Search the Community

Regular advertising. No whiskey commercial will ever tell you that you won't become a chick magnet without a hideous headache next morning. You need 3rd party sources. That's normal. and I'm questioning those too on occasion... It gets progressively harder because it dissolves into speculation (or even more ridiculous stuff, check a few posts above). Those with positive opinions usually end up with something like: "You can't know that yet", which is fair assessment... I can't. As an example, my biggest worry is the implementation of calculating heat transfers, electric and fuel consumption on so many active vessels. I have no idea how that can be done. There's a whole thread on it, where a few members contributed with their thoughts. I'm still in the dark regardless. Probably my ignorance on the subject. If so many people are committed to see that implemented, I guess they have some idea how. Or all of that talk is just cat urine, and the game will cease development at some point... But now we're getting back to speculation. I hope more dev diaries will be released...

Then I don't ask, how it should distinguish nail (a sharp iron stick) and nail (a finger cover). P.S. Just noticed, that it's very dangerous to talk to AI in English, "Open the chest."

Leg 10: Kermundsen -> Harvester Jeb's plane gets fixed up in a jiffy. Off to Harvester Airfield! These weirdly shaped mountains are a result of "polar pinching", where a planet's texture is distorted significantly at the poles. Back on grasslands now... Over here it's almost always sunset, so nothing special. The airfield is on the top of that plauteau... Just before landing, Jeb experiments with activating his suit parachute. But this only causes the plane to spin out, so he has to cut it. Ho-hum. Leg 11: Harvester -> Kerman Atoll Now this time, the engineers try putting the OneOscar in a tricycle configuration. Hopefully this will stop it blowing up. What interesting buildings this airport has. A observatory, many hangars, and a spaceplane hangar-thing??? How intriguing. Leaving the mountains behind me... i thought i only had one visual mod why this look so aesthetic or something? Approaching the Kerman Atoll. And yes it's a big kerbal face. This sunset has been going on a long time thanks to our speed eastwards. Jeb don't mess this up- *vine boom* Leg 12: Kerman Atoll to KSC (i hope) Well that was quick. Bye, suspiciously large airport on a tiny island! This kerbal face is so menacing up close... ] THE MUN!!!!!!!!!!!!! and besides that I'm flying blind. Jeb:Wait is that the Kola Airport Jeb: That really is the Airport. And that's the KSC! Jeb: Better not botch this up when everyone's watching. Jeb: Nailed it! Shortly after Jeb lands at KSC, he is quickly brought into the Admin building to talk to Gene. Jeb: Hey Gene, can I have my job back now? Gene: I wouldn't want to, but we would look bad if you went through all that trouble for nothing. So welcome back to the team! Please don't do anything idiotic... Jeb: Of course I wouldn't! This flying house is very safe I promise! ------------------------------------------ Big thanks to @Socraticat for the plane ideas! I guess this is the end so bye!

Granted. The thread is alive again! So alive that it grew arms and legs and can now walk and talk. (Make a Wish, and Have it Horribly Corrupted)

