna to have oceans and a thicker atmosphere this is just "landscaping" Almost certainly not. I am counting on this in the launch. I can already do all that in unmodded KSP1 (granted, the "colony" just mines and produces ore/fuel) It would be nice if we could get some sort of oblate spheroid instead of a sphere, to allow for simple modelling of tides

Not wanting to restart the metallic hydrogen debate, I will just say that I agree with everything else Strawberry said (although Orion drive is *certainly* possible). It is Sci-Fi, but so we're communication satellites at one point. It is (mostly) not fictional science/fantasy in space. Back to the topic, I expect many planet mods to be carried over with extensive reworking since much finer scale details are possible

Indeed, this isn't meant to be a KSP vs Arma comparison, I just got excited by a game using an interation of a very old engine doing what had been said for decades to not be possible on the engine. It made me rethink my position on KSP. It would be rather nice to be able to flatten ground for bases and where craft will land, rather than raising structures up on variable length struts

WHile it is true that the scale is quite different, its not as different as it appears at first. Most heighmaps for planets (stock and mod) are in the form of 1024x2048 or 2048x4096 black&white images. Arma 3 most commonly uses a 4096x4096 grid size (with cell size varying from 3.75 meters to 7.5 meters, for (15.36x15.36 km or 30.72x30.72 km maps). In terms of the base heightmap unit size, they are actually quite comparable, but you don't find terrain vertices every few meters in KSP. However, KSP does have a noise overlay, which I think can make procedural detail on a scale much lower than the grid size. Here's a heightmap I applied to a mod planet with no noise overlay: Here the grid is quite obvious but applying some noise overlay can mask that... no not that much: that looks better, plus the visual mods help I think: So, I don't know. On the one hand, changing the base heightmap makes more sense when its every few meters. Changing it on KSP reshapes huge tiles of ground, maybe less useful. The smaller scale details, being likely procedurally generated, seem harder to change, maybe one can change the parameters for a tile? to make an area less bumpy and more suitable for landing (or less collidable scatter?) Here's an example of a runway I "built" on a mod planet, by changing the heightmap: This was before applying a noise overlay, I wonder if I could specifically remove the noise around the airstrip... Building ground based colonies seems like it would be hard to make a suitable runway. Even the one at KSC is rather small, and if you want a longer runway because you are operating spaceplanes on a body with a thin atmosphere (thus higher landing speeds, much larger turn radiius, etc), it seems like suitable runways would be hard to make out of objects, and would be better done by reshaping terrain

There's probably been a thread about this before, but I would love to see the ability to dynamically alter the height map I previously thought this impossible, similar to how it had been impossible in another game I play (Arma 3). Yet last month, nearly a decade after Arma 3 released(2013), they released an update that allowed for dynamic terrain deformation. This game uses a version of the Real Virtuality engine that has been in use (with updates) since their first title in 1999. Somehow, what was regarded as impossible was quietly dropped into an otherwise seemingly minor update. Supposedly they have developed an entirely new engine for their latest title in the series, but it surely brings a lot of stuff from their old engine - speculation is that whatever they were doing for the new engine actually could be applied to the old one This situation re: taking apart an old engine and re-building the next iteration from the ground up reminds me of what they are doing with KSP 2 In Arma 3, one of the first uses has been to make airstrips suitable for planes landing where there was none before - something that would also be a great ability in KSP2, particularly with the colony mechanics. So, any chance of deformable terrain in KSP2?

Indeed, rapiers are terrible once in orbit. Bad TWR (high dry mass) Bad Isp Terrible Going to oribt? for only 0.2 tons more than a Whiplash, you get 180kn of closed cyclethrust. Plus you get higher and faster so that you don't need as much closed cycle dV. If going for maximum SSTO payload fraction to orbit, that's hard to beat. Sure, other engines have higher closed cycle Isp, but how many do you need to supply enough thrust? how much dry mass do they add? what does that dry mass do to your dV? This is all fine and good when you're talking <1,000 m/s of closed cycle dV from a single stage. Going beyond that - forget it. I have almost always left the rapiers in LKO or suborbital (exception: going to laythe). Get to orbit, decouple a spacecraft from the deadweight of the rapiers, intakes, wings, etc (ideally in the form of a very light plane that you can recover)- go where you want- possibly coming back to redock with your wings and airbreathing engines to land back on kerbin. I find the easiest way to do 100% reusable to Mun-surface and back is to take a multi-stage approach: SSTO to LKO, undock the transfer stage and lander>go to low mun orbit> detach lander, land, redock in low Mun orbit> go back to LKO (using aerobraking)> dock with the SSTO plane> land

