For Science! - My Thoughts (And Yours Too!)

[MechBFP]

1 hour ago, HebaruSan said:

Flexing is still very much possible

Single stack flexing definitely isn't a thing anymore. Put a MK1 command pod with 32 of the biggest small fuel tanks and a mammoth II engine on the bottom and the thing is as rigid as an  I-beam. Before the update I could make that thing make a circle around itself before it crashed into the ground.

I would rather have it over fixed than under fixed though, so I don't mind.

 

Edited December 23, 2023 by MechBFP

[regex]

33 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

What autostrut setting are you using to get that ridiculousness off the ground?

[HebaruSan]

35 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

Single stack flexing definitely isn't a thing anymore.

Wasn't that the consensus demand of players? Rockets that looks like rockets, also flying like rockets?

[DwightLee]

Well there are still issues, things that need to be resolved, however it is a far cry better than it was before the Science release. We are still deep in early access. I am pleased at the progress. 

[Superfluous J]

43 minutes ago, HebaruSan said:

Wasn't that the consensus demand of players? Rockets that looks like rockets, also flying like rockets?

I've never seen a real life rocket that looked like this.

1 hour ago, MechBFP said:

 

 

[Sp1f]

2 hours ago, HebaruSan said:

Kerbin was always the most boring part of KSP1 career.

Boo! Kerbin is the most beautiful and highly developed planet in KSP1, with the most easter eggs too. Kerbin is awesome.

I’m not saying they should force you to spend time on Kerbin. I don’t want a linear exploration mode where you must do every mission in a specific order. I want to see a variety of optional missions that provide options to explore Kerbin or space, especially in the early game. But if you choose to focus on space instead, the game should be smart enough to pivot to wherever you are at in your space exploration.

I also think it should be smart enough that if you skip right past the early LKO or moon missions and start sending kerbals to Jool or something with early tech (always a favorite challenge in KSP1), the missions should also skip to that kind of content. Progression should not be strictly linear, as it appears to be now.

[speceballs]

 

\

Space probes might need some work too .the monopropellant mix proved more dangerous than i expected. And for some reason that thing  on its own achieved Kerbolar orbit .

[18Watt]

7 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:

I've never seen a real life rocket that looked like this.

I actually built a model rocket which looked a lot like that.  Just because.  Flew pretty well, actually.

[MechBFP]

1 hour ago, regex said:

What autostrut setting are you using to get that ridiculousness off the ground?

Whatever the default is in 0.2. 

27 minutes ago, 18Watt said:

I actually built a model rocket which looked a lot like that.  Just because.  Flew pretty well, actually.

See that is the cool thing to hear because I really don’t have a frame of reference that would tell me what exactly it should act like.

Now I would think that  a model rocket has significant benefits in the weight/material strength department compared to something that weights 180 tons, but I don’t really know. 

[18Watt]

7 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

Now I would think that  a model rocket has significant benefits in the weight/material strength department compared to something that weights 180 tons, but I don’t really know. 

It was surprisingly rigid on the way up.  The tube was apparently so long that the charge to pop the parachute out didn't have enough energy, so it lawn-darted back down.  Rigidly held its shape well, right up to impact.  For the MKII version, we made it even longer, skipped the parachute, and just had it come apart in the middle and tumble down.  Which worked much better.

[fragtzack]

Comparing KSP2 Exploration mode to KSP1 Career mode:

 

In KSP1, I enjoyed creating rockets that were fit for purpose to save costs. If a small payload and low kerbin orbit,  use smaller engines and less fuel. 

In addition, the game of needing to upgrade buildings/pads/runways with fund$ was always another challenge to over come thus further incentivizing building rockets economically.  The need to purchase new designs besides the research. All these budget issues were logical.

Besides these game play coolness of KSP1 $$ budget challenges, in real life solid rocket boosters primary purpose is to save cost$ on the rocket. 

In KSP2 exploration mode, the  The lack of $ budgetary structure is a big miss for me. In KSP2 exploration mode, I am finding zero incentives to not just the same giant launch stage 1/2 regardless of the payload/destination/mission.

KSP2 team , please reconsider and add budget$ issues/challenges into ksp2 exploration mode.

Edited December 23, 2023 by fragtzack

[Bej Kerman]

1 minute ago, fragtzack said:

Comparing KSP2 Exploration mode to KSP1 Career mode:

 

In KSP1, I enjoyed creating rockets that were fit for purpose to save costs. In addition, the game of needing to upgrade buildings/pads/runways with fund$ was always another challenge to over come thus further incentivizing building rockets economically.  The need to purchase new designs besides the research. All these budget issues were logical.

Besides these game play coolness of KSP1 $$ budget challenges, in real life solid rocket boosters primary purpose is to save cost$ on the rocket. 

In KSP2 exploration mode, the  The lack of $ budgetary structure is a big miss for me.

KSP2 team , please reconsider and add budget$ issues/challenges into ksp2 exploration mode.

A. Why would the kerbals suffer a problem that humans created for themselves?

B. Money conflicts with interplanetary colonisation.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

Loaded up for the first time since March / April.  FPS is a nice improvement!

