Search the Community

When you realise that talking to the toothpick is as informative as any other talk, but doesn't require a phone.

Here's my take on that: Kerbals are lichens, a mix of algae or cyanobacteria and fungi. -The algae part gives them their distinctive color while the fungi gives them structural integrity. -Lichens can live thousands of years as the Kerbals. -The algae part can photosynthesize while the fungi part can absorb radiation of outer space, the fungi could also decompose snacks. -Fungi are made of chitin, the same material as crab exoskeleton, not only could their teeth be made of chitin, Kerbals could also have a hard shell to resist shocks and a squishy mushroomy interior lacking organs, making them able to withstand large g-force. -Lichens are extremely resiliant to dehydration, they can dry completely and be rehydrated, Kerbals could hibernate that way during long interplanetary missions. The ESA has exposed lichen to the vacuum of space for 15 days and they were still alive (do not try that one with Kerbals). -Finally, lichens reproduce from divided body parts or with diaspores. When Kerbals explode, they release "smoke", I suggest that that "smoke" is in fact diaspores of the former Kerbal and if we collect it we could regrow the same Kerbal (explaining why some Kerbals return to the KSC after they exploded). Thanks for listening to my Jeb-Talk

Depends on the game really. When I used it for Red Dead Online it was good. My group (trail riders for the record, not some toxic raider party) could communicate without the whole toxic raider [redacted] hearing our plans, and when not using voice we could communicate fairly well in text. Now, flip to a simgle player game like KSP, and its not so useful. In those cases it seems to jaut be chaos. Perhaps because theres no common anchor such as the shared MP game world? I dunno. All in all it reminds me of AOL chat rooms, youtube live steam chats, or IRC all of which I find to be just chaos. I have no need to "chit chat" with people digitally - if I want to do that, I talk to someone IRL. I don't mean that to be rude, if thats your thing have at it, but its not for me.

Can’t seem to find any info except a week old Reddit post; are the starlink v2 sats deorbiting? I would have thought there’d be more talk about it but haven’t seen anything since someone said they noticed them decaying.

Something I realize I didn't actually talk about was the origin and orbital situation of Minmus. Whether its ceramic, ice, or as I envisioned it tar, it's clear that Minmus has a different composition to Kerbin and Mun. As such capture seems to be required. Its orbit then would likely have a higher inclination, though its placement is probably fine. It's possible that Minmus may have caused some instability in the early Kerbin system, but I'm honestly not sure to what extent with how massive Mun is.

between today and tomorrow the first photo of the planets of Expancion to the stars comes to light. so stay tuned since news is also coming to talk and more in the forum after this one Sketches of the other stars will also be shown after Aprif and Courye, who have already confirmed the star number is 7, many planets being created without texture, names of moons, binary planets (spoilers if there are any), stellar systems already configuring things, future projects, names and stellar bodies, AND MUCH MUCH MORE! COME ON BE CAREFUL I'M GETTING EARLY BECAUSE OF THIS!

@R-T-B, you may want to talk to @sarbian and find out how he set up a DEV repository with CKAN. You can add in that via CKAN's Settings > CKAN Settings > Settings window at the top, Metadata Repositories. That way both the current stable release and DEV RELEASE are both available and can be selected in CKAN to either go with stable or with the testing version within CKAN.

I only worked with Unity when modding KSP and I cannot talk about how this works in other games. But my experience was, that the only way to make something more stable without creating a lot of new problems was to add joints. Scaling mass never worked for me. I tried this in KSP 1 for several days when I tried to find a new way to make rockets more stable.

Explain your smolness Pictured is the Logre reconnaissance tiltjet coming in for a landing at landing ship SSX Egerie. While the VTOL is pretty self-explanatory, the carrier is actually a design study on a Laythe operating base. It's built around a single Mk3 fuselage, and features a landing ramp for deploying rovers, an elevator and a flight deck for aircraft, as well as submarine launching dock. My original idea -- to which I may yet revert -- was to even make the flight deck unfold so that I could pack the entire aircraft carrier into a 5 m fairing -- yeah, talk about a tight fit. This craft could serve as Laythe exploration hub, featuring a complement of transport & exploration aircraft (2 helis and 1 tiltjet), a mining rover, and a science-laden sub (yes, it all fits!). Moreover, the carrier can even host lighter VTOL spaceplanes -- the limiting factor is not even flight deck size, but the weight of the spaceplane that, if misplaced, may, well, heel the ship most severely, resulting in aircraft sliding off the flight deck or even a capsizing

Fix the lack of a working download and there'd be none of this scurrilous talk!

