Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Suggestion'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • General
    • Announcements
    • Welcome Aboard
  • Kerbal Space Program 2
    • KSP2 Dev Updates
    • KSP2 Discussion
    • KSP2 Suggestions and Development Discussion
    • Challenges & Mission Ideas
    • The KSP2 Spacecraft Exchange
    • Mission Reports
    • KSP2 Prelaunch Archive
  • Kerbal Space Program 2 Gameplay & Technical Support
    • KSP2 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
    • KSP2 Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)
    • KSP2 Technical Support (PC, modded installs)
  • Kerbal Space Program 2 Mods
    • KSP2 Mod Discussions
    • KSP2 Mod Releases
    • KSP2 Mod Development
  • Kerbal Space Program 1
    • KSP1 The Daily Kerbal
    • KSP1 Discussion
    • KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
    • KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas
    • KSP1 The Spacecraft Exchange
    • KSP1 Mission Reports
    • KSP1 Gameplay and Technical Support
    • KSP1 Mods
    • KSP1 Expansions
  • Community
    • Science & Spaceflight
    • Kerbal Network
    • The Lounge
    • KSP Fan Works
  • International
    • International
  • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU Website


There are no results to display.

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



Website URL



About me



  1. When hovering over a "stage-able "part, it should be highlighted in the staging area as well. Currently it ain't.
  2. What's this rambling about? Having Colonies locked behind Tier 4 seems like it isn't the right way KSP2 should be played. It would feel too step-by-step I feel. So, introducing it as early as Tier 3 will make the game progression smoother for the colonies, could even put it in Heavy Orbital Operations? And this would probably mean low tech colony parts... And why's that? Colonies are highly anticipated and would change so much to the way we play the game, launching rockets, storing resources, building complex nice looking outposts, this is what would change the gameplay in an interesting way. In KSP1, the way you build stations was nice, but with the addition of colonies, it could be made much easier and user-friendly. And would also make the features get shown to the player much more smoothly, by introducing the concept when it would start to become useful (Like in the quest to go to Jool, you'd build a Duna outpost to make a relay to this planet). An example perhaps. In Tier 3, I'd go on to make a small Duna orbital outpost to coordinate operations to go to Jool, perhaps even launching from there if I could, though this seems rather too advanced for T3... But then, as I progress through the tech tree, I'd have more complex and bigger colony parts to use and expand this Dunian outpost. Like how in the real world cities came from small traveller encampments from the late 1800s and turned into huge cities in the current day... Closing thoughts... I think that colony parts could aid greatly in the exploration of the Kerbol system after T3, as it would serve as homes for science and resources. They'd be the backbone of the Program by aiding crafts in their missions, and providing a command center on the area. Of course, vessels would need to launch a sort of Colony core of some kind... Hopefully the idea is clear, and I hope we would all be able to experience the benefits of colonies even in early game- Limited, but helpful, and expandable in the long run!-
  3. Introduction VTOL aircraft are awesome, they're fun to fly and land and generally are super cool: A big problem however is that KSP2 does not have any robotics parts, which severely restricts the options available when it comes to building practical VTOL aircraft in the game, and even when worked around you're still enduring a heavy performance penalty (both in terms of the aircraft's capabilities and your literal PC's performance) when compared with anything you can build in KSP1, those Whittle clusters and reaction wheels cost quite a bit! So, with the understanding that robotics aren't coming anytime soon, I figured I'd put forward my own suggestion for a nice alternative that'd fill this role perfectly, in the form of a brand new jet engine part: Introducing the J-8B "Karrier" Mass: 0.8t Maximum thrust: 80kN (Lifting capacity of 8.15 tons per engine on Kerbin) ISP: 6500s Alternator: 0.5 EC/s Deploy range: 90° (+10° single-axis gimbal, for a total authority range of 110°) Modelled after the Hawker Siddeley P.1127's engine nozzles (One of the experimental aircraft designs that eventually led to the Harrier Jump Jet) This engine is designed to be radially attached in pairs on the sides of an aircraft and can deploy for a full 90 degrees of freedom, plus 10 degrees of single-axis gimbal, giving it a large range of pitch control to alleviate the need for large numbers of reaction wheels to counteract torque. It can rotate its thrust vector downwards for vertical take offs and landings: And then, once off the ground, it can swivel its thrust vector around for horizontal flight: It can also be freely deployed to anywhere between the two angles to facilitate short take offs or other use cases people may think of. This engine fills a much needed niche in terms of VTOL jet aircraft, and would allow for so much more creativity in terms of plane design and functionality, as well as making it possible to build VTOL aircraft that are actually aerodynamic and