Search the Community

I like the button indicator that there is science in this region to collect. The button bothers me because its broken.. It always flashes science that nets 0 return because its not account based but kerbal based. Likewise if you had transmitted all the data but then moved your kerbal to a rescue video.. all that data is still there but has to be fully resent again. I think its just a quick work in progress. I think it would aid exploration, if all the science zones etc were listed or ? if bioms are not found, so it shows that there are more things to find on moons. Just some feedback. Also and this gets super annoying.. Observation probe in high and low orbit... STOPS but does not RESUME when running science.. so if you moved from highlands to lowlands it pauses, moving back to highlands does not unpause. Also I found running out of EC destroys the experiment. Its 6 minutes long too. Talk about a painful science experiment to get it to actually work. Oh and I've had the light indicator not glow when there is science available.. at least I can spam the button to resume science (or go to the parts menu and spam it) but if you hover on the button it shows the biom, so when it changes.. can easily just press it to return to scanning.

You can talk trivial if you want, but me with over a decade of experience in KSP, only managed to safely land on Tylo twice, once per game. And never took off of it. Probably could've done it if I sent the isru in 1, but here, I'm stuck until resources come.

There are a few things like this that need tightening up. I also just put 4 wheels on a rocket to complete that mission. Also the Laythe plane mission works if you turn on a rapier anywhere in the SOI of Laythe, even though the mission complete text goes onto talk about the atmosphere and how the plane flew. My plane was an engine on the side of a rocket nd it didn't get anywhere near an atmosphere.

I have been strongly considering some flavor of integration with EVE. However, I might implement it such that the effects lead gameplay, rather than the other way around. (that is to say, EVE could supply wind data based on the effects). Also, I don't want EVE to be the only mod that can interact with this thing. However, this is all stuff for the future. I will talk to blaccracc when the time comes. I've been working on this steaming pile of code for a while now (I actually started a few weeks before I posted this thread. This is an idea that has been living rent-free in my brain for some time now). I should be coming out with an alpha release Soon™. :3