JEBEDIAH KERMAN'S MISSION LOG: Y66D242 - 1H30M Remember that oversized drone that the guys at the SPH built for aerial recon on Laythe? Since it worked out so well (for the most part), it was redesigned to carry cargo and passengers - and go faster. I was then bestowed the honor of doing a westward test flight around Kerbin's equator. The E-40 Impulse flying above (one of) Kerbin's deserts. I then got a reminder to turn the nav lights on after this photo was taken. To my surprise, it was rather quiet flying this plane the autopilot was easy to set. All I had to do was set the altitude lock to 7 km and point the nose at a 270-degree heading, and I was all set. Since this was an electric plane, I didn't have to worry about a variable speed since the fuel wouldn't be draining. After all, you can't run out of fuel if you don't use fuel. The plane was also quiet, like you could take a nap without needing earplugs. In fact, I did that immediately after texting this pic to Bill. Looks like I'm running away from the death star in this plane. Approaching the KSC after less than a day of continuous flight. I finished the equatorial flight around Kerbin in 5 HOURS, 11 MINUTES, 30 SECONDS. Bill said that if I lowered the propeller blade angle and flew west, I could leave the plane airborne forever; I have no idea what he meant. After that, a friend of mine from school - I forgot which one, but it was the guy who dressed in a Ohio Glenn jacket and fedora all the time (and once got suspended for bringing a whip) - said that he found the Temple of Tut-Un Jeb-Ahn. According to legend, after the ancient king Tut-Un Jeb-Ahn died from sickness, some of his closest followers built a large religious temple in the empire's capital city to house his body. The king's heir, Tut-Un Jeb-Ahn-Dos, apparently saw an opportunity to strengthen his dynasty's influence by having the high priest announce that his dearly-departed father had become a member of their society's pantheon after his death. In other words, the dead king had become a god to be worshipped. Also according to legend, the gods did not take kindly to the new king's attempt to compare a mortal to them. While Jeb-Ahn-Dos was away seeking his bride, the gods had buried the city and its "blasphemous" inhabitants in a year-long sandstorm. When the king and his new wife returned, they could not find the city anywhere; just large mounds in the desert. The temple of Tut-Un Jeb-Han has been the subject of mythology, fairy tales, classroom discussions, and epic movies (including the first Ohio Glenn) for thousands of years. But until now, nobody ever found it. I then convinced Gus to let me fly to the temple dig site under the pretense that the E-40 needed to do an off-road landing test. He was a bit confused as to why I wanted to fly an hour west towards some incredibly specific coordinates in the desert, but he didn't seem to mind - as long as I brought a couple of Level One kerbalnauts with me for the ride. You can barely make out the resurfaced temple in this picture. Lenson Kerman (Level One - Engineer) was reading the plane specs and performance logs while Camlan Kerman (Level One - Scientist) was asleep. Another successful landing after a little less than an hour. I don't know why the plane has robot scanner arms installed in the back, but am I glad I'm not the one who needs to operate them - just the aircraft itself. Boy, does that temple look awesome - although I must say that whoever designed that crown must have been some edgy ten-year-old. Unbeknownst to us, Lenson has a sister who's a linguist that works at the dig site. That's how he knows so much about this legend. My picture taken in front of the statue of Tut-Un Jeb-Ahn. My dad's side of the family claims that they're direct descendants of him, but I'm personally not sure. I guess we could always ask for a DNA test after they find the body - assuming it wasn't cremated or turned to dust by time. I then uploaded a marker onto our navigation systems in case the KSP wants to send any more personnel or equipment to the dig site. What does all this talk about electric planes and ancient tombs have to do with Laythe missions, you ask? Now that we proved the E-40's capabilities on Kerbin, maybe we can send it to Laythe as a quiet luxury tourist transport across the surface. It may not be as fast or as reliable in terms of fuel as the jet-powered counterparts (especially the refueling-capable ones), but you have to admit the quiet electric motors are easy on the ears.

