Pecan

Agreed. Love uncrewed missions, possibly more than crewed. They tend to be at the early, exploratory, emd of things and set-up the comms, resource scanning and surface-mapping that later, crewed, missions rely on.

I'm afraid I'm 100% literally saying what I mean; in English. In my universe that means I'm discussing in good faith, instead of just pretending my interlocuters said stuff I made up.

Ok, I'll do this just once then stop talking to you, since it seems as pointless as star wars physics. I do not think and have never said that everything has to be realistic. I said that I don't waste my time on Hollywood nonsense. No it isn't because apart from everything else Hollywood does not represent 'every single fantasy franchise in existence' Brikoleur said "but you could still keep the Newtonian physics" I never said Hollywood should be realistic. Boohoo That's a 'no' then

First, I just loved the title, "should science change ...", which suggests "science is wrong, I hate reality!" :-) Second - I only play sandbox in KSP because the tech tree is so deranged (ladder is 5th-level IIRC?). I'm fine with collecting science as a mini-game but there's no point in pushing that to per-experiment minigames. These things get old fast and even the current "do this mission times then do it another 3 times in a slightly different position" is too much. Possibly that would mean biomes are redundant but there's always ISRU. At the moment the whole of career, science mode and biomes are redundant anyway so it couldn't be worse.

You want to ruin the one game that represents real physics and rockets because every single Hollywood film needs to be 100% consistent, logical and correct according to real-world physics? Now you're making even less sense than At World's End. I wouldn't know what it's like to hate every single fantasy franchise in existence because I don't. Can't think of any Hollywood versions I don't detest, but that's not the same as hate anyway. Let's start again and see if you can be brave and not cry just because someone doesn't have exactly the same opinions as you ... What I said and am saying is; 1) the physics in Star Wars is so unrealistic and inconsistent there would be no reason to model it, 2) this is true of everything Hollywood and the games industry produces except KSP, 3) there's no reason to ruin the one game that represents real physics and rockets when everything else already does that rubbish. Now - do you have a reason to ruin KSP?

Star Wars is a teen-power wet-dream franchise with nothing to do with anything outside selling merchandise. That's why every ship, vehicle and character have distinct styling, with not even the slightest nod to consistency or internal logic, let alone anything ressembling reality. Marketing budget = $millions, continuity & logic budget = $0.02. So what? It's not alone in that - Hollywood is consistently wrong about everything and I don't waste my time on nonsense. My point remains; why ruin the one game that represents real physics and rockets when everything else already does that rubbish?

*Grin* That would have been to miss the opportunity to express my loathing of every other representation of 'space' by Hollywood and the games industry.

You have a massive fairing right on the nose. That'll create a lot of drag which you need to counter with fins and/or control surfaces behind the CoM. Press F12 to see the aerodynamics overlay as the vehicle ascends and you should see a huge spike in drag on the fairing just before it flips.

Why, what use would physics be in a star wars universe? A universe which appears to lack a third dimension and inertia. Hollywood gets everything about space wrong and so does every 'space' game except KSP. Why ruin the one game that represents real physics and rockets when everything else already does that rubbish?

Because of the answer-scoring thing on the left the forum sorts the most helpful replies to the top. It makes sense for a pure Q&A forum but it means it's essential to quote the post you're replying to for any replies that aren't straight answers - like this one.

Even if it becomes possible to recreate the galaxy, none of those ridiculous vehicles will ever operate the way the nonsensical films illustrate. If KSP has spacecraft flying like planes, 'capital ships' built the wrong way around and/or with hopelessly asymmetrical thrust it would be just as rubbish as elite. There would certainly be no point in any attempt at realistic physics.

(As an applications analyst) There are three problems inherent to multi-player systems: Can everyone hear me? Communications and synchronisation; quite simply if Star Theory have a plan for addressing time-warp the inter-platform messaging should not be an issue these days. There is no technical reason saves and comms should not be cross-compatible, since the only thing that needs to read them is the game itself. Anyone who says any internet-connected machines can't immediately and automatically communicate (and therefore share data) is trying to charge you a licence fee. Can you see what I see? Shared models. Different platforms have different processing and graphics capabilities so it is necessary to accept that they may have different representations - and will have different limits - for the various models. Possibly the biggest factor in this will be complexity; some platforms will simply not be able to handle scenes as complex as others. That's most likely to limit the number of parts (physics) that can be used and their complexity (graphics) within an 'acceptable' framerate. Users of less-powerful computers will probably just have to accept that their machines tank if they visit more complex and busy areas of a shared universe (eg; a very active space-port). In any case, if KSP allows the same part-set on different platforms (without which it's pretty hard to share tips or designs) then whatever their local representations they should be shareable within limits. It is not guaranteed, for instance, that animations, lighting or even textures will be equally represented even for what is nominally the same part. Again, players will just have to accept that some people can't see their pretty, flashing navigation lights and it shouldn't be much of an issue (but see below on antagonistic games). Parts mods, on the other hand, create an entirely new problem in that other machines (possibly even of the same type) will have no visual or physical representation for them at all. Describing even a very basic collision-box for such parts adds a great deal to the minimum communications volume and complexity. As such, I'd expect constructions with parts-mods to simply not function (or even be allowed) in shared environments. Can you do what I can? Cheat-mods. Pretty much not an issue in co-operative multiplayer but seeing through walls and similar wrecks online FPSs. Militarised, antagonistic, KSP such as Panzer1b might like (I don't know, but I pick him as the most enthusiastic advocate of KSP weaponry that I know) would have the same problems with cheats. While above I've said parts-mods will (and should) probably not be allowed, non-parts mods are better ignored or selected on a per-server basis. In other words, if there is no physics or graphics penalty for someone using a particular mod, why would anyone care that they are? Someone using say, MechJeb, on an otherwise all-manual server affects no-one else if it is co-operative. Wargaming servers will want many more restrictions.