You're mistaking style and user experience. Making ksp2 style skeuomorphic wouldn't change a thing on its ergonomics (Well a bit on contrast), same as changing ksp1 style to a more "modern" design. That's why I said it's something we can like, because it's subjective. And no, everything in the ksp1 interface is not logical or polished. That was the point of my post, that we should talk about specific points to take the best of both worlds. (We don't even know if we are talking about the flight UI, the vab or the map view). For the improvement of ksp2 over ksp1 (that I don't want them to undo, even if some of those are really tiny things): Flight UI: The staging placement on the right: much more logical, same side in the vab and in flight (and on the same side than the MP, EC... infos) Important flight info located in one place: the navball (I don't know why those infos where separated one at the top and one at the bottom) The navball to the side: highly controversial take but I'm sorry, apart from nostalgia it makes no sense to block the view with this. At least we could change it. We can grab the throtle Fuel remaining showed with numbers Vertical acceleration is a much more readable thing (a round indicator is imo very bad) Timewarp always shown SAS controls are a bit more intuitive (and icons change when you are in a landing/launching situation), maybe a bit too big though VAB: Subcategories: that's saving lives, so much better to have things organized Size on each parts: same when I go back to ksp1 I hate that this feature is not there Craft saves pictures are bigger, it lets me see a bit more what I'm looking at Icons are more logical, coherent and polished (Also a bit bigger sometimes) Translation and rotation tools squished together Map view: Altimeter doesn't disappear when I'm switching to map view Can move the focus with the mouse (not only on a planet/rocket) The maneuver trajectory is shown and is not instantaneous: This one is less of a UI thing (I think?) but still is much more intuitive that way. Orbit tesselation (Dev diary about that: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/topic/201736-developer-insights-9-–-orbit-tessellation/) No need to double click to focus, but right click and click on the button "focus": I think it's better because you're not missclicking and we can focus on our vessel without shortcut. (I went back to ksp1 and omg I can't focus on a planet easily) SOI displayed The UI intercept icons are better for colorblind: This one is not quite perfect because it's actually confusing to know what 1A and 2A means, but I suggested a better solution here: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/topic/215896-intercept-ui-indicator-is-confusing/?do=findComment&comment=4265820 which was improved by Kavaeric (last link of this post)). I wanted to mention this because in a UI we also think about accessibility (and not just make it an option), contrast also falls under that. For the things that ksp1 does better: Flight UI: PAW obviously (but I want both because the PAM is sometimes useful; as linked in my original post: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/topic/218109-bring-back-ksp1s-paw-menu-system-alongside-ksp2s-current-pam-menu-system/) Smaller white space in the PAW (The PAM in ksp2 has too much white space) VAB Info per stages (TWR my beloved) When we grab thing for staging, it's more clear what you grab (It follows your mouse) Map view The DeltaV remaining in the maneuver is shown More saturated orbit colors Most of what I want is here and I won't list them all (Even if it's not all of what ksp1 does): https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/topic/217412-uiux-suggestion-patched-conics-ui-proposal/ Note: I probably forgot a lot of things (Making a UI is hard). I didn't necessarily state features that were missing from ksp2 which can still be added easily without changing the UI (like a maneuver editor) so you would maybe want to add some things in the "what ksp1 does better". I also didn't mention bugs because those are not intentional and are meant to be in the bug reports forum and it's not relevant for the suggestions forum. (Like the maneuver clipping through planets or the PE missing on different SOI). Finally some of the things are not strictly UI. That's how I want to hear about the UI: precise point. Then we can discuss what's specifically wrong. We can't guess what people are talking about when they say "The UI is bad".

Bill, newly annointed Master of Space Engineering, is eager to get to work excavating exotic ores from faraway places. Imagine his excitement when he receives his first mission to the Mun. "Am I going to learn to drill?" he asks. "No. It doesn't work that way. You're going to plant a flag on the Mun." "Why?" "For experience." "Oh, then I'll get to drill?" "No. It doesn't work that way. Next, we'll send you to Duna." "Oh, there's a drilling academy there where I'll learn about drilling?" "No. You'll plant another flag." "Why?" "For more experience." "But I'll already have flag planting experience. I need drilling experience." "Well planting that flag will give you drilling experience." "Oh. OK, then I'll just take a drill with me so I can use my experience after I plant the flag." "Well, no." "Why not?" "Because we need to bring you back to officially log the experience in your record." "Can't I just radio it in?" "No." "So, I'm going to spend a year planting flags so I can get experience in drilling. Without ever touching a drill. For a year." "Or longer. That's right." "Um, that's not what I signed up for." May I humbly suggest that the XP mechanic for engineers be tied to engineering tasks such as actually drilling, repairing and repacking and science experience be tied to things like conducting experiments, manning a lab and surveying planets? Pilots can get XP planting flags because they're kind of stupid anyway and we need to give them something to pin on their chest.