I don't think what we got on launch day is even a game that deserves the name "KSP" with any number after it, not even as the next version of KSP 1. Not only is there an incredible amount missing BEYOND what was put in the roadmap as "explicitly not present on release", there's loads of basic functionality missing that nobody ever said wouldn't be in the game (non impulsive burn planner, optimized resource calculations, etc). No. Not only that. Instead, the features we DO have are basically like someone was given a bunch of "shiny graphics" aka 3d models and textures and UI assets, and then given 6 months to assemble some sort of space flight simulator sandbox game out of it. As expected given that particular context, only 10% of the things are working in any way consistently, and it's only the most critical things (UI navigation.... and that's about it, and even then sometimes not even that). What is needed is a ground-up reboot from the beginning again, but you can keep the art assets. Start over, this one's no good. Or if you don't start over, consider doing some basic functionality testing and not letting features out the door if they don't work. And I don't mean "they worked once, that's good, send it". I mean detailed "we tried really hard to break it (we even invited Danny2462 and SWDennis and EJ_SA) and it doesn't break" kind of testing. (EJ breaks things in a way that he gets more functionality out of them than was intended, but the other two break things in the "destroy the universe or divide by zero" kind of way). That kind of testing is what I feel like I'm doing when I fire up KSP 2 right now. But I stopped playing it because I don't feel like I'm even giving feedback that would be relevant to what they might be working on now, because they probably cut off this branch as "release".... right when they announced the release date. It does feel like no useful coding work on basic functionality has been done since then. It's kinda hard to keep playing a game when it's not acting like a game. And KSP 2 is not acting like a game. It's acting like "version 0.001 build 3" of a tech demo that was never intended to be a finished game in the first place. And that just kinda drives a knife into the goodwill I had for Private Division and Take-Two. I don't hold Intercept Games accountable for this. This has "publisher said push it out the door or you get no more money" written all over it, and it's always sad to see a game die like that. Management always thinks it knows how long coding the game is going to take, and is ALWAYS wrong about it (because it always takes longer). Marketing always fails to keep expectations in check. Those are two constants in game development at least at the current time. Knowing those two things, the fate of KSP 2's release should have been known since it was announced. And then the pandemic happened, combined with the transfer from Star Theory to Intercept Games, and it all just got even worse. There was OBVIOUSLY critical knowledge lost during that transfer, and the whole work from home thing just doesn't work when you need to talk to someone face to face to make them understand just how important something is or isn't, or how much you really don't have done but can't say because it makes you look like you're not doing anything useful (those are all problems that can be solved but not easily if you're expected to "look like you're doing something" no matter if you're doing something or not). Point is, either PD or TT Interactive said "Don't care, didn't ask, light this candle or I'm gonna tear it down around your ears" and Star Theory just basically didn't have a choice in the matter but to say "Alright, here's that train wreck you ordered" and that's exactly what we got. We got a train wreck of a game. And that's being generous, because we only got 25% of a locomotive, and 10% of 1 freight car. I already played more than 2 hours, so I'm no longer eligible for a refund. But if I had needed the money I spent on KSP 2 for something else that same day, I would have had ZERO problems asking for a very much deserved refund. IMO they have a lot of nerve charging any money at all for this game in the state it's in right now. But what do I want? I don't want the downfall of Intercept Games, or Take-Two Interactive, or Private Division. No. I want this game to become a case study in how to make a bad release of a game, so that the whole video game industry can finally learn that it's been doing things the wrong, stupid way for over 10 years now (or at least the AAA gaming industry has), and finally start releasing games that are FULL GAMES ON RELEASE again. Day one DLC doesn't matter to me. Neither does day one patches. What matters, is that the game is playable upon release. KSP 2 is not currently in a state I would call playable. I keep playing it for a short time here and there to check if anything's changed, and every time I do that, I encounter some kind of bug (often the same "rocket is too wobbly, build smaller and don't go anywhere other than LKO" bug) that just frustrates me so much I stop playing for at least that day if not more. I don't really mind having the game run at 5 FPS with my RTX 3070 Ti GPU and i7-9700k CPU running at 4.6 Ghz (overclocked from the stock speed of 3.6 Ghz), with my 32 GB of DDR4-3200mhz ram. I can make the game lag that much with a rocket that has only 50 parts. Yes that level of performance is unacceptable, considering that it took over 500 parts to get that level of lag in KSP1, on my previous system that wasn't even close to as good as the one I'm using now. But I've played KSP (and other famously low FPS and/or unoptimized games) for so long that 5 FPS is something I can still play in. Right now I'm looking at KSP 2 like a disappointed father looks at their kid. It's the "I'm not angry, but this is unacceptable, and you need to do better, now take a moment to think about what you've done that got you here" look. I'm sure you know the feelings that look gives you. I know I do. It's true. Given the circumstances, I'm not angry at Intercept Games. But it is undeniable that they need to do better. In fact, once they iron out a lot of the bugs, they need to basically do a second launch campaign for this game, because everyone saw the state the game is in right now and went "Nope, not playing that until it gets better". Like I said, they should only do that 2nd launch campaign once they get it into a state where it's performing adequately and rockets aren't falling apart for no reason or turning into noodles because you used the "wrong" part. Oh and about those noodle rockets: Wobbly rockets need to be exterminated. It's no longer "cute" and "oh lol kerbal" when you have an interplanetary mission to Jool sitting on the pad, you go to launch it, and it folds in half and explodes on the way up. "You just need to use more struts" you say. Guess what, tried that, no change. Well, OK, this time it folded 90 degrees and then exploded. So it bent less, but it still exploded. I've made rockets that have literally half the part count made up by struts and only struts (no other structural parts), and they STILL bend and explode. In fact, sometimes putting more struts on them makes them explode SOONER. There have to be other ways of introducing a structural consideration into the design requirements that don't involve the rocket flexing like it's made of a pool noodle and not SOLID METAL TANKS AND BEAMS AND THINGS THAT GENERALLY DON'T BEND. We don't even have the ability to control what auto-strutting is happening, if there is even any of that happening at all. What ever happened to that Physics LOD thing I was hearing about? That made it sound like it would make rockets LESS wobbly, not more. Another feature that couldn't make it to release day?

This is pretty funny, cuz I actually did the same thing. With all the talk about performance, I decided to load up KSP1 with a bunch of visual mods to for a comparison. When I started the game I realized I actually wanted to play. You're right about novelty and challenge as well. Just 3 days in, I've got missions coming back from Jool and Dres that will unlock the rest of the tech tree. That's the point at which I usually start to grow listless. Hoping the first patch stabilizes things a bit. Maybe I'll mess around with planes or something (which I'm terrible at). Uhhh, no. Wasn't thinking that.

I disagree. Important information about the state of the game needs to be on the store page and the web page for the game. You should not be required to follow influencers or Twitter to learn about it. Allowing people to play the game and talk about it, is a good measure on top of their own documentation, but it in no way should replace it.

