Search the Community

Let's talk about your other point about the KSP1 documentation being lacking. I happen to agree with you there and see both the existing KSP1 docs and what we've got going for KSP2 as a necessary but not sufficient thing. Can you elaborate on what you'd really like to see in addition to the existing KSP1 documentation? I'm asking because our KSP2 docs are themselves highly extensible via articles and your feedback here would be valuable in helping us move the ball forward! What kinds of articles do you think we should add to a site like that so we can better meet the needs of the modding community?

In the video you linked we see Nate Simpson talking about modding (and representing Star Theory, not yet IG). I played it multiple times and listened carefully, but did not hear where he promised documentation specifically. Scott Manley says things like "make it easy, not have to decompile, un obfuscate large parts of the code", and Nate is clearly nodding his head emphatically through that part. Nate answered by saying "That's one of the nice things about knowing exactly what you're gonna make when you start making it, so we can really make some core architectural decisions to make sure that it's highly moddable, highly stable, highly expandable, ... we wanna see a platform that has a life... I mean the original game's continued to evolve over nearly a decade..." That said, I've yet to hear anything from IG other than that they want to support modding. I'd be quite surprised if they don't deliver some sort of documentation at some point, but what I see and hear in this video is a clear articulation of support in general, not a specific promise of documentation. For that matter, I'd say based on what I've seen that they have, in fact, delivered much of what they said they want to do in this video. We do have a highly moddable game with a core architecture that reflects their design choices to make it so. In the three patches (4 counting the hot fix) that have come out so far there have been only very minimal impact to mods - though a good portion of the credit for that belongs to people like @munix and @cheese3660 wisely making design decisions at our end to ensure there's minimal impact. Let's talk about the other point you made where you seemed to be implying that we're practicing some form of piracy and may in fact be in violation of this forum's rules. Did you visit the site we linked? If so, did you happen to notice the long and detailed article I wrote there meticulously describing the process we followed? If not, then I'd like to encourage you to please read it. https://schlosrat.github.io/articles/HowMade.html The site we've got is made without decompiling the game's code. The information presented is the same as what you'd get from Visual Studio if you dropped an untouched copy of the Assembly-CSharp.dll in as a dependency and then wrote your own code to use it. All we've got is the publically available API interface that the code itself presents. There's not a single line of source code from the game. You might want to give that a gander before suggesting that piracy is a foot, my friend.

No, those two sentences are the exact ones they have to use when asked about stuff they can't talk about, by a myriad of reasons. In fact, those are the phrases they should've used when the community mentions "1000 parts" or when they were asked in the interview. Did you listen to the podcast? Since you ask about context, we can move a minute back, starting from around 1:12:00 and end after the full quote. Nate and Paul are (were, since Paul got fired) a team, and it seems to me you're assuming they went in blind and got assaulted with questions and were incapable of saying no to this one question in particular, or for Nate to be incapable of stopping Paul. Well, not only do I not believe any of that, but they're also a team representing the same company and product, so what one ways, unless the other interjects and denies, goes. Interviewer: You kinda touched on this earlier. Have any features from mods inspired features in KSP2? Answer (Nate): Yes, the easiest answer is visual fidelity, it needs to feel epic, and there've been a number of visual mods for KSP that have raised the bar regarding what's possible. [...] Eve and Scatterer [...] at least show what the minimum should be and we want to exceed that drastically. We talked about parts mods as well, and when you're making a game that has a bunch of interstellar class engines, Nertea has set the bar very high. We need to be about as realistic and detailed. Is there anything else that pops into your head Paul? Paul at 1:13:35: We're working with some graphics engineers not only to make our game more beautiful but again performant, we've got some numbers in this week for what our expectations are on machines and holy **** it looks great and performs great. [...] Interviewer: That's awesome, specially when you have these massive arrays of rigidbody parts. If you have a 1000 parts craft in KSP1 your computer is not gonna be having a good time, no matter what computer it is. Paul again: That's one of the big boulders we're breaking apart on the engineering team, making sure that framerate performance does not suffer, I mean look, the scale of KSP2 is so much larger than KSP1, with so many more orbital bodies and potentially so many more ships and colonies doing autonomous background systems there's so much more to maintain, there's so many more systems that are just living in simulation, so we've gotta make sure the thing you're seeing on screen is behaving in a physically accurate and interesting and educational manner that makes sense and is still fun gameplay, but then all these things in the background are still doing what they're doing, is something is in some geosynchronous orbit and you back to it a year later it has be in the right place considering where it is in time, no matter how many times you're timewarping, no matter how many other colonies you have, how many other ships you have or are being built. So making sure all of that feels consistent while the thing that you're doing right now: to have fun or explore or build or launch or blow up in some spectacular fashion is also also there and awesome and feels tactile and realistic, like that is the number one challenge for the engineering team right now. I mean if you just change my example to say whatever else, yeah, sure. That's not what happened, and you have the quote up there to read, and years of evidence of them promising a finished, performant product all over. Sony is not half as demanding as you make it sound though, even for first party titles (Bloodborne comes to mind), heck, even the KSP1 port on the PS4 was painful. Yes, but they've decided to not say anything happened, so since we're working with their textual words to discount "1000 part ships" promises and others, we can't quote them saying something happened, we can only quote them saying KSP2 will come out performant, or if you ignore the last year, a full product and performant.