Greetings, forum-goers! I’m Ness, the Art Director here at Intercept, and I’m interrupting your regularly scheduled UpNate to bring you a special broadcast. Let’s talk about KSP2’s User Interface, the most meta of all game art disciplines! UI must surface moment-to-moment information and actions to players in either text or clever visual shorthand. When making a simulation game like KSP, an even greater burden of information is placed on the UI, since we need to supply players with a mountain of information and choices without overwhelming either the player or their screen’s real estate. It’s a fascinating and sometimes frustrating balance to strike and I am consistently impressed by our UI/UX team’s ability to analyze abstract, un-implemented features and translate them into visuals. Jordan and Colton from our UI/UX team at Intercept work tirelessly to make rocket science digestible and slick-looking! Before we dive into future plans for KSP2’s UI, I’d like to first take a quick look at KSP1’s. Its UI went through several distinct stages over the course of KSP1’s history, the most radical changes happening early in development. One thing that I love about videogame UI is that on top of all the information it must convey, it’s visual styling can suggest subtle narrative and worldbuilding—something that KSP1 has absolutely utilized and that we will continue to evolve in KSP2. Some very early unreleased examples of KSP1 0.2’s UI can be found on HarvesteR’s dev blog. We can see a mix of fonts, both handwritten and geometric sans serif, as well as a barebones parts catalogue. The mix of fonts here is the most interesting detail to me; the handwritten altitude and speed readouts suggests a theme of "DIY" that applied to both the Kerbals in the game and the developers making the game. A later iteration of the UI around KSP1 0.3 introduces the familiar grey that stuck around for the rest of development, as well as a precariously-stacked flight heads up display. This cobbled-together “junkyard” readout was an evolution of the Kerbal narrative of a DIY space program using salvaged parts. By the time KSP1 0.7.3’s public release rolled around, the staging stack had moved to the left side of the screen, we had a flight cluster, and Kerbal live-feed portraits all carefully spaced around the edges and wrapped in that grey pseudo-metal that we saw back in 0.3. Gone was the junkyard aesthetic, and the skeuomorphic gauges were carefully lined up. Ty to @Whirligig Girl for the image above And finally, a shot of KSP1’s UI as of 1.0 We’re all familiar with the symbiotic effect that mods had on KSP1, and I believe that by keeping the UI simple and grey, it allowed modders with limited artistic ability to easily match the look of the canonical UI and maintain a level of visual consistency which ultimately cuts down on cognitive load and increases immersion. This is absolutely something we on the art team are aware of in KSP2, and when it comes time to roll out additional modding tools the UI team will also share our internal style guide for modders interested in mimicking KSP2’s UI. Now onto what I think most of you all are here for; what’s in store for the future of KSP2’s UI now that For Science! is out the door. In the weeks since release, we’ve enjoyed following along as new and returning KSP2 players have checked out the missions, discovered points of interest, and put all of our flight systems through their paces. As thrilling and satisfying as it’s been to see all of the impressive feats you’ve achieved since the For Science! update, we’re also been watching and documenting your reactions to the user experience and the user interface in particular. We’re excited to see that many elements of our UI have facilitated a smoother first-time user experience, but with your help we’ve also identified several areas of confusion that we are actively tracking. These improvements include: Fonts can be hard to read for a variety of reasons (size, scaling, color, contrast, etc.) The maneuver gizmo can be difficult to interact with, and precision maneuvers are especially difficult Trajectory tag markers can be difficult to differentiate or identify Trajectory tag stems can get tangled with one another in ways that cause significant visual confusion SOI transit "bullseye" indicators are too bright, too big, and too prominent relative to other map elements (this is a personal bugbear of mine) Rearranging the staging stack order when selecting the bottom-most stage is difficult The Part Manager presents several usability issues including but not limited to; observing many parts at once, using the Resource Manager as a separate app to specifically track fuel on a per-part basis feels awkward, associating a viewed part in the manager with the actual part on the ship We are not adequately communicating that "Revert to VAB" causes a loss of recent progress, and there are situations when reversion should not be accessible at all It is not obviously clear, especially to new players, when a vehicle is recoverable The audio-only countdown on launch presents both accessibility and legibility problems When in any time warp state other than 1x, the UI does not adequately communicate the state change. The tendency to interpret an under-warp failed control input as a bug has caught out quite a few members of our own team, and is likely responsible for quite a few bug reports Visual styling for some UI elements is not completely unified It would be very handy to be able to see mission requirements in the VAB while constructing a vehicle KSP2’s Early Access is delivering exactly the kind of active feedback loop we were hoping to see, and we’ve now got a nice collection of feedback items to help guide our work priorities. We’re excited to continue improving on the UI. In the meantime, we’ve been working away on a few UI improvements of our own! In the upcoming v0.2.1.0 update you’ll not only see us begin to work through the 2024 bug list, but you’ll also see the following changes: We’ve adjusted the iconography and visuals of intersect nodes to make them easier to interpret (and hopefully easier to learn). We’ve also adjusted the colors of the planned trajectory line to further differentiate from your current trajectory, and shifted the colors on intercept nodes to make it more clear what relation your craft has to celestial bodies. Time and space are weird, but through these and future trajectory improvements we’re working on, we hope to make parsing orbital mechanics more approachable! Aaaaaalso as a sneak peek for something that’s coming beyond the v0.2.1.0 update, Jordan has been diligently combing through and adjusting KSP2’s UI in a giant unification pass in order to align some of our disparate visuals. The shot below represents the first wave of style unification on the highest traffic areas of the game: I’m looking forward to sharing more UI improvements with you all in the future! --- Finally, we’ve got an exciting announcement! We’re working on a new promotional video for KSP2, and we want YOU to share your favorite creations with us. It doesn’t matter if it’s a rocket, a plane, a rover, a boat, a giant mechanical turkey, or whatever your heart desires—if you love it and you’re proud of it we want to see it! If we end up using your submission in the video, you’ll be credited and have eternal bragging rights If you’d like to submit, send an image of your creation along with a craft file (.json) to [email protected]. Please also include your preferred name so we can credit you! (can be real name or username). A bit of fine print here: by submitting your creation, you’re agreeing to let us use the craft file in any and all future marketing materials. Thanks! We’ll release more details as the trailer project moves forward. We’re excited to take your vehicles out for a spin! Ness

The way I see it, it would be non blocking (meaning you could do the same things you can currently do, it wouldn't magically prevent you from landing anywhere for exemple), it's just that instead of getting most of the advance knowledge from the wiki (some of the knowledge I talk about isn't currently visible in the game, though that could change), you would get the option to learn it through the game with science experiments, and it would need to be balance in a way as to not prevent players (especially new comers) from experimenting things by the "trial and error" method while allowing advanced players to better "plan ahead" and optimize their missions even more. That being said, I wouldn't mind at all this being a difficulty option. It would have the additional benefit of allowing the player to optout of discovering everything again in an ulterior playthrough. And even if you don't activate the option in your first playthrough, chances are you won't visit, check and remember data for every system and every planets or moons so you would still have knowledge to "discover" in a new playthrough should you decide to activate it then.