So - it can vary quite a bit. I realize that's not a satisfying answer so I'll give some examples. For instance, some friends at Turtle Rock let me test the Alpha build for L4D way back when. It was the best Alpha game I'd ever tried. They only had the one level working and maybe one special zombie type, but it was amazingly fun, worked great in multiplayer - but it had limited content. There's a reason Valve partnered with them soon after. I genuinely wanted to stay and try it more afterwards. (This is the sort of impression you'd have of KSP2 if you only listened to Nate talk about it) Almost all Alphas are not that - most projects I've worked on, needless to say, are in worse shape than that. First, there's a question of 'even though you're calling this alpha, is it really'. I'd say most games, especially less well managed projects, tend to do some sort of sliding alpha where management is calling it alpha but actually you're still in production on some/many features. Those projects tend to be the worst to deal with because often management is trying to pretend things are further along than they are, and the notion of having a feature-complete but content-incomplete game that you can start tuning, testing, and iterating as part of good game development practice has fallen by the wayside in favor of arbitrary management milestones (guess which style of Alpha KSP2 is in? ) Second - how buggy are you. Most games in alpha are not constantly crashing bugfests as you'd suspect, but there are areas of the game that may be 'here be pirates' - places that only the dev(s) involved are navigating successfully. But still, the core of the game is stable, on a project that is doing ok. Because what you want as a developer is stability to be able to work, rather than a bunch of side-issues hampering you. Core stuff like, for instance, save-load is often made as bullet proof as possible so QA can hand you a save that points to an issue, for instance - games that are properly managed aim to be stable enough in the feature set that - especially for the content team who don't run the game from a local dev build, aren't losing time. Of course I've been on projects where the alpha IS a crashy bugfest, and those are painful to work on, and usually get delayed a lot, at best. In a well managed process though, even if the bleeding edge of the build is unstable, the content team is still working with a stable version that may be days or sometimes even a week old. Third - on game balance - typically what is missing from alpha is the overall fun. The content hasn't been tuned, designers haven't managed to iterate on things, features maybe work in silo'd isolation but need to be integrated. Alpha is often when the design team gets to see just how well or badly their predictions on things coming together really works, you can't hand wave things anymore. But that said - there are typically pieces of the game that feel fun - if you're not seeing at least sections of it being fun, especially the 'core loop' you're probably in trouble That's another reason Alpha being feature complete is important. And as Alpha progresses, if the design team knew what it was doing, the game as a whole gets more entertaining. If you don't have the full feature set that you expected to have to support the gameplay pillars, though, designers can say 'oh, that parts missing, if we just had that it would be fun' and a project can limp through alpha still sucking. Fourth - on visual fidelity - It varies. Often you'll still see a bunch of missing assets. ut you'll also see parts of the game that are at full fidelity - especially if you did your proper due diligence through the stage gate process, at least one 'vertical slice' of your game has remained functional to show the game in a close-to-final state. This can be difficult with games that are more sandbox than level based, but I'd say, for instance, in KSP2's case, one full-fidelity planet working at expected frame rate would have been a reasonable vertical slice for that. Also the game is not fully optimized, but it's usually 'close enough' - within a factor of 2x (this is a rule of thumb of course, not a law). If you're outside a factor of 2x of your target frame rate on target hardware, that means something needs more than just tweaking to reach it. v Fifth - how does this compare to KSP2. Well, KSP2 is in a weird state. Pieces of it I'd call Beta - buggy but finished essentially. The VAB, for instance. The flight UI. And some aspects of it - like the terrain rendering performance - should have been addressed earlier in the process, as they are fundamental to the game. Pieces of it are missing completely from the release build. In many ways what the release version of KSP2 is now is more like a vertical slice than an alpha product. Depending on who you'd ask, I don't think it's even an 'MVP'. KSP1 of course followed a similar course - it was developed in the meandering process of many indie games - a process that can yield good games, but more often than not its through Darwinian methods, rather than the less-failure prone structured processes that professionals typically try to use. Professional studios cannot afford to have the failure rate that indie developers do, after all. Hopefully this gives you some insight, let me know if not. I'm never quite sure anymore how familiar people are with certain terms, but I'm trying not to use too much jargon.

So … let’s talk about this. Last nigh I landed a crew of four on Minmus as a basic functionality test of a new lander design. I got all four crew out and lined them up next to the flagpole (which rendered as the default KSP flag not my specific selection when starting the campaign, but I digress …) As I watched, they cycled between excitedly dancing in place, yawning, adjusting their helmets, but also scratching their rear ends and quite obviously either farting or peeing, presumably into their suit catheters. While the idea of idle animations as such is fine, I don’t really care awful much for some of the more infantilizing/middle school humor animations like butt scratching and farting. I miss the occasional “terrified Kerbal” trait - we should have animations of them looking around nervously or tentatively, staring up at nebula filled sky with dismay or even fright. We should have some more curiosity-themed animations too - looking down at the soil, pulling out a little widget and “scanning” the ground or the atmosphere with it, etc. In short, I don’t want my Kerbal to be green Minions. I want them to be Kerbals, like they’ve always been. What do YOU think?

Thats not my intention. I encourage everyone to not limit themselves. Learn new stuff and make things happen. Also this is a bit off topic here. Youre all welcome to talk about SpaceDock in its thread.