The amount of "we can't talk about that" and "no comments", and the average (low) quality and seemingly improvised nature of most of Nate interviews makes me think otherwise. Here they're talking on a podcast that was new at the time, not CNN. Implies it's Nate talking. Implies it's only one person saying all of this, and that person being Nate. Conveniently you've also cut out all the discussion about the background simulation. That's misleading at best. There's a whole argument to be had about the gaming community making up Devs promises and then getting angry at things they've imagined while they over-hyped themselves to oblivion. A big part of it is that anyone trying to deflate hype and debunk fake lies is seen as an enemy twice at first then they don't blindly believe at everything the hype machine says, pointing out that nobody ever talked about something, or confirmed anything. And then after the game released when they say that the thing they where hyped about was never even mentioned by any actual dev. Then someone makes a list of lies on Reddit, or Crowbcat makes a video, both of which will be 90% wrong, but still saying it automatically puts you in a "you're the enemy" position. I'm still not saying that it's the case here, I'm more than open to receive a definitive piece of evidence, a recording or post from Nate saying "100000+ parts", but weirdly enough while everyone seems to agree that that was promised, the only examples are 2 interviews in which the devs clearly evade the question and are very careful at not committing to anything. Interviewer: "Mr. Dev, will your car have 5 doors?" Mr. Dev: "Well, doors, uh? It's a thing we're working on... You see, you can't have a car without doors, and we're working on this new type of hinges that will optimize the door utilization, allowing us to have a number doors on our car." The community: "You've heard that? They said the car will have 10 doors! And that hinges must be needed to flap the doors and fly, so fully autonomous flight capabilities too" The car releases, it has 3 doors, the community is mad because it can't fly.