aren't hard capped to the sound barrier (Whittle clusters suck). Balancing In terms of its stats, it needs to have a high amount of thrust for the obvious purpose of being a VTOL engine, and it also needs to be relatively light and not use too much intake air, that leaves its ISP as the main variable in terms of balancing this engine against other jet engines (Particularly the Panther, which it is rather close to in terms of thrust), I also didn't quite want to give it terrible ISP either as it may be used as the primary engines on certain aircraft designs. In the end, I decided that 6,500s of ISP feels like a nice middle ground, it's far more efficient than the three hypersonic jet engines (Afterburning Panther, Whiplash and Rapier), but simultaneously it's still well below the standard Panther and Wheelsley in terms of efficiency, ensuring that it does not replace either of them for general usage. Conclusion Generally (in my very totally unbiased opinion) as someone who's spent a rather unhealthy number of hours designing VTOL aircraft across both games, I believe this would be an amazing addition to the game that would open up so many new opportunities for aircraft design and construction, the specific stats I've laid out for for this engine are not solid "this is absolutely how it must be implemented" caps, but just represent how I personally feel it'd be best implemented should it become a real part in the game, I hope this post reaches the development team and they seriously consider implementing a part like this to fill this role.
  4. way back there were plans and concepts for converting the shuttle's external tank into a habitat once in orbit, i think this would work really well for a ksp mod, possibly using materialkits to convert empty tanks, maybe even have premade modular habitat segments to fit any fuel tank, can't currently find any mods like this and I think it could be perfect for setting up simple stations, especially for those who like 70s style NASA builds
  5. Fuel tanks have no valid reason to be in PAM as they don't provide any information and it is just wasted space there, at least inflight. In VAB you can show them there as you can set the fuel level. I am so confused if i right click a fuel tank in flight and wonder why there is no information. And always have to remind myself that there is a hidden Resource Manager.
  6. Problem: I don’t know how much EC (Electrical Charge) my craft uses, produces, and stores. Figuring it out requires math (long math!), which I wouldn’t like to do! Plus, this problem gets even worse for more distant planets, where I must use MORE math to figure out the EC production, because Kerbol’s intensity decreases by distance! My Idea: My idea is to create an app that tells players how much EC their craft uses, produces, and stores. It could feature a system where players type the distance from the star, and the game does the math behind the scenes and uses that to change the EC production. Benefits: This system would help me a ton with designing crafts, as I can know the exact EC needs of it. This would save players from doing a lot of math and help them make even better crafts, as they don’t run out of EC halfway through the mission (speaking from experience here!). I hope you like this! TechieV
  7. It’d be nice to be able to add waypoints on planets to mark places of interest or landing spots. You could add waypoints from the map view or from satellites.
  8. These would be relativly short runways near the North and South poles of Kerbin that allow the player to land safely. They don't even have to be accessible from the VAB, they could just be little 'things'.
  9. Currently my least favorite part of KSP 2 and the thing that keeps me from playing it is the tedium of interplanetary transfers. It’s always incredibly frustrating to plan out your transfers and they don’t work because of how incredibly tedious maneuver nodes are. There are a few things that need fixing and I have some new ideas. 1. Mouse Sensitivity When I’m zoomed out in the map mode, I can never get the camera orientation I want because insane sensitivity. Please fix that. 2. Time Warp Burning I don’t know if this is a bug but my craft never follows the maneuver whole time warp burning. This is terrible. Please fix this. Here are some suggestions for making planetary transfers much much much nicer. 1. Add a top down camera button Make a map mode where the camera is locked top down and the user can move the camera left and right but not change the orientation. Make it so we can select different planets/ planet systems. This would be like the camera angle blueprint things in the VAB. 2. Add a side view, similar to the top down view to see orbital inclination. Make it so we can see the whole solar system, planet systems and planets and so we can pan around the planets. Also similar to the blueprint idea in the VAB. 3. THIS IS THE BIG ONE. Add a good and reliable calculator that determines when to do interplanetary transfers. Like the one in ksp 1 but one that actually works. Again, planning maneuver nodes is incredibly tedious and unfun. If you really want us to keep manually planning maneuver nodes, then just warp us to the best time for interplanetary transfers. Again, transfers are tedious and because they’re so tedious are not fun at all to deal with. Focusing on quality of life should be paramount when creating such a complex and time consuming game such as this. Please take the time to consider this.