Take away... all of human history. So the counterfactual with no atomic bomb research involves no WW1, am I right? In which case fission is discovered and people understand the implications (power/bombs), but no one works the military angle because Kaiser Wilhelm II (he died in 1941) has no military interests, nor does the crown prince—who was kinda hoping Hitler would restore the monarchy, so... nah, he's all in for peace, he probably turns Germany into a hippie commune or something. Without WW1, Ludendorff doesn't send Lenin to Russia. There's likely no revolution precipitated by the terrible losses in WW1 in the first place, so the Tsar is still around, least til he expires naturally. Unsure who follows, his son was not very healthy. Archduke Franz Ferdinand presumably never gets killed, or are we assuming WW1 doesn;t start for some other reason? So his son now head Austria-Hungary I guess. Europe is still the "Diplomacy" map—but totally peaceful. For reasons. And somehow the Japanese, run my militarists after the Meiji Restoration—interested in chemical and even bio-warfare have no interest, again, for reasons. Sorry, they are inevitable. Not if, when. That's all that changes. The US started because they thought the Germans were working the issue—having just discovered fission. That the Soviets did the same is unsurprising. The Germans might have had more luck had they stolen from people working harder on it (espionage), too. The reality is that fission bombs are not hard to conceive of, the stumbling block is the materials. As soon as people try for the peaceful use for just power, they will get bomb grade stuff as "waste," so bombs are inevitable. Yes, I am counting air attack. I was explicit in saying the Japanese Empire was under attack, not Japan (though they had been bombed, once). Japan (meaning home islands) was impacted from the start (not huge in 1942, but increasing over time). They imported all their oil (80% from the US before the war), and most other inputs into their economy. The war started to capture the Netherlands East Indies—for oil. They succeeded, but they never had a large enough merchant marine to supply themselves on their own, and they started a war with... everyone. Then the US submarines of course waged unrestricted warfare on their merchant shipping. This was incredibly effective, though the sinkings right off the coast of Japan were minor to start. Much of their wartime supply came across the Sea of Japan from China, though, which kept them going until our subs owned those waters as well. Japan would need to literally mine Uranium from somewhere they controlled, this was likely a huge limiting factor. Not to mention they just had so few other resources. Minus ww2, do they still occupy much of China, or does our no WW1 counterfactual result in a peaceful Japan? Japan had already lost long before, but they refused to surrender. The bombs absolutely worked, and precipitated surrender. For many years histories would show that Japanese diplomats were cabling home saying they should negotiate, and that they tried to talk to the Soviets. Books before 1996 lack some of the declassified codebreaking information—now we know what the replies were from Tokyo. In short, "No negotiation until after we bleed them on the beaches." (paraphrase). We might have put off the invasion, and merely burned their cities to the ground the "old fashioned way" (including Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which had only been spared as test targets). They still burn, it just takes more sorties. Course the Soviets then invade Manchuria, and the IJA forces in China that had a fairly calm war, then get clobbered by 1945 Soviet power, which would make their previous interaction with the Soviets look like a garden party. They would have likely been killed to a man by the Soviets, just as the Marines had to kill virtually all (they rarely surrendered), so would the Soviets. Only in fixed, old fashioned land battle, no islands... real TANKS (which the IJA lacked and were kinda terrified of). Also artillery. The Japanese were incredibly weak on artillery. So the Soviets grab up much of China, and the US has to invade Japan (which was planned—read Downfall, if you haven't, great book).

3 cores, three times the number of sensor limits that could be violated. I also think talk of reusability limits being violated is premature. Also, the centre core is never before flown and the side boosters have flown twice. This falcon heavy is a rookie by falcon standards. It could be they've recently encountered a new fleet issue that they're currently keeping an enhanced eye on, or it may be a higher number of scrubs right now is just dumb luck.

I won't enter the matter of the discussion, I haven't seen the video and I won't (never really liked Matt move from good gameplay videos to being yet another sensationalist infotainment gaming channel). But I've skimmed the thread, and I think it's missing an important consideration about Harvester being hesitant to talk about KSP2, or being careful, or whatever is the point of contention here even is. He is a developer releasing a new game, a new only marginally related game with a very different scope and size. Kinda like Obsidian when they released Outer Worlds. How well did it work for them presenting themselves in the marketing with those bold: "From the only true, real, original, and good creators of Fallout and Fallout New Vegas" claims? Well, sure enough Outer Worlds wasn't the Fallout NV 2 people hyped it up to be as a consequence, and they had to spend the last few weeks before release trying to set realistic expectations. Back to Harvester, Balsa never really took off, and I still haven't checked what's going on with the rebranding, but sure enough it's not a good idea to start comparing your still unreleased game/update/rebrand with another game, as it will almost certainly backfire.