I am confused, but maybe @magnemoe can be explain it to me

I mean... I think I could do it, but the partcount increase would make my computer scream in agony, and I would too because of the framerate. OTOH, I don't need a 40 ton to orbit capability. Most of the modules don't have all that much mass, except for the fuel tank module (rockomax 64) intended for fuel delivery. I've thought I could do a dedicated tanker orbiter (integral fuel tanks, no cargobay to stick an additional fuel tank into). Its what I was doing for my reusable craft to orbit of Kerbin in 3, 4, and 6.25x rescales (1 orbiter for various payloads, 1 orbiter dedicated to just ferrying fuel up, same 1st stage carrier plane). Dropping the long cargobay+ramp saves 10 tons, granted, that only gets me to 28 tons to orbit (instead of 18), and I would still need to increase payload by another 12 tons to reach the goal of 40 tons. I doubt that could be made up in aerodynamics alone (everything could be inline, instead of having side tanks+engines to accomodate the ramp) I don't think so, the propellor disks would always have to point up for it to be stable. That seems like it would require active deflection of the joints, not just "flexibility".

Indeed, it was mainly for the challenge, and secondarily to supply fuel to an eve station - withh the idea of moving Gilly from a moon of Eve to an orbit around the sun similar to that of Dress - otherwise, getting fuel from Gilly is much better. Also, for a while I was really on a modular surface base binge, with the idea of having standard base modules and a standardized cargobay (the surface-orbit shuttle would be different, but use the same cargobay). I just couldn't make a design work for Eve, my standard cargobay+40 tons of payload required a plane with far too many parts. I had to lower the payload mass requirement, and cut the payload bay dimensions (I think that saved 4 tons+ drag). In a way, by making those concessions, Eve beat me

This is not true, equatorial orbit is always aligned with the planet's rotation, the display of east should be relative to the planet's axis. A tilted axis relative to the ecliptic shouldn't display as tilted unless the player changes the camera view.

A "cushioning" effect near the ground that makes slowing descent rate to a tolerable limit/avoiding colliding with the terrain easier, but putting the plane down before running out of runway/ putting down on rough terrain harder

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket#Pendulum_rocket_fallacy https://handwiki.org/wiki/Astronomy:Pendulum_rocket_fallacy It is behaving as it should. You'll have to rely on either differential throttling of the rotors (can be done via a kal controller, but its not ideal and has quite some response lag), If you enable pitch, yaw, and roll, control on the propeller blades, you can make it work somewhat, but once you increase blade pitch to their optimum AoA, any change (increase or decrease) will decrease lift, so as you approach your max altitude, this won't work either So lastly, there's the aerodynamic stabilization with good ol' fins/wings. This can work if you climb rapidly, but as you slow to a near hover at maximum altitude, this doesn't work so well either. That's why my eve ascent vehicle designs were planes flying nearly horizontally

That's like saying that we shouldn't say that making the atmosphere of Duna thinner won't affect new players getting to low kerbin orbit. The atmospheric thickness of Duna literally has no effect on getting to LKO from the surface of Kerbin. Atmospheric tilt literally has no effect on getting to LKO from the surface of Kerbin. Player experience does not change this

They won't have to deal with it at all until they are going beyond kerbin orbit. Going to Mun with, say 2 deg of inclination, will be rather insignificant, there won't be anything to deal with, unless you are going for perfection. Going to Minmus will be the same, as it's already an inclined orbit. But this does raise a point, will there be a view mode that aligns with a planets axis/ rotational plane? Can we switch between a view alignment with the ecliptic an the planets axis?

