• All the rocket simulators are a lie. If you raise your orbit high enough in orbiter you can start to see the plane.

+3 3.5 years ago
• They are making the letters themselves out of blocks and slapping them onto their rockets. If you download a rocket that does this, you will notice that if you try and pull the logo off the rocket, it will only separate into smaller blocks that make it up.

+3 3.5 years ago
• the composer of the music hasn't released his music for purchase yet (Assuming he will). Here's a link to his bandcamp.com page where he listed the music he composed for SimpleRocket 2.
I agree though, it would be nice to see a music video for all of the music.

+3 3.6 years ago
• Man, for a problem that hard, it's almost like Nathan has three lightbulbs in his head where one's been left on, another is off, and the last is still warm from being left on for a while.
it's nice to finally see a cockpit variation :)

+2 1.8 years ago
• it would be awesome to see a full campaign mode in SR2. Seeing something like going to different planets under specific requirements for more money to make more rockets.

+2 2.8 years ago
• @KraZIvan thanks, I didn't see those. i really appreciate it.

+2 2.8 years ago
• @lordverminaard. That's great to hear. Once you get the hang of rendezvous, venturing further into space will be no more difficult. If precision is a big factor, Wikipedia has a good article on calculating the proper phase angle from when you are already in space to rendezvous. link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_phasing. the article isn't specific to rendezvous, but everything mentioned in the article has an application in orbital rendezvous. don't be intimidated by the math in the article, it's just plugging in the proper variables in the equations (I did a whole presentation on the topic of orbital rendezvous when I was in high school by going into the math, and a few people understood it, so I know it can be understood by people with at least high school education). happy flying.

+2 3.6 years ago
• aww, but that takes the fun away from it :) If there is no tutorial on how to do this ever put in place, here is a video on how to "match orbits" (aka rendezvous) and dock made by Scott Manley (it's for KSP, but the orbital mechanics part of it is still applies). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHkY3FusJIQ. I sincerely hope this helps and that I didn't misunderstand what you said. I agree though, the developers should add a rendezvous tutorial somehow for those less knowledgeable on the topic of space travel. My first exposure to rendezvous was in the original SimpleRockets, so because there was no tutorial on the topic and before I started to look up how to actually rendezvous, I was intentionally launching my orbits in the opposite direction to the spacecraft I was trying to rendezvous with thinking that I could reverse my direction if I could only get close enough (I was a lot younger then).
Truth be told, when I play space simulators like KSP, and SimpleRockets, I never really worry getting withing 1 km of my target. although it is an ideal, I typically get within 5 to 6 km and make my way to the spacecraft. It's a little more expensive in fuel, but it a space simulator where money is no obstacle and you are literally creating the thing you are sending up to dock with (you can incorporate the minute amount of extra fuel into your craft's fuel budget).

+2 3.6 years ago
• @Kell Yes, very much so. I am already starting to use it to plan a trip to Cylero

+1 2.8 years ago
• @MarioG thanks.

+1 2.8 years ago
• maybe the devs can simulate weather effects similar to how they did in simpleplanes and then prerender a cloud layer that is also randomly modified for the viewport or something.

+1 3.5 years ago
• @ForeverPie sadly, no trees yet, but simpleplanes barely has any trees either.

+1 3.5 years ago
• @donwea, ok. that's totally understandable why you chose a different style. I am glad to see that you decided to make a promotional poster for simplerockets. To be honest, I might try my hand at making a poster for myself using blender because this is kind of inspirational. You might put up a forum post with a challenge to see who make the best promotional art for the simplerockets 2. If you do, be sure to set up some criteria for judging.

+1 3.5 years ago
• Yay!

+1 3.6 years ago
On whether you should place RCS nozzles on the front and rear of your spacecraft, I would advise you to do so. without forwards and backward translation controls, you will be stuck with only using your main booster for docking. If you are docking, and you notice that you are moving to fast, then the only way to slow down would be to rotate your craft to either allow the rcs on the sides slow you down or use your main booster by rotating some more (the more practical of the two).
On the uncontrollability of your spacecraft when rendezvousing, that could be the game itself, or possibly the ship that you are using. Right now, SimpleRockets 2 isn't that RCS friendly at the moment (although I don't know h

+1 3.6 years ago
• nice. I agree with tsampoy, the A-R-10 is also my favorite, although, I was impressed by your Burke 2 L.E.O. SSTO flight on youtube.