  10. I would like to suggest few things for the Part Manager: Decrease the font size, it is too big. I recommend to use the Breadcrumb font size (see the attached images). This should be the size for the default UI scale (100%) If a tree node is empty, do not show the arrow. These nodes should not be clickable nor openable. Windows should scale by the UI scale game options Pinning parts in the Parts Manager should be handy during flight. A pin button on the right side of the part would look nice. If player pin a certain part it will remain open and moves on the top of the Parts Manager (could be a new group (eg.: Pinned/Favorites)) Let the windows width resize more and add multiple columns if the width of the window is wide. Instead of this we could have this size. This image shows the columns as well.
  11. I created a feedback report explaining the situation in detail. https://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/24853
  12. Ksp has always had this problem where there was no real reason to use generators, as the engines on your ship have could always just power everything. It’d be nice to actually have to attach generators to your ship to keep the power up. If they do decide to implement this a good quality of life feature would be to have a bar indicating how much power your ship needs vs the amount being produced, kinda like command and conquer.
  13. Hello all, I have a little over 150 hours in the game now, and while this has been a mostly positive experience, I have been slowly accumulating a list of things that I would like to see changed/tweaked before 0.2/1.0. These items will be split into two parts, the first half being things that are annoying to me, and having them tweaked would improve my user experience, while the second half are things that I think would improve immersion, and contain some minor nitpicks. I have tried to keep this post containing only things that are already in the game, which should remove accidental bug reports, and requests to add new features. USER EXPERIENCE: FLIGHT UI: The flight UI imo, is lacking a lot of key information, that would make flight both easier, and also allow for more complex mission profiles. It needs a TWR indicator for each stage, as well as burn time left for the dV in the stage. Orbital inclination under the AP/PE values would also make precise orbits possible like they were in KSP 1, with its 'advanced orbital info' tab. Another key piece of information that can be very useful for most missions, is suicide burn information; like a countdown, distance, and dV required. I used that info from K.E.R in KSP 1 for pretty much all landing missions, which allowed for thrilling, cool to look at, and efficient missions. One last piece of information that I found useful in landing, was horizonal and vertical speed read outs, which made precision landings a little bit easier (something that could be very valuable with colonies). (Also the trajectories mod made precision landings on atmospheric bodies significantly easier, but that gets well into the realm of additional new features to the game, which this whole section is already bordering on). TL;DR: port KER to the flight UI lol The other part of the flight UI that I think needs to be changed, is the tapes on the navball, and specifically the units they're in. Currently, they're both in km and km/s, which is not particularly useful in any scenario. The times I would look at the tapes for info, is for landing and sometimes taking off. With the units in km, the tapes move very slowly, to the point where they don't provide useful information to the flight. Most landing speeds will range from 2000-0 m/s from orbit to the surface, and with them in km/s, they barely move two units, often less. The tapes should either match the readout units (i.e. the same way the speedometer/altimeter units adjust depending on how large/small the value is), or it should be a log scale. That way, the tapes can provide useful information during critical parts of a mission, like they were intended to do. MANOUVRE NODES: The big one with this point is the 'out of fuel' message that prevents the player from making manouvers past their ship's dV. This design choice has always baffled me, as the old system worked perfectly fine. Especially with the buggy dV readout, which can often read zero despite a fully fueled ship, this change unnecessarily limits the player. Other applications of plotting past a ships capabilities could be to determine how much dV a rescue vessel would need to successfully return to Kerbin, if the readout breaks after rendezvous (happens frequently, even in KSP 1, after rearranging a ship), or simply if the player has infinite fuel turned on. The bar going to read to show that the player was going past the ships dV capabilities informed them well, and could even be improved if it still displayed the 'out of fuel' message. Returning to the old system, the same system KSP 1 used, is what I and most others would certainly appreciate. The other thing I would like to see is the return of the 'plot to next orbit' feature from KSP 1, which was useful for checking for chance encounters (very useful at Jool), or