I suppose a younger person who might get married later and have someone to leave the money to could err on the side of whole life, and cash it out should they find themselves permanently single. I didn't get life insurance until I was married, FWIW, never occurred to me. I suppose that's a bit like the P-47 pilot I heard give a talk at an 8th AF luncheon years ago. He said that as young men, if during a briefing they were told, "9 out of 10 of you won't be coming home today." every single one of them would be looking around the room thinking, "You poor BLEEPs."

I haven't been following because it's crazy talk. Likely designed to distract the rubes.

You see, this is the main reason I like to talk to people that previously maintained/create any code I maintain (both on hobby as in Day Job®). There're only a few ways on doing things right, but a huge amount of other ways to do things wrong. The more I know about the later, better may chances on the former. However… My personal experience on modding KSP (and I have some reasonable knowledge since 1.2.2, as I choose to keep backwards compatibility on everything I do), is not soooo kind about the team (or at least, part of them) that took over after HarvesteR departure. There're a lot of huge, huge mistakes and bugs lingering there for almost a decade, and they failed to correct fix them - worst, they created worst bugs and unnecessary collateral effects by naively trying to tackle down some of that bugs. There're a few decisions on the thing that really made me mad over the years. I'm not complaining about bugs happening - bugs are unavoidable consequences on doing new things. I'm complaining about they not being diagnosed and/or fixed. Other thing that caught my attention is he explaining how he found the need of doing a more detailed city to play at - since the crafts would be essentially toy sized, things around should be way more detailed than if the crafts were normal sized. People are going to look at bricks, not at walls while playing! Another thing that I found pretty clever: the use of Cities: Skylines as a Scene Editor for the KitBasch's city, taking advantage of an add'on that implemented Open Street Map I think. I'll buy this game as soon as it is on sale (and the thing works on MacOS!) Take in consideration that he signed a (probably pretty nasty) NDA when he left, and I'm almost sure that NDA is still in force. So, there's a chance he was feeling exactly like that (besides I doubt Nate would be the gunner).

Skeuomorphism (what ksp1 UI style is) is a design that was trendy around 2010 but isn't anymore, just look at Iphone evolution. Imo it's horrendous but I get that some people are a bit nostalgic about it. And about ksp2, I hate when we bring the UI and people are just binary about it like "ksp1 UI is better" and the opposite. Talk about a specific point because there are horrible choices made in ksp1 (like the placement of things) in the same way ksp2 have some (like the parts manager). Let's try to have the best UI, not the exact previous one with its flaws. The UI changes every single patch, so this UI is definitely not set in stone. (Remember the previous maneuver? A lot better now) I find it a lot more productive to be precise about things and even find solutions rather than say "ksp2 bad, ksp1 UI better" which is frankly not always true. Actually, some previous topics already made that so go discuss specific points here:

Absolutely NOT in my opinion. He made so many wrong calls, that KSP1 started progressing in a right direction only after he left. if you talk off-record over a beer or two to any of late KSP devs who has seen Harverster's late days in the team, you won't hear many good words about him. That's not to take away his achievement of the very creation of KSP, but at some point things turned for the worse. That just shows once again importance of leaving at just the right time before your star has finally set for good.