THIS POST WAS MADE BY THE CALORIES SPACE EXPLORATION INITIATIVE (Thanks to @Kerbalsaurus for helping me with designing the flag ) We at CalSpace are proud to unveil a new vessel, the CS-38 Talon! Note: the photos taken were of an older variant, with less tweaks and lower landing gear. The version for "sale" has had these tweaks made and the landing gear arranged better for safer landing. The CS-38 Talon was previously a competitor against the Terror Bird for the UKA's supersonic airplane program. Now it serves an arguable more noble goal, to gather atmospheric science and train new Kerbonaut recruits. The CS-38 is supersonic and highly maneuverable, both of which are good skills for aspiring Kerbonauts to practice. It also features an advanced ejection system in case said trainee has to eject mid-flight. The CS-38, while small, can carry different science packages. The variant showcased has a wing-mounted science kit, but other variants down the line will have various more packages. We're planning on a sounding rocket and a science glider! A Talon buzzes the Mission Control Center, showcasing its impressive maneuverability. On full afterburner, the CS-38 can reach just over Mach 1. Taken from another Talon flying in close formation, this picture gives a good view of the Type-2 Science Pod (we don't talk about the Type 1). As mentioned before, the Talon is equipped with an ejection system, using four small SRBs and two decouplers to take the cockpit away from danger. Also, the Science Pod is decouplable, in case emergency maneuvers are required. Dropping the science pod will shed a couple precious kilograms off of the airplane. The CS-38's patented EJECT (Emergency JEttison of Cockpit Trigger) system in action. (Artist's rendition) After the inital ejection is complete, a drogue chute is deployed, allowing the pilot to egress the cockpit at safer speeds before deploying their own personal parachute. (Artist's rendition) The CS-38 Talon will be the first of many aircraft from CalSpace, and we hope to collaborate with Beyond in the future! *** KerbalX link is here: KerbalX - CS-38 Talon + Science Pod Also, for practical use, I recommend Atmosphere Autopilot, as the CS-38 is a bit unstable. Without it, it'll be quite a beast to fly, not unlike the real-life T-38 Talon.

Yeah I just think there is something wrong with having to put it off auto and set it to max dampning. Also It can be very difficult to tune it.. to the point were some times it feels like you break your leg off if its dampening. And I talk about landing with sub 10 m/s I just had a rocket bounce at 5 m/s. It just feels off to me. It would also be nice if it could bend a leg to keep its gravity center when on a slope x) Do you have any tips on how to adjust them? because I feel that when ever I make the springs strong the rocket flies off at the smallest touch of the ground. If i makes the springs weak and the dampers tough as nails.. it will fall/collapse under the legs if it does not land exactly level.

No I take your point. There's this gray area where economics and financing blur into politics, where for instance SpaceX can leverage the promised revenue stream from government contracts into its private equity rounds, and politicians have influence over those kinds of decisions. We can only really talk about one side of that coin here.

I mean, SpaceX is also a government contractor. The dragon program, HLS, numerous government funded satellite launches are also 'spending other people's money.' The difference here is economy of scale, iterative design, and vertical integration. I think we can leave the politics out of it. Its also important to not confuse initial manufacturing costs vs per-launch costs when we talk about reusable rockets. To date SpaceX has spent 3 billion dollars on Starship, so one could say the current per-launch cost is 1.5 billion. Of course the idea is that those initial development costs will be amortized over hundreds of launches, but lots of things could interrupt that: RUD on the pad, fundamental conceptual failures that make full reusability infeasible, lack of demand, or an unexpected disruptive competitor.