seeing if the next orbit would have a closer approach with rendezvous. TIMEWARP: For timewarp, allowing the player to access all levels of timewarp once in a stable orbit (out of the atmosphere, or 10km above all surface terrain) seems like a no brainer. Waiting for rendezvous transfers for 15 minutes irl, or having to go through a craft switching frenzy to get higher warp for interplanetary transfers, makes interplanetary missions more painful than they ever need to be. With mods already doing this a few weeks after launch, I hope this gets fixed soon. The other thing that needs a return is the ability to switch to physics warp when holding alt. For larger crafts, waiting whole minutes for them to slowly turn around is not fun. Physics warp exists already in the game, but being able to hold alt to access it at any point in flight, perhaps turning the timewarp bar red to indicate this, would be a great improvement. QUICKSAVING/LOADING: I don't like how making f5 saves creates a new quicksave. It should override the previous f5 save if one exists. Currently, manually made saves get lost in the swarms of f5 saves, which makes it difficult to pinpoint critical points of the mission. It's annoying to find the quicksave titled 'orbit', amongst the sea of quicksaves 1-57. The other thing I don't like is the lack of option to load a game save to the KSC. Currently, the only option is to load to a quicksave made, which prevents the player from opening the game to the KSC unless they made a save for it. If the player forgets to make such a save, or perhaps ended their last play-through not at the KSC (stations/bases/rage-quits), then they have to load the game to that point, and then load back to the KSC. Fixing this would reduce the time from opening the game to entering the VAB, which the load times already do so well. LIGHTS: This is just a minor one, but I think that the range of most of the lights should be increased. often lights don't light up the ground early enough for them to be useful, and this is one of their main uses. In my experience, most of the time I see the dust kicked up by the engine exhaust before I see lights illuminating the ground. IMMERSION/MINOR NIT-PICKS: ENGINE PLUMES: This is my biggest issue with the game, that doesn't directly impact my user experience. The atmospheric engine plumes for methalox engines don't look good. I honestly think stock KSP 1 plumes look better, and waterfall plumes look orders better, which I found surprising for obvious reasons. they appear as an almost solid colour, with variations being hard to see, even when zoomed right in. The plumes should be much more transparent, and show those beautiful shock-diamonds, like those in the waterfall mod. They don't look 'powerful' compared to waterfall, and the jarring differences in beauty from all the other fuel types' plumes is very strange. They look stunning in a vacuum, so I just hope that someday the atmospheric plumes can match it. The other issue is that some of the vac plumes appear to be more concave than convex, contrary to irl. The poodle engine is the worst offender of this that I've seen. most of the other engines get it right, but it sticks out like a sore thumb for those that don't. KSC: This point is quite nit-picky, I'll admit, but I'm just not a fan of the KSC. I think having it downrange of the launchpads and runway was a very odd choice, and having it crammed in between the runways and launch pads limits the size of the buildings. It feels like the runways and launch pads were added first, and then the rest of it was added after. Having it on the other side of the runway (west side) would give it all the room it could need, which could let it have have a much larger R&D and tracking station buildings, which I think would match that of an interstellar species well. I think having 1 major, and 3 minor dishes for the tracking station like in KSP 1 would be neat, and buildings like wind tunnels, and engine test stands added onto the R&D would make the KSC feel more alive, while giving even more opportunities for some challenging-to-fly under bridges. VAB: Being able to past in hex codes for colours would be very nice to keep a consistent colour pallet across saves, or if the user wants to return to the colour they made at a later point in their build. Also we need a return of the TWR for each stage, and the ability for it to be calculate it on different celestial bodies (and the same for dV). TERRAIN: Not sure if the coming CBT system will fix this (I really hope it does), but I'll put it here anyway. The terrain in some places is very flat/boring. Obviously most of the terrain is really beautiful, but in some places its just not, specifically on the dark patches of the Mun, and large patches of terrain on Duna. I'm not saying that terrain can't be flat, I'm saying it shouldn't be Minmus Flats II. Just some rolling hills or even the odd minor crafter to break up the land to make it more interesting to look at, while still remaining 'flat'. I think the large craters on the mun in KSP 1 do this really well, as in they look flat from orbit, and are still generally flat on the surface, but the rolling hills and