A typical US warhead is ~60cm in diameter. Assuming a lofted trajectory, its passing through the 100km orbit twice, and at a high angle, so punching through a sheet of debris. With a cross sectional area of 0.28m2, that cloud needs to be incredibly dense to ensure a hit in 1 pass, only slightly less dense to insure a hit with 2 passes. Seems like a complete non-starter to me. You'd need a constellation such that they can uniformly deny tiny objects passage, and at incredibly short notice. If you wait until launch, they need to cover the entire orbit over launch areas uniformly in under 2 minutes. Launch, launch detected, double checked, warning sent to decision maker (that should be plural for all this stuff, IMNSHO, 1 person is a Bad Idea™), decision has to be made, tick, tock, tick tock... trigger pulled. Even very optimistically, the devices need to disperse stuff to insure a RV gets clobbered (randomly) in what, a minute? The second pass obviously gives more time, but I'd almost write off the first pass. I attended a talk about SDI at the physics dept in the 80s, can't remember who gave it, it was someone pretty high up (might have been Teller, I did see him give a talk, can't remember if that was the one). One point that came up was that countermeasures are cheaper than the SDI measure. So for directed energy weapons, spin the rocket so the beam must dwell longer. For KKVs, dummy warheads, etc. Even if such a system knocked out X%, you only need to ensure that a certain % get through. Launch more, more MIRVs, etc. Course the debris cloud idea avoids the target acquisition problem, which is a plus. A friend of mine (programmer) worked on SDI as well. He couldn't talk about his specific work, but he told me that it was all BS. He said something like, "You could give me satellites with (Star Trek) Phasers on them, and it wouldn't matter. The communications lag, seeing targets, deciding which to attack, then sharing with neighboring sats so they don't all shoot the same target is enough of an issue that many get hit multiple times, many get through since the weapon that should have killed them fired on the one already doomed, instead."

I ban you right back to your starting point from my last ban, only now there are 500,000 times the mosquitos and 1 sentient gator that wants to talk to you about your cars extended warranty and an exciting time share opportunity. But wait theres more! He has an opportunity for you in his mlm! 011507082023

Hello everybody. My name is Dr. K Kerbal. I only started this account today and I am really enthusiastic about KSP. I am really good at making close versions to NASA's real craft such as the Saturn V rocket, the SLS, space shuttle and much more. I realy enjoy people liking me and love giving out information and solving troubleshooting. I really like reviewing mods and cant wait to get a few subscribers to my account!

Talk about colony parts and other star systems has me excited. It means they aren't going "We all work on Stage One, then we all work on Stage Two". I know we've been told that already, but finding out about progress on the Roadmap gives me hope that the delays are in bugfixing the 'Foundation', so that the rest of the Roadmap will be faster.

If you talk about this: He mentions how some of the change that we'll see is disabling some graphics for low settings to allow even more people playing the game (alongside other optimization for everyone). We can already see some examples of these changes in the previous patches: No ETA on other optimization though (beside the occasional ones each patch), especially the new terrain system. I hope we'll get some news on this (I think it will take several months but I would like to know if their implementation is getting good results).

July 20th, 2029 For 7 years now, the Artemis Program has been going strong. Artemis Base Camp has been set up, the Lunar Gateway has grown considerably, and several more countries have joined the Artemis Program. Including China! This why today, on the 60th anniversary of the Moon Landing, NASA announced something ground breaking- the first mission to Mars. The media is unable to talk about anything else. The technology is proven, international relations are good, and the support is strong. It's time for humanity to make the next giant leap. Artemis 13 on the launchpad, a few weeks from launch. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- People have done recreations of humans on Mars in the 1980s, people have done recreations of the Constellation program. But I'm doing an idea of what could be. Provided the Artemis Program goes well with 2 launches per year, and the U.S. and China get over their pointless quarrels, this is a future that can be! Expect the first post either tomorrow or a couple days from now, I need to smooth out a couple bumps with the SLS. Inspired by these threads: One Giant Leap | An Alternate History of Space Exploration by @track The Hyperion Program: Kerbalkind's Return to Space - It's Back (Again)! by @Autochrome Kānāwai: Ares to Mars by @Jay The Amazing Toaster The Integrated Program Plan | A reconstruction of NASA's follow up to the Apollo program from 1969 by @Beccab

@adsii1970, I want to add that I think your tireless effort in curating the TOTM is also a worthy and great contribution to our community. I may have come across as overly harsh in my post above, and so I want to publicly apologize for that. One of the best things about KSP (1 or 2) has always been the community and how we work to help each other. Your work helps others to spot and find interesting, helpful, and fun threads - and as such your work here deserves to be celebrated! I just hope you might reconsider your position on the use of mods. It really does make me sad to see someone with a platform saying they're not going to use or even talk about KSP2 mods. If you would like a hand installing any to try them out I would be delighted to personally spend my time helping you.