@StrandedonEarth, moved to suggestion. If you want to submit a bug report do not use it to talk about other things that this bug (here suggestions) The issue you had was reported here:

After playing modded KSP with RP-1 and watching For all Kerbalkind i thought there should be more RP-1 related videos. So i came up with an idea a KSP RP-1 project that is based on For all Kerbalkind Each player takes part as their own organization/nation together or against each other Trading vehicles/kOS for money/honor/science, other services, to help noob advantage: functioning vehicles of others (grab and go), help and experience of others, own difficulty if necessary Pro advantage: "sale" of vehicles, kOS scripts and information, play with/against each other (BD Armory? ), own difficulty if necessary My thoughts so far: How is this supposed to work as “multiplayer”? Everyone plays their game with the others or "in the dark" and at a certain interval the players share their intermediate results What kind of interval? an in-game period that we discuss together (e.g. 1 year) What kind of intermediate results ? At least rough information about what you send into orbit and above, as an overview/information for the others would be nice (or to sow envy and resentment ) What do I need to participate? RP-1 Express, at least 1 intermediate results per interval, joy of playing How should trading work? Send craft files to others via file sharing (discord? or at least you know email?) How should I get/lose money/honor/science from others? alt + F12, you know? That should be a fair play with/against each other? Like many things, it's just based on believing in others. E.g. that your boss pays you or that your partner really doesn't cheat Do I have to upload videos? Nope, it's ok if you're just a part of the project Do I have to share my vehicles/kOS? Nope, if someone wants to include your vehicles in their game (e.g. what's going on in orbit) they can also use placeholders (e.g. a probe) Do I have to play as much as the others? Nope, it doesn't have to be a head-to-head race at all times. How many events/secrets from the past are only coming to light today after all this time? Darn it, do I have to wait for the others now? Nope, hand in your intermediate result and if you don't care about the others then carry on playing, totally ok you pioneer But I want to upload a lot of videos/make money with all of this? Welcome to the free world, no one is stopping you I want to play as nation/organization XYZ! Whoever comes first... but talk to the other player, maybe you can move forward as a partner/rival/alliance. we were divided once too (BRD & DDR) I want to play with additional mods! gladly, it doesn't influence the others (except possibly traded vehicles) I want to integrate other people's vehicles, how? Either take a placeholder (probe) or ask the others about their crafts and cheat into orbit (Alt + F12) I don't understand anything but I still want to participate ... breathe deeply, very calmly. one step at a time, Rome didn't fall in a day (Wiki and Installguide) I'll never be able to keep up with the others! totally ok, since space travel began only 4 nations have made it safely to the moon, maybe someone is interested in cooperating? But I'm much better than those suckers! hand in your intermediate result and go ahead and lead our world to new shores, for Shine and Glory! I've only just seen all of this, am I too late O.o?! Nope, e.g. early German space travel: V-2, 1942 (first object to cross the Kármán line); first German satellite, at the end of 1969 by a US rocket ... Do we include all of each other's vehicles in the game? we can, but we don't have to. Yes, we can say we are not interested in other nations, it's up to you Did you drink paint? only if there is one standing around Either way, I'll give it a try in the future, even on my own if I have to would you be interested? your opinion on this? let me know in the comments ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Nachdem Ich RP-1 gespielt und For all Kerbalkind gesehen hatte, dachte Ich es sollte mehr RP-1 bezogene Videos geben. Also hab Ich mir da was überlegt Ein KSP RP-1 Projekt das an For all Kerbalkind angelehnt ist jeder Mitspieler nimmt als eigene Organisation/Nation teil zusammen oder gegeneinander Handel von Fahrzeugen/kOS gegen Geld/Ehre/Wissenschafft , andere Dienstleistungen , zur Hilfe noob-Vorteil: funktionierende Fahrzeuge der anderen (übernehmen/orientieren und go), Hilfe und Erfahrung der anderen , bei Bedarf eigene Schwierigkeit pro-Vorteil: "Verkauf" von Fahrzeugen, kOS-Scripten und infos , mit- / gegeneinander spielen (BD Armory? ), bei Bedarf eigene Schwierigkeit Meine Gedanken dazu bis jetzt: Wie soll das als "Multiplayer" funktionieren? jeder spielt mit den anderen oder "im dunkeln" sein Spiel und in einem bestimmten Intervall teilen sich die Mitspieler über ihren Spielstand aus Was für ein Intervall? eine ingame-Zeitspanne die wir gemeinsam beraten (zb 1 Jahr) Was für ein Zwischenstand? zumindest grobe Angaben was man in den Orbit und drüber schickt, als Übersicht/Info für die anderen wäre doch ganz nett (oder um Neid und Missgunst zu säen ) Was brauch ich zum mitmachen? RP-1 Express, zumindest 1 Zwischenstand pro Intervall, Spass an der Sache Wie soll der Handel funktionieren? Craft-Files an die anderen per File-sharing schicken (Discord? oder kennst doch zumindest eMail?) Wie soll ich Geld/Ehre/Science, bekommen/verlieren? alt + F12, kennste? Und das soll ein faires Mit-/Gegeneinander werden? Beruht wie vieles nur auf dem Glauben an die Anderen. zb dass dich dein Cheff auch bezahlt oder dein Partner wirklich nicht fremdgeht Muss ich Videos hochladen? nö, reicht doch auch so wenn Du teil des Projekts bist Muss ich meine Fahrzeuge/kOS teilen? nö, wenn jemand deine Fahrzeuge in sein Spiel einbinden will (bsp was im Orbit los ist) kann man ja auch Platzhalter (zb Sonde) nehmen Muss ich so viel spielen wie die anderen? nö, es muss ja nicht zu jeder zeit ein Kopf-an-Kopf-Rennen sein. Wie viele Geschehnisse/Geheimnisse von Früher kommen nach all der Zeit erst Heute ans Licht? boar, muss ich jetzt auf die anderen warten? nö, gib dein Zwischenstand ab und wenn dich die Anderen nicht jucken dann spiel weiter, vollkommen ok du Pionier Ich will Videos hochladen/mit dem ganzen Geld verdienen? Willkommen in der freien Welt, es hält dich niemand auf Ich will als Nation/Organisation XY spielen! Wer zuerst kommt ... aber rede mal mit dem Anderen, vielleicht könnt ihr als Partner/Rivalen/Allianz voranschreiten. Wir waren auch einmal Entzweit (BRD & DDR) Ich will mit zusätzlichen Mod´s spielen! gerne, beeinflusst die Anderen ja nicht (ausser evtl gehandelte Fahrzeuge) Ich will die Fahrzeuge der Anderen einbinden, wie? entweder ein Platzhalter (Sonde) nehmen oder die anderen nach ihren Craft´s fragen und in den orbit Cheaten (alt + F12) Ich peil garnichts aber will trotzdem mitmachen ... durchatmen, ganz ruhig. Ein Schritt nach dem anderen, Rom ist auch nicht an einem Tag gefallen (Wiki und Installguide) Ich kann nie im Leben mithalten! vollkommen ok, seit Beginn der Raumfahrt haben es nur 4 nationen sicher zum Mond geschafft, vielleicht ist ja Jemand an einer Kooperation interessiert? Ich bin aber viel besser als die anderen Nieten! gib dein Zwischenstand ab und go ahead und führe unseren Welt zu neuen Ufern. Für Glanz und Gloria! Ich hab das alles jetzt erst gesehen, bin Ich zu spät dran O.o?! nö. zb frühe deutsche Raumfahrt: V-2, 1942 (erstes Objekt über der Kármán Linie); erster deutscher Sattelit, Ende 1969 per US-Rakete ... Binden wir alle Fahrzeuge der Anderen ins Spielgeschehen ein? können, müssen Wir aber nicht. Wir können ja sagen Wir interessieren uns nicht für die anderen Nationen, Dir überlassen Hast du lack gesoffen? nur wenn welcher rümsteht so oder so werde ich das in der Zukunft, auch alleine wenns sein muss, einmal probieren hättet ihr Interesse? eure Meinung dazu? lasst es mich in den Kommentaren wissen