craters bresk up the terrain enough so that it doesn't look jarringly flat. ACTION GROUPS: Group communication deployment with the solar panel action group. every single time i use them, in both games, I've always put them in the same action group, so putting them together just makes sense to me. REFLECTIONS: Reflections are too strong. At some angles, I can hardly even see the craft, because its all white from reflections. Also having stars 'fade' away/lowering their exposer when next to the light side of planets (like what they do in the 'distant object enhancer' mod/irl) would improve my immersion a lot. CLOUDS: Increased cloud coverage, and multiple layers of clouds (instead of them all being at 2 km (i think theyre this high?)). I've always found clouds to be far more beautiful than any clear sky, both irl and in (both) game(s). That is all for now. I hope this post gets heard and at least some of the points are acted upon amongst the bug fixing and new content. Might make another one of these for each milestone, depending on what they're like. Thanks for reading allat. Yours truly, Suppise
  14. I'm kind of stunned that an artifact of the original game's game engine limitations were carried over to the sequel. Wobbly rockets were always a bug. The KSP1 devs spent years trying to minimize the problem, even bringing on new members to work on the issue. Most people don't like them, and they introduce an un-intuitive stumbling block for new players or people that want to learn space. eg. Rocket veers off course on launch. Why? The control part wobbles away from the heading, resulting in SAS shenanigans and off COM thrust. Furthermore, everyone gets rid of wobble to the best of their ability by adding struts, resulting in a higher part count. So you have a feature, that only produces greater part counts. Why? To keep the destructive effect, just define stress tolerances for parts at which they explode, disconnect, crumble or shear. Also, real rockets don't wobble. Scott talking to KSP1 devs about the wobbly rocket bug. They go off on tangents but almost the entire rest of the interview is on the topic. KSP1 dev describes his next gen parts physics sim in which wobbliness is not a feature. --- If you're new to KSP, wobble is that wet noodle, jello rocket thing. Please get rid of wobble all together. Thank you. Development on the issue:
  15. While the game already includes randomly generated hairstyles, skin colours, glasses, and eyeball sizes, expanding this system to allow for comprehensive customization beyond just suit colours would greatly enhance our connection to the little green kerbanauts and their missions. Drawing inspiration from the discontinued kerbalizer game, we would be able to create or modify unique Kerbals with distinct facial features, hairstyles, and outfits & accessories that they would wear when idle (in the astronaut complex, colony habs, or floating around on a space-station).
  16. When I press ESC to access the game menu (e.g. to save the game or change some settings) the game should automatically be paused. I think few people need the functionality of the game continuing while they are not paying attention. And currently you need to remember to click pause first, which seems unnecessary.
  17. So I was watching the short film recommended by Nate Simpson and found this scene at the end and it just amazed me. I've aways felt the gas giants in KSP were kind of distant and purposeless, like a distant god that can't be touched, a far wonder that exists only to be contemplated in the skies of their moons. Being able to construct floating bases in those worlds would bring them a surface, landing in one of those colonies would be a new exciting gameplay challenge that could be rewarded with the resources extracted by those facilities. Just imagine the terror of missing the landing spot and falling to the infernal core of Jool. Imagine how beautiful it would be to fly a plane down the cloud layers to extract certain elements and then land back on a floating runway. Imagine the challenge of designing a vehicle capable of diving to the metallic hydrogen mantle and then getting back to the colony by inflating some sort of balloon. The possibilities are endless...
  18. There is a kerbal wiki about this: Faz - Kerbal Space Program Wiki. It should be considered for ksp2 if the dev's want it.
  19. The indicators to begin and start a burn are unclear if it automatically burns I wouldn’t have to worry about that if this is considered then make sure you can turn the feature on and of. Copy and paste this for the private division launcher feedback please.
  20. the color manager is one of the few satisfying experiences in the game's current state, being able to color parts individually makes our rockets look so much better! however it can get a bit cumbersome when trying to work with multiple colors, so i would suggest adding the ability to save multiple color schemes instead of just 1 (the agency color). in addition it would be nice to have an input field for hex color codes for easy sharing and importing of colors. also, having like an eyedropper / color picker feature would make things alot easier.