The clarification you made it's nice and a bit reassuring, but It would be nice if the KSP2 dev team would stop shooting themselves on the foot every week. You're like 2 years behind schedule, the game is a demo at best, and someone decided it was a good idea to talk about having DRM on a Kerbal Game? I don't want to be rude, but the mere suggestion of it, on this timeline, suggest some of the dev team is spending too much time on Eelo and too little time on Earth.

I didn't talk about most people's position, what most people want can be found in the outcome of the poll when concerning wobbly rockets.

Hey Untoldwind, I think it would be easier to discuss and help improve this mod if we have a discord server where we can discuss changes, bugs, and showcase what we made. Here is the link: https://discord.gg/wMpSergFKc Join if you want to showcase your projects/talk about the mod. Hopefully Untoldwind joins so we can more efficiently give suggestions and report bugs.

FYI because someone complained about PSAs, but I hope they just don't hate TLAs If you accidentally activate your parachutes, before they semi deploy you can right click on them and select disarm... at which point the menu option changes to deploy again. A very useful change if I do say so myself....

Yeah, it should be noted that Eve-ascent is probably the hardest challenge in the game. There are so many phases that you need to think about, and you kind of have to do it in reverse order and it's easy to end up in a situation where what you've designed just won't work and you need to start again. So let's talk about the phases in reverse order -- The ascent: You will need a vessel with roughly 8k delta v to go from the surface of Eve at sea level to orbit around Eve. It needs to be as aerodynamic as possible, and needs to have as little payload as possible - including doing the stuff that you always forget to do like removing monopropellent from the capsule. Save every gram you can! You want a separate craft to rendezvous with the orbital craft, either to pick up the crew, or dock with it to take it back to Kerbin if you want. Don't try and design it to get all the way back to Kerbin from the surface of Eve -- you'll be adding a lot of additional complexity to an already mammoth task. If you have MechJeb installed, use its delta v calculator in the VAB, set the body to Eve and pay attention to the SLT number - this is the surface-level-thrust and takes into account the atmosphere. It should be above one for every stage within your rocket (except possibly the final orbital-insertion burn). Because of Eve's gravity and soup-like atmosphere, you'll need big powerful engines that work well in atmospheres - the Vector, the aerospike, and if you've gone really big, the Mammoth. You also want it as aerodynamic and as slippery as a fish whilst in the atmosphere as the drag from that atmosphere will huuuurt your chances. My typical ascent profile tends to be straight up for the first 35k of atmosphere and *then* do the gravity turn. And seriously, think about aerodynamics when designing. I had a rocket that could make it from sea level with ~1k delta v to spare, I added some stabilising standard fins to it because the gravity turn was a bit hairy to pilot and just the addition of those fins made it such that the rocket would then not even get close to orbital velocity. With Kerbin, you can brute-force stuff, use reaction wheels, not worry about aerodynamics all that much, but with Eve you very much have to care, We also want to talk here about staging, which you will have to do in some way to get to 8k delta v. I have often designed my Eve ascender where ejected stages just end up crashing into the rocket, and no amount of separatrons fixed it. You should carefully consider the aerodynamic forces that will be at play when you eject stages -- is the atmosphere going to push on it on one side after ejection, and cause a rotation that smashes it into the active stages? Stuff that can help: Tail fins are the best stock aerodynamic surface in the game. Use them for aerodynamic stability, not just on your Eve ascenders but on every rocket that goes in an atmosphere. Try to make the rocket relatively tall and thin. It's kind of cheaty but a closed air-intake is the most aerodynamic thing you can put in an airstream. When doing the gravity turn be *gradual* - it's easy to cause flip-out, ruining your chances of reaching orbit. Make sure to eject every gram of weight off your ascent stage before ascending - don't take the landing legs or the deflated parachutes with you. If you want more than a one-man ascender, consider using the aircraft cabins as they're the lightest crew-to-cabin ratio you can get. Don't be afraid to throttle back when in the lower atmosphere - in the dense soup below about 20k, trying to go above about 250ms means that almost all of your thrust is going to be effectively used by aerodynamic drag and not accelerating your rocket. The ground: So you managed to land! Congrats! You thought about how the Kerbal was going to get from the capsule high up on the rocket to the ground to plant a flag and get back didn't you? Before moving from the ground-phase to the ascent phase, you should be able to eject everything that is unnecessary for the ascent phase - parachutes, ladders, science gear, ISRU, ore tanks, etc. If it's not needed for the ascent get rid of it before you start ascending. With the kerbal-to-the-ground