Having done some unmanned missions myself, I agree that the lack of celestial occlusion is noticeable and is contributing (in part; I believe there are other ways probes should be nerfed) to unmanned missions being pretty overpowered for science gathering. The ability to go to Jool and do all manner of maneuvers, even sending sub-probes into Jool itself, without ever needing to worry about being unable to transmit data back, execute a maneuver, avoid being thrown into space by Tylo, etc. is not compelling. Also feels like it's worth mentioning that comms networks in KSP2 would (should?) still be relevant into the endgame as every new solar system is going to be a blank slate with absolutely no radio infrastructure. Imagine deciding a gas giant moon is the most convenient place for a starter colony but lacking the resources and kermans to wing it by building extra colonies everywhere, you choose to probe the system first to find the absolute best places to mine. With the current system, that would mean simply slapping the longest-range antenna on each probe and being done. But with occlusion you'd have the far more interesting problem of setting up robust communications first in order to avoid an eclipse from the gas giant completely shutting down every ongoing mission...or being risky/cheap and dealing with intermittent connection as it happens. And that experience could be totally different on your next playthrough should you decide to bootstrap on a different planet/moon. Honestly sounds way more interesting than just "use big antenna". Sure, that makes it more difficult, but there are reasonable ways to mitigate that, eg: a visualization in map view that shows comms deadzones as 3D blobs or something (bonus points for allowing this visualization to not only show the deadzones right now, but also show areas that are intermittent deadzones), or other similar ideas to demistify the problem of "my probe can't talk to KSC". Instead, the feature just gets simplified to oblivion with no option to retain the more complex version. It worries me that Intercept chose to take this route in 'solving' the problem, I hope it doesn't reflect their attitude toward other game mechanics.

