ShadowZone - What Kerbal Space Program 2 HAS TO Avoid

[magnemoe]

On 2/11/2023 at 12:58 PM, The Aziz said:

For Duna-and-back all you need is a 2.5m lander with Wolfhound at the bottom (or Poodle, don't remember the stats on the surface), about 2k dV, so Rockomax X200-16 or -32 is enough, docked to another 2.5m nuclear ship, with Jumbo tank. Launch separately, dock in LKO. 

So really the tricky parts are launching the big tank (nothing that can't be solved with 3.75 or 5m parts to keep the count low), and two dockings, one here, the other at Duna. Full craft that is then en route to Duna will have much less than 100 parts.

Other interplanetary missions can be solved by sending everything separately and meeting at destination. That's how I did my Moho mission, and returned using a small nuclear return vehicle.

Problems with the game really start to uncover if you decide to go full Kerbal like SZ with his invictus.

It depend on the scope of the mission, for my first missions scope was rater limited, think my first interplanetary mission was some unmanned rovers from an mod to land on Eve and Gilly. 
I believe I fist sent it into solar orbit and then  set up an trajectory to meet Eve. Mission was mostly an fail as I put the decuplers on  the bottom rovers wrong way so first ended in orbit around Eve. I then took the mother probe suborbital and dropped another who splashed down, wanted to save the last for Gilly who I just had enough dV to reach,  thought I should let the mother probe impact and try to circulate and land with the landing engine on the rover. Messed up staging so I separated from mother probe and then the rover from its landing engine so all the parts impacted Gilly  

First mission to Moho has an relative velocity of 6 km/s  

[The Aziz]

1 hour ago, magnemoe said:

It depend on the scope of the mission

Well, yes, hence the last paragraph in my post. But what could get you there can be no larger than your average science station around Kerbin

 

[snip]

Edited February 13, 2023 by Starhawk
Redacted by moderator

[Starhawk]

Some off-topic content has been removed.

Please confine your remarks to the topic at hand and refrain from bickering, personal remarks, and arguing about arguing.

Thank you for your understanding.

[K^2]

7 hours ago, snkiz said:

And in a racing game that would have been unforgivable.

Very different kind of wheel simulation.

[The Aziz]

I just launched BeamNG and played with different terrains and gravity settings. What a glorious experience!

I know KSP2 won't simulate anything with attention to detail anywhere close to BeamNG (after all it's just a car physics simulation for the most part), but really, the difference in driving (or sliding when it comes to low gravity, but I blame that on ultralight vehicles) on different surfaces is huge. Dirt, sand, ice, rocks, concrete... Quick search says that it probably can be done and I believe the brilliant minds at Intercept would be able to work it out.

[snkiz]

25 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

I just launched BeamNG and played with different terrains and gravity settings. What a glorious experience!

I purposely did not use BeamNG as an example for a reason. Enjoy.

[whatsEJstandfor]

7 minutes ago, snkiz said:

I purposely did not use BeamNG as an example for a reason.

Why not? It's a vehicle simulator that can handle different terrains and gravities, and driving in it at, for example, 1/6g feels like how you'd expect it to feel on, for example, the moon. It seems like a fine thing to compare against, much more so than a traditional racing game.

7 minutes ago, snkiz said:

Enjoy.

I will enjoy it, thank you.

Edited February 14, 2023 by whatsEJstandfor

[snkiz]

21 minutes ago, whatsEJstandfor said:

Why not?

to good, But that the point of that game.

[Bej Kerman]

14 hours ago, snkiz said:

14 hours ago, whatsEJstandfor said:

Why not?

to good

How is it too good?