problem, there's two basic ways - either have a capsule low-down near the ground, where you can then 'transfer' crew from the bottom capsule to the one that they'll be sitting in when they launch (disadvantage - you lose science experiments), or have a Acme corporation ladder-style arrangement from the top capsule to the ground that can be ejected before take-off. Stock landing gear suuucks on Eve. You can easily end up with situations where it vibrates, explodes, judders or simply doesn't hold it steady, and blows up in bad ways if you shift focus to another vessel and back again. This just generally means extra testing, careful placement, lots of strutting and possibly fiddling with some damper / spring settings in advanced tweakables, For particularly large landers it can sometimes be worth trying just landing everything on girders rather than landing gear, as they're pretty sturdy and don't suffer from the same issues as stock landing gear (they suffer from DIFFERENT issues!). The other issue will be slow movement - you can perhaps use ground tether to fix this which should work most of the time but may also occasionally cause some of your landing gear to explode either immediately or when shifting focus from to another vessel and back. When a vehicle is moving, even very slowly, a Kerbal on a ladder will not have the option to 'climb out', which gives rise to certain scenarios where a kerbal can get out, reach the ground to plant the flag, and then not be able to return to the capsule, so if possible, have your ladder array such that a Kerbal can go round something circular, let go and simply be standing on something rather than always requiring 'climb out' to be available. The descent: From a low orbit of Eve, you will be hitting the atmosphere at approximately 3km/s. For an interplanetary intercept, you'll be hitting at least 4 km/s and also won't have much choice on *where* you land. Both are dangerous and extremely likely to make things blow up on atmospheric entry without heatshields. However, just sticking a big heatshield on the bottom is unlikely to work, because to make it aerodynamic in the ascent phase, the rocket is now tall and thin, meaning that the centre of mass of the rocket is a long way from the heatshield. Which means as soon as you start hitting the soupy atmosphere, the craft will then spin round to face the titanic heat of atmospheric entry and blow up. The way to fix this is to add extra heatshields at the top of your rocket, at an angle, like the following image. What this will do is make it a little like a very draggy dart - the heatshields acting as the flights on a dart to keep it firmly planted in the direction of travel, and all the fragile explodey-bits safe from the air-stream. Continually rotating the craft during atmospheric entry can also help as it allows different bits to heat up at different times, possibly preventing an explosion. Naturally, if you go with the configuration in the image, your entire rocket *must* fit above a 10 metre heatshield, which may involve redesigning the ascent or ground stages. If you find you need the upper heatshields, you will also need the ability to eject them as soon as you reach a low enough speed (500ms ish). After ejecting the upper heatshields, you then need to inflate the parachutes, which I only tend to do once I'm below 10k in altitude - it's easy to end up with a situation where you eject the top heatshields, inflate the parachutes and then because you no longer have the draggy things at the top have Eve's gravity accelerate you to the point where the parachutes go poof. Which isn't great. Then, after the parachutes have fully deployed, you should be able to eject the bottom heatshield without crashing into it (adding weight / separatrons can help here - if it's too light, i.e. just the heatshield it's easy to crash into it and have your precious engines destroyed). Don't forget to deploy your landing gear after this and hope you don't land on a steep slope ! Off Kerbin / to Eve: Given the amount of effort involved in designing the Eve-portion of the craft, I'd recommend just brute-forcing it however you can to get it there. You have mammoths available on Kerbin and can refuel vessels in orbit - do it and don't care about the cost! I also try to get the vehicle in a relatively low orbit around Eve before attempting descent/ascent, as this will mean I can more easily pick a landing spot and I'll be hitting the atmosphere at the lowest speed. Testing If you're not adverse to it, design and test it in Sandbox mode, use debug F12 cheat menu to put it in orbit of Eve for testing, and only copy the craft over to your "real" game when you're happy. If you want to test in sandbox mode at Kerbin, there's a few bits of "simulation" that you can try which will get close to the conditions you'll experience at Eve: By putting the craft in a highly elliptical orbit and then adjusting the periapsis to hit the surface, the craft will hit Kerbin's atmosphere at roughly the same speed as you enter Eve's at from low orbit. The ascent phase you design should be able to lift off from Kerbin, get to orbit, de-orbit, get close to the ground (you won't have landing gear to actually land) and then make it back into orbit a second time. You should also test whether the kerbal can successfully get out of the capsule, to the ground, and back up to the capsule and safely eject all of the parachutes/landing gear/etc.