Oh... yeah, i misunderstand that. Thanks for the explanation. So, isn't there anyway to blacklist restock parts? Like, block them not only for being loaded, but also, load stock parts instead? Maybe I can explain the problem i'm facing: While some parts of restock are cool, and i won't recolour them with other mod that only recolours Stock parts, i prefer them, for example, I won't recolour a thermometer and the textures that come from restock are very cool. Also, i would like to know how to implement restock chute's textures on realchute systems, but this its not where we should talk about it. I already asked in the respective topic for help. So if i can "block" some restock parts for being loaded into the game, can u explain me how can i do that? And i can avoid to load them in the RAM, it's even better!

Ugh. Your KSP.log got truncated, the part I most need to read is not there! Try again, but exit KSP before fetching the KSP.log - there's a thing on the KSP to avoid lagging on the game while writing things into disk, a file buffer, and this means that KSP only updates the file on the disk when the buffer gets full. Exiting KSP will assure that the buffers would be flushed into disk, avoiding the truncation. Something I had noticed, you have installed NearFuture thingies. I think you will want to download the TweakScaleCompanion in order to have support for them. You also have some Benjee10, and I have some issues reported and it ended up being related to duplicated ModuleManagers installed. And, bingo, you have them! [LOG 10:07:52.999] Load(Assembly): /ModuleManager.4.2.1 [LOG 10:07:52.999] AssemblyLoader: Loading assembly at C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program\GameData\ModuleManager.4.2.1.dll [LOG 10:07:53.002] AssemblyLoader: KSPAssembly 'ModuleManager' V2.5.0 [LOG 10:07:53.002] Load(Assembly): /ModuleManager.4.2.2 [LOG 10:07:53.002] AssemblyLoader: Loading assembly at C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program\GameData\ModuleManager.4.2.2.dll [LOG 10:07:53.004] AssemblyLoader: KSPAssembly 'ModuleManager' V2.5.0 This not only is bad for patching, but also forces you to use the OLDER ModuleManager on the system - and so you will be subject to old bugs that add'on authors will think are fixed on your rig (not to mention some missing features only available on the latest). I strongly suggest you install ModuleManagerWatchDog. It would had barked on you about this, possibly saving you some trouble. — — ADDITIONALLY — — I found something fishy about Waterfall: [LOG 10:07:53.090] AssemblyLoader: Loading assembly at C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program\GameData\Waterfall\Plugins\Waterfall.dll [LOG 10:07:53.092] AssemblyLoader: Loading assemblies [ERR 10:07:53.149] ADDON BINDER: Cannot resolve assembly: EVEManager, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null [ERR 10:07:53.150] ADDON BINDER: Cannot resolve assembly: EVEManager, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null [ERR 10:07:53.150] ADDON BINDER: Cannot resolve assembly: Utils, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null [ERR 10:07:53.150] ADDON BINDER: Cannot resolve assembly: Utils, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null [ERR 10:07:53.155] AssemblyLoader: Exception loading 'CelestialShadows': System.Reflection.ReflectionTypeLoadException: Exception of type 'System.Reflection.ReflectionTypeLoadException' was thrown. at (wrapper managed-to-native) System.Reflection.Assembly.GetTypes(System.Reflection.Assembly,bool) at System.Reflection.Assembly.GetTypes () [0x00000] in <9577ac7a62ef43179789031239ba8798>:0 at AssemblyLoader.LoadAssemblies () [0x000e6] in <4b449f2841f84227adfaad3149c8fdba>:0 Additional information about this exception: System.IO.FileNotFoundException: Could not load file or assembly 'EVEManager, Version=1.11.7.1, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null' or one of its dependencies. File name: 'EVEManager, Version=1.11.7.1, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null' System.IO.FileNotFoundException: Could not load file or assembly 'EVEManager, Version=1.11.7.1, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null' or one of its dependencies. File name: 'EVEManager, Version=1.11.7.1, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null' It's complaining that you need to install EVEManager. But EVEManager is installed on your rig, so there's something else happening. You will need to talk with the Waterfall guys to have this sorted, I don't have the slightest clue about it.

Sent this ship (well part of it, anyway) to Duna. The lander/return stage landed right next to the transfer stage. I came for the views. Stayed for the music. Had 8 m/s left in the tank after course correction on return to Kerbin. Talk about tight margins! Happy landings!