I'm gonna talk about the possible human remains found in the sub. I'll put it in a spoiler box since it will probably be upsetting to some;

@AngryBaer 1. On that I only mean the broadest strokes. Colonies, resources, interstellar (and multiplayer tho tbh that one I’m not as excited for.) The steps and exact vision will be different and no I am not expecting feature parity with CGI trailers with hundreds of ships. Absolutely some take this point too far like you say. 2. This is a good point. I couldn’t imagine yelling at a waiter regardless of the quality of service. And this is why I try and and make sure the object of my frustration is clearly communicated. I’m angrily criticizing whatever suit decided to charge $50 for this and launch in the state it’s in. To me they were either wholly incompetent, or willfully deceitful launching those trailers knowing what’s going on behind the scenes. Either way those type of publishing decisions is what I want the gaming community at large to stop putting up with. People who complained about the developers going on vacation were rude. As far as “where is re-entry comments” my view is quite simple. They know they messed up there yet they don’t acknowledge it. I mess up constantly. I apologize to my wife, my coworkers even my son who’s too young to talk. An acknowledgment and an apology shows mutual respect. My irritation with this situation is 90% the lack of acknowledgment or an apology. It seems more similar to people who gaslight and manipulate out of taking responsibility and lines up more with the “ksp2 is an intentional scam” narrative than I believe is true or would like. A post about thermal systems was the perfect time for a “we are sorry we missed our goal on the timing of this feature but here is how we are working hard to make it awesome.” That line would make me not bring it up anymore. Not getting that line to me is disrespectful, but I agree with the point and will do my best to keep my voicing of this frustration limited and pointed at the right people. It’s just easy to get more frustrated the longer the problem is ignored. I agree that the investment was large enough they will try to recoup that by funding development for a long time. My fear is that it’s already been a long time and the pace of progress has not given reason for confidence. On communication style, absolutely there has been improvement. They are still not as open as most EA titles I have played during development. Most are able to say “sorry” for not hitting a stated development milestone on time or, if they know they are still building a system in the game from the ground up, do not promise it to come out “a short while after launch.” But I don’t want to be a negative Nancy, I agree progress is being made just sharing why I feel there is still some criticism here.

@moeggzYou can't expect the KSP2 apologists to be polite when they don't face nearly the sort of scrutiny that the 'haters' do from the powers that be - and they know being rude and getting people to fight in threads they don't like gives those same powers the excuse they're looking for to lock them. Win-win from their perspective, they get to trash talk AND they get to silence people.

Just as the more determined of the apologists have taken the contrarian view and will grant infinite patience and understanding now matter how absurd the contortions required to grant IG the benefit of the doubt are. Potato potato. Is hanging out on a game forum, discussing an EA stage game where the devs are clearly on their own road and not at all paying attention to the community, a productive use of time for anyone, whatever their opinion is? I personally find it cathartic to share my thoughts, but I'm not under the assumption that I'm changing anyone's mind or doing something productive with my time. You asked a question of 'why' but you yourself seem fairly locked in on your own take too. These have gotten somewhat better, but my sense is that it's more 'we literally can't gild the turd more because the release is the release' When they talk about long term plans - and when you look at the pre-release communications, especially over the years, it seemed like they BS'd as much as they possibly thought they could get away with. Even Nate's more recent comms about how the delays are for better QA (next release - major showstopper got released and had to be hotfixed) and for feature work (no feature work is evident) still rub me the wrong way.

It actually could have been much clearer, but generally people who actually know what they are talking about (which is quite obviously the case here) tend to also know better than to talk excrements about other peoples work that they know nothing about.

This is how a developer who's awkwardly struggling to say something nice while also being totally honest sounds, in transparent and unscripted human statements. Such a breath of fresh air. I absolutely love how he then moves on to talk about how there's no wobbliness in his current game, because even he knows that was jank to be learned from and moved past.

One further note: The current maintainer of TweakScale has not requested to have TweakScale removed from CKAN. CKAN has a strict policy that such requests are to be honored; mods are only in CKAN if the author agrees to it and doesn't request removal. You can draw your own conclusion about how seriously to take talk of "ditched" and "support" based on that.