I don’t think this matters, insofar as deciding what is relevant to discussion and what isn’t. Starship is intended to land humans on Mars in the 2030s. I myself believe the relationship between *the country SpaceX is located in* and *the country in the process of building a modular space station called Tiangong* are so grave that before talking about Starship on Mars we need to “talk” about the possibility of Boca Chica going up in a 5 megaton mushroom cloud, but I don’t bring that up because it doesn’t contribute to the discussion. Just as discussing the possibility of nuclear war doesn’t add to the discussion of Starship, I don’t think detailed analysis of Russian economics is relevant to the ROSS. As far as what contributes and what doesn’t, I think it goes like this- Is the issue “small” enough that it can easily be solved and make a change in spaceflight AND directly relates to spaceflight and not some other issue? Then it contributes. An example of this is how people have mentioned the retirement of Senator Shelby from Alabama as a possibly stepping stone towards the retirement of SLS. That’s a thing that is now happening and might make a contribution to spaceflight. Those comments have been made before, and slide despite technically being politics. Is the issue gargantuan? Then it does not contribute to the discussion. Why bring up geopolitics or economics when even professional analysts themselves have no idea how to solve these problems? To share these issues with no plausible solution available is either a complaint (if there is no intent to attract replies) or blatant off topic (if the intent is to initiate a political or economic discussion). If there was no “no politics” rule here, I can’t help but think the actual space discussion would pale in comparison to the political and economic arguments that would spring up in this thread. It needs to be kept mild for a reason. I think that is partially because of a lack of interest in Russian spaceflight rather than the program supposedly being tied to economics. If it had the level of following and available information we do with SpaceX, we would have discussions about Russian spaceflight with the depth and passion we get with SpaceX and Rocketlab. That’s on the poor organization of the program too though obviously. But anyways, if you can’t discuss it without getting into politics you just don’t discuss it. That’s why the ISRO thread is nearly silent instead of being a discussion about the economics of India and why they can’t do more in space. And why the JAXA thread is sparse instead of a discussion about population decline and economic stagnation and how that affects spaceflight. That is practically what most of the threads in this section of the forum are; sharing tweets with news and then offering a little comment on them. Occasionally offering technical analysis spanning 3-4 posts. If there is no news, you just don’t talk about it. We don’t discuss SpaceX’s labor policies or the commercial viability of Starship. Those types of discussions usually start out in a “negative” post not unlike the ones you usually make in response to news about ROSS, devolve into personal comments and politics, and then get ruled OT following a thread lock. Now I would like to make something clear. I am not saying your opinions aren’t valid or “negative thoughts should be kept to one’s self”. I am just saying they don’t belong on the forum, or at least ones beyond “mild” small remarks don’t belong here. It seems like a double standard, and it arguably is (insofar “as politics are not allowed”, comments about the way Congress funds SLS should be removed and ruled OT as well, along with “pork” comments, just as discussion about whathaveyou in the CNSA and Russian threads are, yet they slide), but that’s how things roll here.