  21. Science gathering in KSP1 has always felt a bit pointless to me: It was just about clicking your thermometer or whatever in the right place and left you with nothing but a funny text and some points. But you don't really get any new insights: You can see any planet/moon and its properties in the tracking station. I think that just by hiding some information from the player one could make science a much more meaningful part of the game: For example, the "physical characteristics" tab in the tracking station could be filled only after according measurements. Also, what if celestial bodies were blurred out in map view and the tracking center, as if you would see them through a telescope on Kerbin? And only became detailed once you got a spaceship into their SOI? Things like that would add a component of discovery that would make science/career mode so much more exciting!
  22. having more symmetry options enable new things. 5x symmetry is my favorite modded symmetry from KSP 1. now you as a reader probably think: who would ever want 5x symmetry and why. the answer is: me and here comes the why: my first argument for 5x symmetry is redundancy when designing a lander how many legs should it have? well at least 3 because the center of mass needs to be within the triangle formed by the legs. 4 legs is not the best option (sorry Apollo) if any one leg fail the craft is unstable and it will fall over. 5 legs will allow for any single leg to fail and still be upright, and up to two legs could fail as long as they are not next to each other. but for me personally the main reason is to be able to build crafts like this. now how does 5x symmetry stand out from the rest? 5x symmetry allows construction of tesselating structures in 3d space (balls) one great example are the platonic solids, most of the fun ones require 5x symmetry. the one in the image is a Icosahedron that was twisted a bit. note that every node has 5 arms. there will probably be a mod for this, but to simplify craft sharing of designs like this it would be nice if everyone could download and play with them. as a spoiler i will add pictures of other designs that use the same symmetry. adding more symmetries would not be harmfull. 7x could probably be cool for making heptagrams or something. it would be a very smal addition to the game to add this and it would probably go unnoticed by many, but it would make my day!
  23. Abstract I hereby propose a system to avoid players breaking physics by traveling faster than the speed of light using futuristic drives. Introducing futuristic engines in KSP is needed to deal with the insane distances between stars in order to avoid mega time warps that would fast forward time by hundreds of years. From this arises a problem. Namely, people abusing said engines to break known physics to travel faster than the speed of light - even if using cheats. As an educational game this should be prevented to not spread misinformation about the cosmos. A simple yet realistic (relativistic haha) system to deal with that is time dilation! A space ship approaching the speed of light experiences time more slowly. Down to a full stop at the theoretical limit of the speed of light. At that point chemistry stops working (no time -> no chemical reactions etc.) and a space ship could not accelerate faster. You'd be trapped actually, hence only a theoretical limit. You can't reach it. Since the player is not part of the ship just an observer from a different dimension, time dilation would only affect the ship. Not the ingame clock. How this could be implemented: Reaching a threshold of lets say 30% of the speed of light every engine would start to lose thrust in tangential-exponential fashion. Optionally also reaction wheels and even Kerbals themselves for the player to notice that something strange is going on and he is not just running into a bug. This could be solved with a local time-warp factor <1 that only affects the craft and everything in physics range. If you'd EVA a Kerbal at 99% the speed of light he would also move 7 times more slowly. The ship would rotate 7 times more slowly and produce 7 times less thrust. Or 0.14x thrust: t = t0 / sqrt(1 - (0.99c)^2/c^2) t = t0 / sqrt(1 - 0.99^2) t = t0 / 0.1414 The bottom figure shows the relation between the time of the player and the time of the Kerbal as our velocity is approaching the speed of light c. The closer to the speed of light the more time it takes for the Kerbal to do anything the player asks it to. Up to about 0.3 or 30% of the speed of light the graph can be simplified as linear. This means time passed for the player and time passed for the Kerbal are equal. Hence no calculation is needed for optimization. f(x) = x/sqrt(1-x^2) Conclusion Adding Time Dilation into KSP is necessary to deal with problems that arise from the educational nature of the game and from players being players trying to break physics. Those who dare would be surprised and left in awe as to how much attention to detail the developers put. There are simply no cons besides a few minutes of development time. Thank you! Sources: Calculation by ChatGPT Graph by GeoGebra Calculator PhD. in Kerbal Astrophysics and Goo Dynamics.
  24. Having the ability to take-off from runways 27L & 27R instead of only from 09R & 09L. Potentially adding 1 runway running North/South, 36 & 18, respectively. Also having the ability to load-in, in front of the VAB and be able to taxi to our desired runway. Thank you for the teams hard work, I’m having a blast playing 2.
  • Create New...