Personally, if it doesn't have an ascent autopilot and a landing autopilot, I'm probably not going to play much until a mod comes out that adds such. Or maybe I will play it, but I for sure will be intentionally over-designing my craft to compensate. I'm not a terrible pilot, but MechJeb is simply superior in every way to my skills, especially in the ascent autopilot part. Also, I've been playing since KSP 0.13.3 when they just added Minmus (no other planets) and you still only had like 20 parts in the game in total. KSP used to be an entirely different game, where you tried to get into space and who knows if you make it or not until you do or don't. There's plenty of remnants of that in modern-day KSP 1, and some of them need to be shown the door. Which one am I going to talk about today? This persistent community opinion of "do it yourself before you have the thing do it for you". IRL, not a single rocket has ever flown to orbit under manual control. They've all been on essentially MechJeb (of varying degrees of complexity). IRL, EVERYTHING except maybe the most final of the final parts of docking and landing are all 100% computer-controlled. Yes, there were a few times that the Space Shuttle was hand-flown thru reentry, just to prove it was possible. Apparently, RTLS of the Shuttle should it have a problem on ascent was also to be flown more or less manually. However (and I know this is going to be controversial), the Space Shuttle shouldn't have ever had wings for the job it was stated to do, that happened because the Air Force wanted to do "a stunt in space" and I do mean "stunt" as in movie stunt because it's about as practical. That stunt is to fly into a polar orbit (something the Shuttle never did in operation) directly into a rendezvous with a foreign spy satellite or something of that nature, put it in the cargo bay (somehow, nobody's ever shown me how they intended to secure the thing so it didn't throw off the CG of the orbiter, or how they'd measure the satellites mass so quickly), and then deorbit and land right close to where they launched from, ALL WITHIN A SINGLE ORBIT. You want a hollywood stunt, you look no further, that's the biggest stunt that's ever been proposed. Could the shuttle have theoretically done it? I won't say the chance is zero, but it's certainly not good odds, and IMO chances are high that they'd get shot down over Russia by ASAT weapons for trying. Did that make the shuttle's design incredibly tightly constrained to the point that it's what we have in museums today? Oh very much yes, we could have had something much more attainable and reliable and affordable if it hadn't had to pull this crazy "air force on drugs" stunt that nobody seems to have said "hey this is crazy, you can take your idea and pound sand" to. Just look at the Chrysler SERV. Much more modest spaceplane, with a fully recoverable first and 2nd stage, and it still has a pretty big payload bay so yes you can loft your own spy satellites with it. But going back to the talk of the autopilot. The fact that the shuttle did a few stunts doesn't invalidate the fact that literally every rocket to reach a stable orbit has done so fully under the automatic control of a computer of some sort, or at the very least a heading hold autopilot and an autopilot that tells the rocket to "pitch to this angle to the horizon at this time" with many data points, to emulate a gravity turn. Ascent autopilots don't have to be crazy complex to work well. Like I said, they can be as simple as a heading hold and a smooth or not-so-smooth transition from vertical flight to horizontal acceleration. But please, PLEASE, let me have an ascent and a landing autopilot sooner rather than later. I guess I could be asked to prove it 3 times, but I'm just going to build a rocket dedicated to unlocking that and then be done with that design forever, it's going to be unmanned if that's at all possible, and it's going to have very generous performance margins that I know I can do the mission in, unlike the vehicles I would be building WITH that automation, which I would be able to design with much tighter margins because even if the automation isn't as efficient as a human player pilot CAN be, what it DOES beat a human player pilot at (especially when that player is inexperienced), is consistency. Given the same design, same starting conditions, and the same target (either of an orbit or of a location on the surface), that