The problem in this case is, well, the elephant in the room. Or the Mûmakil, as DDE put it, because the ordinary allegory doesn't quite suffice. The US and EU might have issues with their economics and domestic policies, but Russia has issues. It is difficult to go into details or provide any sort of context without sounding overly negative or coming off as unpleasant, because there's just so many aspects that create worry for the space program. And without details or context, what sort of discussion is there to be had? I think “The Russian economy isn’t doing too well, they may not be able to afford their new space station” is putting it very mildly. I dare even call it a euphemism. The aforementioned issues have broader and deeper implications than calling into question the space station project. I wouldn't consider it an exaggeration that the Russian space program itself is in danger for multiple reasons, half of which aren't even related to the, er, "events of 2022". It is kinda difficult to have any sort of discussion of the Russian space program without acknowleding that it is threatened by all sorts of concurrent perils at the moment. I would consider it relevant to (if not entirely overshadowing) pretty much any sub-topic worthy of discussion. But if discussion is only permitted if the issues aren't mentioned, or swaddled in multiple layers of euphemisms, it loses all purpose. How can one meaningfully talk about the Russian space program without acknowledging any of the numerous complicating circumstances under which it is presently operating? Things are, or at least seem, bad at the moment. They've seemed bad for a long time, but now it's really time to bring out the italics. Following the rule of caution, I haven't responded to several posts that responded to mine. I definitely think there are fallacies in them, but I keep them to myself because it's pretty much impossible to formulate a counter-argument without stepping over the red line. Sure, it keeps the thread clean, but I really think it stifles the discussion. So what is left to talk about? Laconic reports on the various launches along the lines of "A Soyuz launched today", with a strict "never discuss matters outside the frame of the picture/video" policy? Pretending that all is fine and dandy with a "no negative news" rule? Saying nothing? Because if the inconveniences are to be ignored or never talked about, there's precious little else to discuss regarding the Russian space program at the moment. Never mind that forcing silence about political issues can be a political statement in itself. In that case, you might as well lock the entire thread instead.

@Dakota, I wasn't the poster who called it 'PR fluff', but it definitely came off a little too stage managed. My suggestions for the next would be to 1) have someone other than an Intercept Games employee moderating and asking the questions, and 2) do the talk while the subject of the session is playing the current build of the game live. Here's an interview Scott Manley did years ago with the developers of KSP1 - Talking With The Developers Of Kerbal Space Program At GDC 2014 - YouTube It's certainly not perfect - you can see the Squad Community Manager hovering awkwardly in the background recording the session, and the devs are a bit guarded at times talking about upcoming features in the game (ion engine thrust and acceleration under timewarp it appears were still being discussed). But by having an independent journalist or fan asking the questions does give it a better feel of authenticity. With 1), obviously I get why you would instinctively want to keep control of the process as much as possible. But remember - the person doing the AMA can always answer "no comment" or "I'm not sure about the answer to that" if a question comes up that might be outside of their remit. And 2), the part about seeing the developers playing the game live, we really haven't seen enough of this throughout KSP2's development history - we've instead been seeing a bit too much of screengrabs, still images, pre-rendered trailers, storyboards etc. Even the art director here loading up some of her creations in the VAB would have been much nicer to see.

Every once in a while you'll get a contract asking you to build a space station in a solar orbit. These pay ridiculous amounts of money, more than something like visiting frickin Duna. And this wouldn't have been a problem if a solar orbit wasn't one of the easiest things in the game. Cluster a bunch of SRBs, build whatever silly station they want, launch it straight up, escape Kerbin's SoI and you're done. Then delete it because you hate yourself and you hate this silly mechanic but you didn't want to grind meaningful contracts that barely pay anything just so you could unlock the next level of science labs. Ugh.