DISCLAIMER: This IS NOT a suggestion, request, or complaint. I DO NOT believe that hyper realism is somehow "superior" to the more loose approach KSP and its sequel have taken, and am in fact quite fond of the planetary systems of both KSP1 and KSP2. I am merely using the familiar Kerbol system to talk about planetary science, both for my own amusement and hopefully yours too. The Kerbol system in KSP1 is a setting filled with novel fantastical worlds, but others are hard to tell apart at a glance (particularly Mun, Ike, Dres, and even Tylo to an extent). KSP2 sought to not only bring unique character to these worlds, but also improve the realism of what was previously established, all while making as few modifications to the system's recognizability as possible. This endeavor is not something to be overlooked, and the results are very admirable. However at the same time, I'm a worldbuilder, one who particularly focuses on realistic planetology and has far too much free time. And having had time to stew over KSP2 over the last week and a bit, I want to share my unique perspective on the Kerbol system and what changes I feel could have been done better, as well as what choices I would have made were scientific feasibly my only concern. Kerbol: Carrying over from KSP1, its much larger than what you'd expect for a solar analog. The reason for this is so that it matches the apparent size of Mun in Kerbin's skies for eclipses. However, imo I don't think Kerbol being smaller would take away from this in any way. Additionally, Kerbol is also much redder than a solar analog, looking about 2000-2500 K (for comparison the sun is 5775 K). The lensflare is significantly whiter, looking to be around 4500-5000 K. Moho: Moho obviously draws inspiration from Mercury. The brownish color appears to be rust, however this would likely require an atmosphere to maintain the high oxidation state over geologic timescales. It is also a notable departure from Mercury's ironically iron poor crust and mantle (fun fact), but more than doable. Eve: In the original KSP, Eve's oceans were comprised of "explodium", which presumably is some form of volatile hydrocarbon based fuel. KSP2 reimagines these liquid bodies as molten sulfur instead, and I am very pleased with this. Molten sulfur is an often overlooked fluid on Earth, occasionally occurring as "blue lava" in terrestrial environments and in volcanic pools at the seafloor. However, while sulfur is a very common element in terrestrial worlds, getting enough of it to form deep oceans is practically impossible even with extremely extensive volcanism. Even then, you'd likely require greater sulfur abundances, which would likely reduce density due to iron sulfide in the core. This is in stark contrast to the high density we see with Eve, with an inferred core mass fraction similar to Mercury. Additionally, this does not provide a particularly satisfying explanation for the relatively thin atmosphere of Eve as sulfur cannot sequester CO2 back into the mantle like water. So unfortunately as much as I love the idea of molten sulfur, I think long chain hydrocarbon like parrafin or asphalts would have been better options. A hydrocarbon ocean also lines up very neatly with other observations, as the more reducing conditions would discourage CO2 formation, instead favoring CO, C2H2, CH4, and H2 like in titan's atmosphere. Additionally Mercury's crust is actually quite carbon rich (with graphite making up a few percent of it by weight) so assuming similar processes on Eve would give a large body of reducing carbon to work with. Now as for why Eve is purple, maybe its some retinal based phytoplankton in the atmosphere? Not the best, but still far better than the iodine or fullerene explanations. Gilly: Not much to be said. It's a lovable little potato. Kerbin: I could probably go down a rabbit hole about climate models and tectonics and all sorts of things. But honestly even with realism in mind it serves its purpose as an Earth analog well enough. Mun: I could not have asked for a better interpretation geographically, though offsetting the mare from the near side may conflict with some models for the lunar surface dichotomy. A part of me wishes it wasn't such a perfect moon analog, as it lost what little unique character it had left, but I suppose its larger size and closer proximity will have to do. Minmus: Oh boy, I can certainly see why the dev team struggled to figure this thing out, and tbh I'm stumpted myself. Glass is a good step up from ice, but just creates new problems. Naturally occurring glasses do not make glistenning flat fields, they make jagged boulders which only when sheared reveal their reflective shine. Those of you familiar with Minecraft may recognize obsidian as one of the most popular volcanic glasses, but there are others. Unfortunately most require shock cooling in the presence of water to form, which needless to say is difficult to explain on Minmus. That being said, I gotta give the dev team massive credits for finding something that at least could resemble Minmus. Still, what could Minmus be instead? My best guess would be to once again turn to hydrocarbons, a forming comet long since devoid of water, with only dark organic material and rock. over geologic timescales the tar would be fluid enough to relax into flat almost "lakes". Duna: Obviously Duna is Mars. We all know this, but it actually misses the mark in a major way. This version of Duna is plastered in craters, which while interesting, doesn't line up with the geologic processes we expect to be occurring there. Like Mars, Duna should be tectonically active, especially with Ike for tidal heating. Volcanism and other tectonic processes can do great work in erasing craters from the surface. Also unlike Mars, Duna has a rather respectable atmosphere, and the aeolian erosion should further help to smooth over craters. But speaking of the atmosphere, another unexpected facit of Duna may emerge: precipitation. The atmosphere of Mars is rather thin, and so temperature variation across latitudes is high. As a result, the poles act as very effective cold traps for water ice, keeping the rest of the planet dry. Duna's much thicker atmosphere reduces the strength of these cold traps, as evidenced by the atmosphere itself (Mars' atmosphere is actually limited by the vapor pressure of CO2 at the poles. So because Duna has a thicker CO2 atmosphere, we can infer much higher polar temperatures of >170 K compared to Mars' 140 K). While not much, this does allow for more moisture in the air and cloud formation, which will inevitably come down. This means we can expect snow covered regions extending past the polar ice caps, particularly in lowlying regions and craters. Mars actually does have a few snow-filled craters like Korolev, which are astoundingly beautiful. However in addition to snow there is likely also rain, as Duna's higher pressure can keep water a liquid, and thicker CO2 atmosphere should enable reasonably warm summers. While I don't like the idea of actual lakes or seas for Duna, I do think riverine terrain could be featured much more strongly to imply seasonal melts and drainage paths. Ike: I appreciate the effort that went into diversifying Ike from the other grey worlds, with extinct volcanism being a distinct feature. However, with that being said I really don't feel this was executed very well. The current volcanoes are mentioned as being extinct, which means active resurfacing is no longer taking place. As such, we should still expect significant cratering (at least more than Duna) on Ike. Additionally while stratovolcanoes are a neat touch, more expansive flat volcanoes and basaltic lava fields would be more accurate, as our own moon also has a history of volcanism. If activity does continue to the modern day, one might also expect some discoloration around the volcanic regions, like a very desaturated and far less extreme version of Io. It’s also possible that there could be some discoloration through surface oxidation, either from material delivered from Duna or native oxidation via a trace volcanic atmosphere (ie less than what KSP defines as vacuum) which is also similar to what is present on Io, though the low temperatures there freeze most of it out. Dres: First off, love the rings. And the equatorial