1) axial tilt has no effect "as soon as you get off the ground", it would only become a factor once trying to go to Mun, Minmus, or farther. 2) it's exactly equivalent to getting to Minmus with Minmus' orbit being out of Kerbin's rotational plane. So essentially, you have to deal with a slight inclination difference when going to Mun, instead of a larger one when going to Minmus. My way would have players likely notice something is going on if they don't adjust inclination, but given the low tilt, and Mun's size and proximity, you'd still easily get to Mun without adjusting inclination. Minmus on the other hand... if you don't match inclination, you will easily miss the intercept or arrive on a very inconvenient trajectory (unless you are meeting it at an An/Dn). It wouldn't do much at all to the difficulty curve, it might even help. 3) personally speaking, getting rid of these 0,0,0 orbits (no eccentricity, axial tilt, nor orbital inclination) would help with suspension of disbelief. The parameters are defined anyway, it's not like it increases the computational load. I don't care if it's miniscule: if it's barely noticeable, and only skilled players notice it, then that's great. It doesn't harm/ overwhelm the new players, and it adds some depth for the experienced ones

So my thoughts: - within Kerbin's SOI: axial tilt is equivalent to having Mun and Minmus inclined. Giving Kerbin an axial tilt of 6 degrees, and Mun an axial tilt of 6 degrees in the same plane changes nothing as far as getting to Mun A degree or two of axial tilt doesn't change much. Even putting Mun at a 6 degree tilt doesn't make much difference given its size and distance (although it is quite relevant for Minmus Kerbin could easily take 1-2 degrees of axial tilt, enough that new players will notice it has an effect, but not enough to really screw up their early missions. - outside of kerbin's SOI: * it won't change things dramatically for interplanetary transfers, as the effect of axial tilt will be much less than the effect of kerbin's orbit not being coplanar with the target body Currently duna has an ever so slightly inclined orbit, and even Eve has a 2.1 degree inclination. Have you ever really noticed issues with Eve and Duna's inclination? No? Then a few degrees for Kerbin won't matter either Many players won't even insert into an orbit of kerbin within 2 degres of an equatorial one anyway, its within the margin of error. Overall, I think they should ditch the bodies with perfectly circular, 0 inclination, 0 tilt orbits. Add a little eccentricity, tilt, and inclination, but for the starting system, keep it small, within the margin of error of newbie orbits anyway. 1-3 degrees of axial tilt for Kerbin is fine for new playes, 23.5 degrees is too much for new players. If larger axial tilt is introduced, then players might ask for dynamic ground/planet textures to reflect growing and shrinking icecaps to go along with seasons.

Well, to be realistic, the LV-N should overheat after thrusting, and you should have radiators on standby to cool it after a burn. This would be rather complicated to model. You'd also have to pre-heat it before thrusting, and again, a radiator would be useful there. Anyway, want more TWR? That's exactly what the LANTR is for. Fwiw, I never had issues with lv-ns overheating, except in earlier 1.0x versions. Maybe it's the clustering that is the problem, because all my designs that I can remember have 2 or less lv-ns per nacelle, and don't overheat. I remember some 4x clusters, I don't remember if they had heat problems. Anyway, 1.0 m/s/s I consider to be pretty decent. The LV-N has been nerfed a lot from it's earlier iteration of 2.25 tons (3 now). And there are more advanced plans for higher TWR NTRs (project timberwind). If we have to deal with radioactivity in ksp2, I wouldn't mind a "timberwind" style thrust upgrade. Of course, we don't know if ksp2 will have part upgrades

https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Parts/Cargo/GroundAnchor/groundAnchor.cfg Please tell me how

So I don't have that mod, but from the wiki, they have a colorized heightmap, which I have circled candidate spots: Don't know how deep those spots are. I wonder if they are above Crush depth. On another note, I am now playing 6.25x, with 0.35x modifier to heigh (thus 2.1875x modifier to heights and depths), so I'm looking for depths of 140-180 meters (depending on if crush depth is 300 or 400 meters, I must test). Plus, you know, making such a long/tall vessel is also a pain, so something shallow but still out of sight of land is what I'm looking for

I had to text edit the stamp o tron underwater, but I used it here to anchor an offshore mining rig to the seafloor, where I could mine. But... it's not practical to mine very far from shore. Especially with part pressure limits on. Don't think that it will allow me to have a fueling base in the middle of the ocean (Kerbin or laythe or eve)