It's "ask me anything", not "I will answer everything". Answering to them all even with "not my area of expertise" or "can't talk about it" when there's hundreds of questions asked and the available time is just over an hour, would make it pretty much impossible. And boring. Yes, the questions are picked because they have to be when time is limited and the answers are expected to have any substance. Asking every single dev from every department why rockets are wobbly (for example) will lead to disap.. I mean, "disappointment". People have roles. And will answer according to their roles. And honestly, as a person who's more on the artsy side, rather than engineering, I very much enjoyed the AMA with all the chosen questions. As for live posted questions, scrolling through twitch chat spam ain't interesting. Especially when there are people crying about why their questions weren't picked like if that was the worst thing that ever happened in their lives.

well @Dakota nothing against the host or anybody in particular but i would like to see a honest non PR fluff true AMA (ask me anything) ksp 2 type questions that are on the fly or asked in a chat room during the live event. I dont think a bunch of users in a discord asking questions and those questions going into a pool of sorts where they are then cherry-picked and only the "good ones" are addressed is the way to go and just seems a bit dishonest or fake. To me a true AMA event should be exactly that "Ask me anything" in regards to KSP2. And that includes the hard questions as well such as "When is the next patch due out ?" "Why was the game released in the condition it was ?" When will This bug or that bug be fixed ?" THESE are the REAL questions people want to ask. Now granted if some of those are covered by NDA then be honest and say "NDA, I cant talk about that !" people respect that more than PR double-speak and evasion of the question OR the question not being asked at all. And to solve the problem of multiple questions of the same topic being answered repeatedly perhaps when each question is asked AND answered then the question with the answer should be posted or pinned in the chat for late joining people or people that refuse to read can see it. And after that if someone does come in the chat asking a question that has been asked and is pinned then you can expect the other people in the chat to correct that person at which time the moderators of the chat will take care of the punishments of repeat offenders just trying to troll. Other people may add more to this if they like i just thinking off the top of my head. Perhaps this question or topic deserves its own thread. Ill leave that to the very capable moderators in this forum to decide. Lets see how it goes. EDIT: After thinking about it i came up with an example. Have you ever watched sitcom on tv and its not in front of a live audience? They add that what they call "canned laughter' to the program and you get the sound of laughter when the joke they telling wasnt even funny. THATS what im talking about. We need something more genuine. More down to earth. A REAL connection between the people at IG and its player base. Anyways yeah umm if more people want to add to this agree or disagree or better ideas please respond to this. They want to hear from us. Tell em nows your chance

As the one who has been championing these and produced the new video version, what would make you want to tune in? Honestly, we did it because we think Ness is great and wanted her to have a platform to talk about her art and how things work behind-the-scenes - not really for any PR reason.

Reported Version: v0.1.3.1 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Windows 11 Home | CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-9750H CPU @ 2.60GHz 2.59 GHz | GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 TI | RAM: 16,0 GB So I wanted to see if I could use the new airbreaks as "grid fins" stand in on a old rocket. I retrofitted it quick - also found the rocket to be more wobbly now and that I need to figure out drag again.. Its gone from very stable to very unstable. Swapped most of my wings for Airbreaks. Any way.. thats a different talk. When I got into space and seperated 1st and 2nd stage - the navball seemed to follow 1st stage, and the craft could not find Retrograde. I tried to see if I could "force" the game to give Navball date for the 1st stage by quick save / quick load - but that turned the 1st stage into a immovable object. Video for reference:

Now composite pressure vessels are used for helium in rockets and here we talk of hundreds of bars but as you say that is to prevent expanding who composites are much better at. But it should still have microfracture issues more so because cryogenic temperatures. Else I agree it was an stupid material to use, its not that weight is critical here. As I understand the submarine was not an conversational submarine. It used weights, I assume they dropped one weight then the reached the bottom and the rest then they wanted to go up again. Sounds weird and cheap but it should be an very reliable system if designed correctly.