bulge does suggest a complex history with past rings long since lost, as obviously the present rings cannot have fallen to the surface and still be present. However, I think the Iapetus inspiration went a bit too far with the two-tone design. The reason for this is quite simple, it doesn't work for Dres. For this we must take a brisk detour to see why Iapetus looks the way it does. TL;DR, dark dust from Phoebe coats the leading hemispheres of all the major Saturnian moons, and because Iapetus has the longest days its the only one that got hot enough for a feedback loop of bright ice sublimating leaving darker organics causing more sublimation etc. Now, Dres doesn't have any way to preferentially deposit dark material on it, and even if it did, being much further in its already hot enough for this feedback loop to occur over the entire surface (which is why Ceres is actually very dark). So unfortunately this just cant work here. However, cryovolcanism can create bright spots on the surface (like Ceres), and brighter ring material can at least lighten the equatorial region, so not all is lost. Jool: Jool is still just a big green gas giant. Why is it so green? honestly aliens putting paint in isn't the worst option. Plants can be green, but to completely cover a gas giant in such a brilliant shade requires an exceptionally large biomass. Chlorine enrichment is also a non-starter, since you really can't enrich gas giants without some absurd tomfoolery or enriching other stuff as well to make it a moot point, chlorine isn't even that green, and it would form chlorides and sink below the visible cloud deck. As for Jool's moons, one might be familiar with the fact that Jool's moons are extremely unstable if actually simulated. This is for two reasons, one: they are in a laplace resonance, which is pretty trick to actually keep stabilizing, and two: they're just SO DARN MASSIVE. For comparison, Jool is 80 times more massive than Kerbin, comparable to what Saturn is to Earth. Tylo is 80% the mass the Kerbin, compared to Titan being just 2% the mass of Earth. And Jool has two other moons nearly as large. If I were splitting hairs, I'd probably do some combination of making the moons less massive, making Jool more massive, and opting for a less troublesome resonance chain and greater separations. But that is quite a departure form the architecture of KSP1, so its understandable why they didn't. Laythe: Keeping Laythe's oceans liquid is a challenge. It'd be trivial to just add enough hydrogen or methane, but oxygen puts a cap on how abundant those can be. CO2 freezes out of the upper atmosphere; nitrogen oxides break down too quickly; natural antifreeze mixtures can’t get cold enough; tectonic heating, while great for interiors, does nothing for surface temp. The only real option is to turn to CFCs, potent and long-lived GHGs which can also handle low temps and oxygen, but you'd have to rely on biology. The oceans would probably end up with some hydrochloric acid in it and both them and the atmosphere may turn slightly green from chlorine. Regarding its terrain, Laythe’s only terrain seems to be crater rims, which really doesn’t line up with the thick atmosphere, and active geology. As presently depicted, Laythe should have terrain far more similar to Kerbin, albeit heavily inundated, with a higher focus on volcanic island chains. Laythe's terrain is also pretty monotone, and some color variation would be nice with dark basaltic volcanoes and lighter shores. Also because greenhouse heating is responsible for Laythe's clement temperatures, you shouldn't expect any latitudinal temperature variations, and so the poles would be no colder than the equator and thus iceless. Vall: While I love the dichotomy between its hemispheres, the explanation for it is troublesome. Unless Jool was far hotter (either through a young age or very high mass), its radiation cannot be the cause for this disparity. Jool’s gravitation influence will however produce increased tectonic activity at the poles as well as the leading and trailing points (as seen with Enceladus, Dione, Miranda, and potentially even Titan)vbut there really aren’t any signs of activity on Vall at all beyond the single crack revealing the subsurface ocean (or more likely a liquid inclusion in the icy crust above it), so more signs that this world is indeed active would be good. It’s also lso worth noting that Vall is far less dense than either Laythe or Tylo, suggesting a higher water mass fraction. We also see this in Jupiter’s outer moons, but unlike them, Vall is sandwiched between two more rocky worlds. Were Vall swapped with Tylo, it would fit better compositionally, but this would create its own problems. Tylo: I love the new Ganymede-inspired direction of Tylo, and think its perfect fit. My only real issue with Tylo is its higher density compared to Vall. As previously mentioned this could be resolved by swapping the two, but that would also mean Tylo would be more active than Vall. Alternatively reducing the density of Tylo and/or increasing the density of Vall would be the simpler option. Bop: Bop is an interesting case. I like its irregular appearance and love the massive crater. But at the same time, being more massive than both Minmus and Pol, small rounded worlds, one would expect Bop to be similarly shaped. I think the easiest solution would just be to swap the sizes and masses of Bop and Pol. Pol: It clearly draws inspiration from Io, with a volcanic and sulfur covered surface. Unfortunately this conflicts with its distant orbit, where tidal heating is pretty negligible. Pol is mentioned to have a high radiation environment, which if the result of very extreme radioisotope enrichment might be able to resolve this contention, however that would necessitate an interstellar origin of Pol, which is disfavored by its low inclination orbit of Jool and synchronous rotation. This explanation would fit better if instead Pol were not tidally locked to Jool and orbited at a greater distance and much higher inclination (30-70° / 110-160°) Alternatively, Pol could be moved to a more circular orbit interior to Laythe where tidal heating would be sufficient to drive volcanism. Its high radiation environment would then be the result of its volcanism producing a plasma torus around Jool. Eeloo: I have my doubts that Eeloo would be active enough to produce its observed features (bright surface and large ravines) with its relatively small size and in the absence of any companions. Its lack of a nitrogen atmosphere is also a bit troubling, as it suggests processing within a circumplanetary disk to reset its volatile composition. One possible interpretation from this is that Eeloo is an ejected moon of Jool, though I am unsure of the feasibility of it entering a 2:3 orbital resonance after this. This would also suggest a much more chaotic history of the Joolean system, making orbital resonances between its moons unlikely. Additionally, Eeloo would become inactive after its ejection so a darker and non-reflective surface would be expected. So what’s my overall take on things? I like it. There is a clear attention to detail that has been put into making the objects more realistic while preserving the existing content and diversifying the system. I feel greater realism could have been achieved if greater departures were taken, which I feel I’ve adequately illustrated. But realism was not the sole goal of the development team, and it’s extremely important to keep that in mind. Again, I am not claiming that realism is somehow better. A lot of people couldn’t care less if the world they land on is realistic or not, and that is certainly a respectable opinion that I too have on occasion. Fantastical environments can give rise to unique gameplay challenges that pure realism often cannot. Does it really matter if Tylo’s probably too big and dense? Of course not. It’s a fun challenge to go to and without its size and gravity that would be diminished. Heck, this entire time I’ve been glossing over the scale of the Kerbol system. Obviously its smaller than irl, which results in all sorts of weird densities, but it makes launching easier and more approachable. However at the same time, when realism can add to a world to make it more unique, I can’t help but feel it’s a missed opportunity.