I'm not an artist or graphic designer, but I'm sure there's tens, maybe even dozens of people out there who could craft a more creative texture than what's currently in the game Thanks for the fascinating and intellectually stimulating conversation! I'm sure you're a blast to talk to at parties!

Reported Version: v0.2.0 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Windows 11 | CPU: Intel Core i5-8600K | GPU: Nvidia RTX 3070 | RAM: 64 Go So I think this is related to the following bug, but it only talk about rockets, so I'm not sure if it's the exact same bug or a very similar one: Before the bug happened I was trying to make a rover when I realized that the order you build things with structural parts plays a big role in how sturdy your rover frame is : Red dot is the root node, then construction order follow the red lines. As you can see while driving parts were either going apart or into each other. Then I decided I would make a sturdier frame, so I did this : Then as you can see in the attached video, out of 6 try : 4 resulted in immediate physic instability and violent vehicle disassembly, 1 needed a bit of help before getting attention of the mighty kraken, 1 was ignored by the kraken despite my efforts (I must conclude he is not omniscient after all). sturdy-rover-instable.mp4 sturdy-rover-instable.json

i don't need to re-read what i saw happen, i was there when the "show went down" (insert circus music). just hearing suggestions and talk about it on discord is nothing really official on post on it.. Discord talk at the end of the day from even the gods of intercept games for ksp 2 is as much value as me saying I'm a developer due to giving feedback that "might help" due to playing like 1,000 hours. my input doesn't really matter its more so the entire community, I'm like a broken record with mods that i would like to see as vanilla but i can see why it isn't in base game, things like K2D2, Flightplan, Alarmclock, Trim Control, Kerbal Headlights.. l know that alarm clock has been screamed top of the lungs, and now its even a mod. The community shows what the game is missing, and it doesn't hurt to talk to modders and ask to put mods into base game.. like alarm clock. and kerbal headlights.. etc.

Here's today's talk, no tl:dr since I don't have time to watch it right now, and it came out half an hour ago (it's nearly an hour long)

Toby Li @tobyliiiiiiiiii Jan 6 Elon Musk to provide 2024 Starship Update on January 11. Confirmed on an X livestream, @elonmusk announced he will conduct a SpaceX company talk including a Starship update next Thursday. I'm hoping to hear details regarding Starship IFT-2's post-flight analysis, plans for IFT-3 & beyond, and updates on Starship HLS milestones. https://twitter.com/tobyliiiiiiiiii/status/1743529920322846812 This is supposed to be an internal speech to SpaceX employees, but in the past was released to the public. Robert Clark