automation will do exactly the same thing every time, because computers are deterministic machines, and if you feed one the same data, it always outputs the same result. Because of this deterministic nature, the autopilot could actually be USED TO TEACH the player the very things some people in this thread are saying need to be proven by the player before the automation would be unlocked. So, say you have just loaded up the game for the first time, and you've built a rocket you think can reach orbit. You click on the launch button, and instead of your rocket launching, the game saves the scene and loads something else. What you get presented with is a tutorial about gravity turns and how getting to orbit is more about going fast sideways than it is about gaining altitude. This would be followed by a demonstration scene loading with an example rocket, and this rocket (since the autopilot is deterministic) would perform the ascent and gravity turn as the tutorial's parameters told it to, thereby demonstrating with ACTUAL in-game gameplay about how to get to orbit, with the gameplay pausing at certain moments to point out what the autopilot is doing at certain points (such as "vertical ascent", "gravity turn", "Ap fine-tuning", "Coast to circularization", "circularization", and if needed, "fine tuning orbital plane and LAN/ArgPe" if the craft's design is slightly inefficient and perhaps biased to fly left better than right, for example). See, IMO the animated tutorials can be nice, but nothing beats showing the player what it should look like when things are going right. You could go even further and show what it looks like when certain common things go wrong, for instance "TWR too low early in ascent" (could even make reference to the famous "More boosters" line here), "boosters hit center core" (show player that the Sepratron is great for preventing that), "Upper stage TWR is too low" (burns up in the atmosphere before it can make orbit), or the most frequent one of all: "Rocket is not aerodynamically stable" (but make it super obvious by putting a lot of fins on the front and showing that it wants to fly backwards). You could even use this "guided simulation tutorial" kind of experience to build up a simulation in the vein of a "How to not go to space" video. IMO it would start out best with some (to seasoned players) "monstrosity" of a crazy looking rocket that "should be obvious that it never gets to space" (again, according to seasoned players), and as things go wrong (the first thing that should go wrong is "check yo staging"), the rocket's design changes according to the advice given, gradually evolving thru a series of "intentionally shown mistakes" in to a rocket that is finally perfectly capable of reaching orbit with enough fuel left to deorbit or maybe reach the Mun. EDIT: Why do it this way? Well it's simple. This game is INCREDIBLY complex, and if anyone's familiar with the concept of a "learning curve", KSP doesn't have one. KSP has a pretty much vertical "learning fortress wall" that is incredibly tall and is angled at like 89.999 degrees relative to horizontal. In other words, it's incredibly difficult to understand these things about spaceflight without having your hand held the whole way thru the process. Can that be annoying to people that know what they're doing? Of course, so an option to skip these tutorials should be present (and unlike the skip options in some video games, it should in actuality skip literally the whole tutorial, the only advice the player should be given should they hit the skip button is to point out where to find the button to start the tutorials again). But if they don't skip the tutorials, the player should be shown the concepts needed to get a rocket into orbit (or whatever the tutorial is trying to teach). A concerted effort needs to be made to break each concept up into small digestible bits of info that won't make the player's eyes glaze over, we're talking about complex science here (there's a good reason people compare complex things to being "like rocket science", and if KSP doesn't use rocket science I don't know what does) and "eyes glazing over combined with inability to process the information presented" is an entirely too common reaction to science subjects, so we need to be aware of that and work to prevent it from happening (somehow, not sure how, but it needs to happen if this game is going to be popular). :END EDIT