Kerbin High (or other body, as appropriate). Our ships aren't just launched, they graduate.

So much this. What I said a month or so ago and for which I was vilified. The games I have most enjoyed - KSP obviously most played, 4,000+ hours, and Rimworld, fastest to 1,000 hours - cost half that or less on release and I got them even cheaper in early access (£15 and £19 respectively). Quite simply, charging USD $60 for a game signals your intent to take the first week's money and run. The aim is to make profit before the hype-crazed early adopters wake up and reviews dissuade new customers. £30 games instead need compelling gameplay to keep customers coming when reality catches up, if they are to make the same money. Of course, at £15 your game has to actually be good and original, something that not only the computer games industry takes notice of but the wider computer industry and (impossible!) even the industry it seeks to simulate. You might as well try to get NASA staff interested in a rocket simulator! (From Wikipedia's KSP entry, "The game has crossed over into the scientific community with scientists and members of the space industry displaying an interest in the game". Hoorah.)

Hoorah and congratulations! For the record, I don't think anyone was suggesting it didn't happen, we just couldn't understand why it happened. Now we know; thanks :-)

Take Two Interactive. Take your data non-interactively. Everyone warned about this sort of thing, although they've been quite well behaved until now. Just imagine what they'll get up to in wholly-owned KSP 2. Massive price-hike and monetisation, even if microtransactions as such have been ruled out (for now).

I'm with @Streetwind, never seen or heard of this before. Is it a console thing, or are you using a staging mod?

In the past I have vigorously argued for low-orbit circularisation-and-transfer but I have become convinced by the maths that burning directly to high orbit is more efficient. Now I argue for low-orbit first because it's easier, allows for a good phasing orbit if you're rendezvousing with a space-station or similar and, frankly, consistent launches to 75km are something I do without thinking.

KSP 1 was a massive Early Access win for me. Thousands of hours fun and learning for £15. Match that for KSP 2 and I'll buy it*, otherwise you can have twice that at most for the full release, plus updates, plus mods, which would be a similar price to KSP 1 is at the moment. (* But only because it's KSP. The straightforward theft that was Space Simulator taught me never to buy early access again).

The Latin music in the Tropico series is about the only in-game music I don't mute immediately. If there's no option to mute music, I mute the whole game. Hypocritically, I now propose The Primitives' Way Behind Me for every launch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fjehtGnvS0. Naturally matched with the same band's Crash for every landing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1y7NGqfZteg Apologies for ear-worms *grin*

I'm already not buying at launch because of the rip-off price. "Season passes", "collector's editions", DLC, 'exclusives' just worry me more that KSP 2 will be all about price-gouging.

That is sad, he has always been one of my heroes.

I'm ambivalent about this. On the one hand, I'd really like an proper atmospheric model that allowed weather monitoring and forecasting, as Andrei said. On the other hand, that's a lot of computation that could be used for the more important spacecraft modelling and there aren't many bodies you can land on that also have an atmosphere (Kerbin, Eve, Duna, Laythe ?) so it will hardly add anything. Gripping hand, purely cosmetic are a lot simpler but I'd still want to be able to turn them off so I can see what's going on. This is already an issue with the clouds mod in KSP 1.

You said centres of lift and pressure were synonyms and gave me a reference to aircraft stability. While that's all very nice I was talking about drag and rockets and explicitly trying to eliminate lift as a consideration. Drag in KSP mainly arises from the cross-section of the vehicle and is unavoidable. Structural lift is always unnecessary and usually not wanted, as on that design I gave you yesterday which used its classic 'wedding cake' form and engine gimballing to eliminate the fins. Although in that case the base was wider to accommodate the twin engines it was stable because the greater drag generated there was behind the CoM.

Parachutes go at the back, whether you want them to or not.