For Science! Update started off with a blast and I was eager to play it upon release! Once it released, I loved it instantly considering it levels the Game up to not only a sandbox simulator but to a full-fledged game playthrough! However, despite the many awesome and fun moments I had with this update, I feel like there is a lot of work to polish the new Science & Mission Mechanic alongside the already implemented tutorial system which I really wanted to talk about for quite some time now. First, let's start off with the Tutorials, I am personally not very good with Kerbal Space Program itself; I couldn't really understand how to create a rocket properly and usually ended up having stacks of them not launching from the pad or barely making it into orbit, let alone past Kerbin. And despite the help I got from the in-game tutorials, it did not significantly help as much as online tutorials. The section about rocketry feels obviously lacking, sure it mentions how a rocket works and the types of engines and other space components, but it does not help on how to make a proper rocket or at least understand how to make one for any specific task such as landing on the Mun or Eeloo. This can also be accounted for orbital mechanics; it leaves questions in my mind such as: "How much do you need to slowly turn your rocket over the horizon?" "Does it apply to every rocket? If no, how do I know when and how?" This is normally a major obstacle for new players like me (Kind of, started in 2016 but never really got past the Mun in KSP1 and never properly learned rocket design) because it forces us back into the drawing board by watching a couple of tutorials made from the Internet, although it isn't any bad either, it reinforces the fact the in-game tutorials really need more work. In summary, using this experience of mine, I would really like more tutorials about rocketry and an improved version of how to put your rocket past the atmosphere and prepare the steps for an orbital maneuver. Secondly, let's continue with the Missions in Mission Control, The Missions itself aren't bad, I actually found it as huge upgrade its original counterpart in KSP1, but it definitely needs more polishing. The first noticeable flaw I encountered was the mission briefing themselves, they seem way too centered on a specific scenario (mission briefing specifically) and less dynamic, by example, your ship ends up in a catastrophic failure when doing a specific mission, you absolutely do not get any major consequences rather than the loss of a crew, which normally under the default game difficulty, usually just respawn and probably also a couple of science points that you might have lost. I really wish upon a system where the missions actually do not cancel themselves when failing them, but give negative consequences such as more flavour text signifying the gravity and effect of the situation but at the same time balancing and incentivizing the player to keep continuing. Secondly, if your rocket launches, completing the first mission, and immediately goes to the atmosphere, I would really like it, instead of going again back to Mission Control and then going back to the ship to complete the second mission after the first, to simply have some way or form to complete both missions when you've done both already through one rocket launch at the start. To simply brief this, Mission Debriefing should get a separate system when the player fails the mission and you should be able to complete two missions at once without needing to go back to mission control to track the second one which went available thanks to completing to the first one in one rocket launch. Next, the Science Mechanic, which is the one here with the most need of polishing, I could also say the same for this one, the new Science mechanic is a massive overhaul to its original counterpart in KSP1. However, it definitely needs more polishing and balancing to make it less of a "Simple Magic Click and Reward" button which actually loses the value of it being a "Reward" as it gets too easy. I noticed the reports did not really have any unique flavour to them compared to KSP1 where crew observations and utilization of science equipment had unique flavour text depending where you did them (Also make the flavour texts larger and readable :D), I would actually really like if they weren't all generic and had an interesting one. I also found it quite boring when all a Kerbal can do and is meant for in a mission is simply to steer a Rocket when it's out of signal with KSC, do flags, generic crew observations and surface samples. I really wanted them to play a role on organizing Science like KSP1 rather than one magic click and it's all stored. Kerbals should perhaps have the ability to take the science reports or surface samples and store them in the Command Pod or Science Juniors. Both elements, describing flavour text and the further usage of Kerbals, would really incentivize the Player to do more frequently EVAs and learn more about science itself generally through flavour text, with some funny element in it considering Kerbals are Kerbals Anyways, apart from my feedback on how Science Points are acquired and Flavour Texts, Science Points should really get some sort of balancing because unlocking technology feels way too easy and feels really less of a reward. Maybe decrease science points on more generic tasks such as crew observations and regular planet scans or any other thing those science parts can do. Alternatively, increase the cost of the technologies in R&D. In conclusion, I would really like more flavour for generic scientific tasks and further usage of Kerbals alongside balancing on the ridiculous amounts of Science Points you'd get from 1 mission. Thanks for reading my Feedback and Suggestions if you have come this far down, I really want to hear what others think too!