5/10. I appreciate the philosophical stuff about human flaws, but the way you talk is too formal and suspicious. Of course I am a human, I have passed a Captcha test before.

I just made quick but extensive tutorial about the FDAI (navball) - Flight Director Attitude Indicator. An incredible instrument ! First flown on Gemini, then Apollo, the Space Shutlle, and still used today ! : ) I talk about its history a bit, as well as its functionning, and then how it used in KSP retro styled IVAs, with some examples Cheers

Good afternoon, intrepid Kerbonauts! Lots of stuff to talk about today! As many of you know, a couple of new bugs were introduced with last week’s v0.1.3.0 patch. The most significant of these bugs relates to a loss of atmospheric drag (and physics in general) when capsules are decoupled. For the first time ever, we issued a hotfix to correct that issue yesterday morning. Yesterday’s v0.1.3.1 hotfix also contained a fix for a VAB bug in which fairing editor UI elements were drawing on top of one another. We discovered after yesterday’s hotfix that people were unable to launch the game outside of the Private Division launcher. This was not intentional, and has been fixed — due to a configuration error on our end, we accidentally included Steam’s built-in DRM. KSP2 is DRM-free, just like KSP1. The fixed update was pushed to Steam this morning. Sorry for the headache! We’re testing a second hotfix (timing TBD) that corrects the blurry navball issue. And because we’re sneaky little devils, we’re also doing some testing around a fix for the SOI transition trajectory bug. If these fixes prove stable and low-risk, we’ll release a second hotfix. Fingers crossed! The work that’s gone into the SOI transition issue — number 2 on our top-ten most wanted bugs list — deserves a special mention. Engineers David Tregoning, Mark Jones, and Shalma Wegsman put in colossal efforts to both track down the cause of the issue and to craft a solution. This one has been a long time coming, and it’s great to be able to knock such a big item off the list. The credit for the fast turnaround on all the latest fixes goes to a well-coordinated joint effort between engineers, production, and QA. We’re still learning as we go, but things are feeling good. Bugs: The Next Generation Based on the Bug Reports subforum, these are the community’s 10 most-upvoted bugs: Orbital Decay [25 votes] Incorrect Maneuver on Inclination Change [10 votes] Cannot Change Craft/Vessel Name in Tracking Station [9 votes] AIRBRAKES Deploying on Roll [9 votes] Camera Resets Position Map View [8 votes] Graphic Glitches on AMD [8 votes] Engine Sound Effects Not Playing [7 votes] Cannot Change Symmetry While Holding Strut [7 votes] Center of Mass/Thrust/Pressure Vectors sitting on VAB Floor [6 votes] UI Artifacting [6 votes] Note: Navball Blurry [18 votes] and SOI Trajectory Line Issues [18 votes] have been left out of the above list since we're considering them for the second hotfix. Thank you to everyone who took the time to submit bugs in the subforum. Even if you don’t have a new issue to report, your upvotes help us determine the relative priority of the bugs that have already been posted. While we investigate the bugs above, two other non-feature items also feature in our top ten: Rockets are still too wobbly SAS causes runaway pitch oscillation for aircraft in flight Lots to do! Thanks again for submitting such detailed and well-documented bug reports. It’s going to be a busy month! Art Director Kristina Ness AMA Did you catch our Art Director’s AMA yesterday? She was asked lots of interesting questions, many of which ranged well beyond the domain of art. She gave fantastic and detailed answers, and if you missed the stream, it’s definitely worth watching here. With the help of streaming-wizard Dakota, she even got to show off some visuals as well! You can find a transcript of the AMA here as well. Thanks, Ness! KSP2 Steam Sale This is the second week of Private Division’s 20% off sale for KSP2, which ends on July 13th. If you’ve got any friends who you think might enjoy the last little bit of heat-free reentry during Early Access, now’s a great time to tell them about the sale! Weekly Challenge Last week’s Jool 5 challenge produced some of the coolest, most ambitious craft designs we’ve seen in KSP2. Check out this absolute unit from DarlesChickens: Or this beauty from Razorback: And here’s a unique one from Tr1gonometry: We know that in the Wobbly Rocket Era, missions of this kind can be extra challenging. Kudos to everybody who braved the bugs and slipped the surly bonds of Kerbin regardless! This week’s challenge? You’re putting on an air show! Build a maneuverable stunt plane and show off your fancy flying skills. Buzz the tower! Under the bridge! Do some barrel rolls! To get specific: Primary goal: Fly an inside loop, an Immelmann turn, and a split-s turn Secondary goal: Fly an outside loop, a barrel roll, and a hammerhead stall turn Jeb-level goal: Fly under the R&D Bridge as fast as you can Val-level goal: Fly under the parking garage bridges (from the water), under the R&D bridge, and then back through the parking bridges Tim C-level goal: Fly a loop arouund the R&D bridge so that you pass under it twice in one maneuver Don’t forget to wear your G-suit — you’re about generate some wing loads that’ll make your crew chief very grumpy! While your screenshots are always welcome, video capture will be the best way to show off your maneuvering prowess. Good luck! Summer Changes Now that summer’s here, with all its vacation-related comings and goings, I’ll be letting other parts of our team handle forum posting for a while. In the coming month, you’ll still see the following on the forums: Bug report updates More AMAs Challenges In addition, we’ll be uploading more gameplay clips to our social channels. I’ll still be lurking both here and on Discord, so you’ll see me in the comments from time to time. We’ve got a lot of good momentum coming off the last update and we’re already making great headway on the next one. I’m looking forward to sharing our progress with you soon.