We talk about BG features, breaking ground surface features call "ROC". like Mun crater, Large Mun crater etc... This is my log with kopernicus installed and this issue : https://drive.google.com/file/d/17O0wXe5EkSK7Kk-U7ofh29kxa9JdZBWx/view?usp=share_link And without kopernicus and no issue : (all breaking grounds surfaces features are ok) https://drive.google.com/file/d/14V-BUYZs6lOaAcJh2YIDLBvXUvmsERDj/view?usp=share_link

Greetings and welcome, the way I leared was trough video tutorials on youtube, so someone can talk you trough it and maybe give some good tips along the way

You do relaize that when i talk about the UI i talk about the general looks and style and not about little details and bugs/problems it had? If to you it seems as if i wanted to say that KSP1s UI was perfect - i never meant to say that. I dont have to have expericence in design to know if a UI is more or less ergonomic for me to use. Compressing everything in a small area isnt good design. The view is actually blocked a lot since lots of pointless things are constantly visible or way to big or have grey boxes that block additional view for no reason. I never had a problem with the SAS buttons - they were perfeclty fine - the new ones are way too big. Also those are things most people would probably control via hotkeys at some point if possible. Why should time use up so much time and why move it where you just argued is the most important space of the screen? In genearl shouldnt most of those functions be something done via hotkeys anyways? No i dont like it because having lots of information with lots of details in the same area actually leads to me taking longer to find that information. Im also pretty sure that the new Interface actually takes up more % of the screen than the old one.

It's not news that updates are coming slow, for a game in early access I am vastly disappointed not in the bugs but it the lack of action fixing them, yes I know that the devs are hard at work fixing them, but it's been two weeks, and the game is exactly the same as it was when it came out. Most early access games would ha e been updated, a few times by now(take Son's of the forest, the game came out in ea a day before ksp2 and has already had a few updates, other early access games like subnautica below zero had updates when they were released). "But Kerbol!" I hear you say "The devs said that they are going to fix them in a big update!, be patient!" And to this comes my suggestion, an experimental development branch, where users can test the latest changes to the games code. That way the impatient users(me) can get the bug fixes earlier, but also catch new bugs and issues before they hit the main branch(and we have to wait a month for a bug fix). Experimental branches are common on early access, Ravenfield, Stranded Deep and both Subnauticas used them(Subnautica's received daily updates with the stuff the devs did that day) Microsoft flight simulator, while it is a complete game, uses a beta branch to test new updates(the devs had a history of breaking half the game after an update). TL:DR: Add a separate branch for users that gets updated more frequently and with minimal testing, users get the bug fixes earlier and find new bugs before they reach the main branch, win win) Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.