So we all know that regions are currently pausing certain science experiments as they change underneath the flying or orbiting crafts. There has been talk that is a bug anyway, and that the regional part will be removed, but I think it could stay as it is with the following idea. This simple suggestion would be for the regions to have their own 'buckets' within each experiment so rather than pausing the experiment it just starts filling up the next bucket. As a working example - the orbital survey experiment around Kerbin will cover the 7 regions, each of which class as a different experiment. As you orbit conducting the experiment, it starts over water, so the generated science points start to fill the 'water bucket'. We can arbitrarily assign 100 points to each bucket, so we could say that the bucket gets filled up to 58 points, and then the orbiting craft goes over the highlands. Rather than pausing, it now just starts filling the 'highlands bucket'. Again it manages to fill 15 points and then it goes over water again and starts to fill the 'water bucket' again. Eventually, after many orbits the buckets will get full and will complete the experiments for each region. In a game where time can be fast forwarded, it would be easy to just send up an orbtiing craft, speed up time and all experiments will complete. I think this defeats the object of running the science so it could be that it only collects science when in no more than 3x time warp, or whatever number the desginers choose. The bucket idea can work for other region specific experiments. As a slight tangent, I also think that the science generated by orbiting craft should be non completing. The orbital survey experiment itself would be as once a planet is surveyed, they don't tend to change significantly, but there could be a science research exepriment (there may be one, I may just not have reached that point yet) that runs continually. Again there may be issues with time warping to generate science, so the same previous suggestion could be implemented.

I know it's too early to talk about real life cadence, but launching in February or March would put the time between two launches on par with that of the Saturn V I think. The average between Saturn V launches prior to Apollo 13 was something like every 3-4 months (I think, it's been awhile since I looked at the list of launches in detail). Meanwhile, prior to the second launch that destroyed the launchpad, the N1 took five months to launch two rockets. Not counting Shuttle, the only other SHLV to fly more than one time, Energia, had a year inbetween its two launches. SLS... even if Artemis II launches in 2025, who knows how long it will be until Artemis III? If it takes three years between two flights, how are they supposed to jump to once a year? By the way, this may be a dumb question, but will this launch license process be required once Starship is actually flying payloads? Or will things become more streamlined? The time between each test flight feels very guda guda (グダグダ), which translates as tedious or sluggish. Will people be watching the regulatory process when operational flights begin? They don't do that for F9 right now, as far as I can tell.

I missed the specifics I guess. I remembered the alternate seating arraignments, just not that the exact thickness of the trim would have to be different, even for a never seen latch. There's a flush outside latch on the real doors, for example, maybe just that one exists? A friend's dad (died years ago) was a Los Alamos physicist. Had done bomb testing back in the day, he was a detector guy, working on super high speed photography at one point (like blast starting to break the bomb casing fast). He also worked on other stuff, nothing he could talk about... Anyway, after he died, my buddy was going through boxes and found explosives in a few of them (C4 I think). He used to experiment with shaped charges in the backyard, apparently. He had notebooks with his experiments kept track of. Was a different time. Back in the 80s we'd head up to visit his parents' house (and get fed!), and his dad would have work spread out on the table on the other room. A couple decades later taking a laptop with work offsite gets you prison.

Unfortunately, things are still rolling on the rest of the industry too. Banner Saga Publisher Has Shut Down and Laid Off . On Xmas Eve… https://gamerant.com/versus-evil-banner-saga-publisher-shut-down-lay-offs/ Stray Souls developer Jukai Studio announces closure https://www.gamesindustry.biz/stray-souls-developer-jukai-studio-announces-closure Archiact, the veteran studio known for a host of VR titles, announced it’s laying off a portion of its staff. https://www.roadtovr.com/doom-3-vr-studio-layoffs/ And not only on gaming. Things are escalating pretty badly also on the Big Techs… https://www.axios.com/2024/01/03/tech-layoffs-google-microsoft-employees-impact-anxiety There's a light in the end of the tunnels, however (let's hope it doesn't "peeweee" on us): https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/it-hiring-starts-to-pick-up-after-a-lull-for-two-quarters/articleshow/105999713.cms Traditional, "boring" and less glamorous jobs appears to be the future biggest employers in the industry. I think there're some lessons to be learnt on this whole ordeal - and this includes, indirectly, who KSP¹ and KSP2 will gather traction on the modding scene in the next months (or years?). But I think is still a bit soon to talk about, I want to observe the new Zeitgeist before risking opening my big mouth.

North American X-15 "Your one to talk. The most dangerous flyby you've ever done is over football game."

The door was plugged. As in blanked out with a piece of sheet metal to put it bluntly. The capacity the seating was configured to did not require the exit to be in operation. Evidently, the exit thought otherwise! Look, I forgot the laughing emoji. Please understand I'm joking around with you, not trying to be some internet detective or something lol. You don't need to talk down to me. I apologize I did not explain plug vs door to you, but you clearly did not watch the video that lays out the details of the incident that is posted upthread. Its not my fault you are unaware of the details of the incident.