Question - is this a bug or just weird behavior: during reentry I still had a rocket motor and fuel tank attached to the bottom of my pod.  Decided to not decouple, because I wanted to see how the heat effects looked / changed if I decoupled in the middle of reentry.  Everything looked good, until I hit decouple - and then the engine/tank 'rocketed' away (not literally, there was no fuel).

IIRC - in KSP doing the same thing would have the two parts basically hanging out with each other until the different fall / drag rates separated them.  I couldn't even see the 'debris' / rocket & tank after separation... they just disappeared.

Normal?

[Wheehaw Kerman]

27 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

A. Why would the kerbals suffer a problem that humans created for themselves?

B. Money conflicts with interplanetary colonisation.

You can’t have a sophisticated and complex industrial economy of the sort needed for space programs without money.

[Bej Kerman]

3 minutes ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

You can’t have a sophisticated and complex industrial economy of the sort needed for space programs without money.

You can't have a sophisticated industry servicing a space program AND human greed at the same time without money. FTFY. If the kerbals only care about getting to space as opposed to personal luxuries (which is incredibly obvious) then money clearly won't be an inhibiting factor.

[Pthigrivi]

46 minutes ago, fragtzack said:

Comparing KSP2 Exploration mode to KSP1 Career mode:

 

In KSP1, I enjoyed creating rockets that were fit for purpose to save costs. If a small payload and low kerbin orbit,  use smaller engines and less fuel. 

In addition, the game of needing to upgrade buildings/pads/runways with fund$ was always another challenge to over come thus further incentivizing building rockets economically.  The need to purchase new designs besides the research. All these budget issues were logical.

Besides these game play coolness of KSP1 $$ budget challenges, in real life solid rocket boosters primary purpose is to save cost$ on the rocket. 

In KSP2 exploration mode, the  The lack of $ budgetary structure is a big miss for me. In KSP2 exploration mode, I am finding zero incentives to not just the same giant launch stage 1/2 regardless of the payload/destination/mission.

KSP2 team , please reconsider and add budget$ issues/challenges into ksp2 exploration mode.

It’s likely many of these efficiency constraints will come in through resources in a later update. 

[Wheehaw Kerman]

8 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

You can't have a sophisticated industry servicing a space program AND human greed at the same time without money. FTFY. If the kerbals only care about getting to space as opposed to personal luxuries (which is incredibly obvious) then money clearly won't be an inhibiting factor.

Look, if the Culture ever contacts us I am filing a refugee claim immediately, but until then…

Thing is, something akin to money is so insanely useful for compensating economic actors for work and risk, assigning value to resources and products and allocating them that I can’t really imagine any advanced society being able to operate with it.

[Periple]

15 minutes ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

Thing is, something akin to money is so insanely useful for compensating economic actors for work and risk, assigning value to resources and products and allocating them that I can’t really imagine any advanced society being able to operate with it.

I can! 

[Bej Kerman]

18 minutes ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

Thing is, something akin to money is so insanely useful for compensating economic actors for work and risk

The existence of the space center compensates for said work and risk. The kerbals exist to explore, not to engage in squabbles over who has the bigger car or who has the bigger yacht. Money only exists in species that  dumb.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

38 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

human greed

Wut? 

[Bej Kerman]

2 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Wut? 

I concur.

[Wheehaw Kerman]

21 minutes ago, Periple said:

I can! 

Do tell?

[Wheehaw Kerman]

38 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

The existence of the space center compensates for said work and risk. The kerbals exist to explore, not to engage in squabbles over who has the bigger car or who has the bigger yacht. Money only exists in species that  dumb.

So leaving out the existence of corporations, funds, and contracts, not to mention consumer goods, how do the Kerbals prioritize and allocate production - rockets and butt…, er, snacks and coffee?   This is all sort of moot given that we’re going to find out when Resources drops (hopefully it won’t be some sort of unaccountable autocratic command economy, but I expect it’ll amount to basically that), of course.

[Bej Kerman]

5 minutes ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

So leaving out the existence of corporations, funds, and contracts, not to mention consumer goods, how do the Kerbals prioritize and allocate production - rockets and butt…, er, snacks and coffee?   This is all sort of moot given that we’re going to find out when Resources drops (hopefully it won’t be some sort of unaccountable autocratic command economy, but I expect it’ll amount to basically that), of course.

NASA's not going to send a bank with the lunar gateway or the first colonies just cause you find it weird it's possible for people to function without money.

Edited December 23, 2023 by Bej Kerman

[bcink]

2 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Loaded up for the first time since March / April.  FPS is a nice improvement!

Question - is this a bug or just weird behavior: during reentry I still had a rocket motor and fuel tank attached to the bottom of my pod.  Decided to not decouple, because I wanted to see how the heat effects looked / changed if I decoupled in the middle of reentry.  Everything looked good, until I hit decouple - and then the engine/tank 'rocketed' away (not literally, there was no fuel).

IIRC - in KSP doing the same thing would have the two parts basically hanging out with each other until the different fall / drag rates separated them.  I couldn't even see the 'debris' / rocket & tank after separation... they just disappeared.

Normal?

See my comment #1 - The core game functionality is still a hot mess.