+1 3.6 years ago

+1 3.6 years ago
• here's a brief rundown of the markers:
the green arrow is your apoapsis (the highest point in your orbit)
when getting planning an encounter, there are two markers that show up:
the first one (the white one that looks like a rocket) is the visual representation of where your spacecraft will be closest to your target for a closest approach. the second one (the other white one that looks like a satellite) is the closest your target will be to you visually at your closest approach.
additionally, when in the map view, there is a box on the right that has all of your orbit details. to save "space" (pun intended) in this post, I won't detail each here, but at this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_elements. everything in the orbit details is described in great detail and then some on this page.
note that if you are just starting out, I wouldn't worry a whole lot about everything in the orbit details box except inclination. your Inclination is critical for things like rendezvous, and so are the rest but the rest are for calculations like delta-v required for something, transfers, etc. Hope this helped, and happy flying.

+1 3.6 years ago
• You can resize your slider sizes by changing the UI size though settings, but that still doesn't solve the immovability issue.

+1 3.6 years ago
• From my current limited knowledge in space logistics, the most "efficient" way of planning a rendezvous is to a satellite is by waiting until your target is in a good position, and there are ways of determining this optimal position for a given target, but I don't know how at the moment. But, because it's the most efficient means does not mean it's the only way. I typically wait until my target is around 15 to 20 from vertical until I launch when the target is in roughly a100 km orbit, and design my spacecraft with extra fuel on board to compensate for any extra delta-v I have to expend to rendezvous my orbit. For a more complete guide on how to rendezvous, I recommend Scott Manley's "Orbital Rendezvous And Docking Tutorial" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHkY3FusJIQ. In this video, he details how to "catch up," or "slow down" relative to your target for getting a close rendezvous.
Other terms you might want to know: (I listed these just in case you don't know them, and not to insult your intelligence, I simply listed these here because I have no idea if you know these critical terms for orbital mechanics):
apoapsis: highest point in your orbit
periapsis: lowest point in your orbit
right ascension *(aka, longitude of the ascending node): the angle from a reference direction (typically the vernal point. )
*argument of periapsis:
the angle that you orbit's periapsis is measured when measured from the ascending node (note that this is not relative to the equato

+1 3.6 years ago
• Thank you for this wonderful creation.

+1 3.6 years ago
• To say the least, I hope there are intentions of adding interesting locations and things to do at each planet. What is the point of building a spaceship other than to say that it went to a place? I understand that ksp suffers from a similar problem and people still enjoy it, but it also 7 different and unique locations each with interesting things spread around the place (though sparsely).

+1 3.6 years ago
• Admittedly, I want weapons in simplerockets 2. That would be such a novel idea, and I want to stress that I haven't seen any arguments for or against weapons in simplerockets 2, but I do want to mention this: the use of conventional weapons in space is very impractical. "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction." So if I fire a projectile (say a bullet) from my spacecraft in orbit, the action of firing the bullet would change my orbit because the gun I would be firing the bullet from would be forced back by the bullet. Now imagine what would happen if a Gatling gun strapped to the front of the rocket fired at the rate of 5,000 rounds per minute. One shot would be annoying to compensate for, but a destroyer with an arsenal of weaponry firing would be detrimental to said destroyer. There are other issues presented with weaponry in space like space junk, and that it's impractical to even arrange a space battle (however one the space junk side of things, that would probably be an accepted reality of war in space).
I would still love to see weaponry, it's just that this game is about simulating space travel. It's not a battle simulator.
there are actual possibilities of weaponry in space with the introduction of lasers designed to heat up the interior of a spacecraft until the occupants surrender (because science did a video describing what I mean on this in his video on battles in space), but I don't think people would find that amusing, or entertaining because of how long the process of using these lasers actually takes.

+1 3.6 years ago
• how about an artificial planet the size of a small moon orbiting close to the sun that would have served as some power station or sorts to an ancient civilization.
Or how about a geosynchronous moon to an inner planet at an obscure inclination. I haven't seen that done in a space simulator before.

+1 3.6 years ago
• lol

+1 3.6 years ago
• Slap my staples button because "that was easy"!
After 2 tried, and 2 backup saves (one for the launch, and the other for the moon landing) I landed on the luna and returned and returned back to Droo (I understand that was the easiest challenge which inherently made this challenge incredibly easy, but I wanted to complete this as soon as possible).
In my pictures collage, you might notice that in my return from Luna, I tried to aerobrake, went back out, and tried again with noticeably more success the second time. I did this because I had no idea if the developers made the atmosphere stop at the Karman line and because I didn't want to burn up on reentry.
Mind the rough landing on Droo, I was waiting to see my shadow and it appeared a little earlier than I had anticipated.

This was definitely a fun challenge, and I look forward to later challenges.

https://www.simplerockets.com/c/gHm3G1/unnecessarily-huge-heavy-hauler-Gen-1

+1 3.6 years ago
• @SpaceSharkie201 considering I made this nearly 3 years ago, and I've neglected playing anything simplerockets 2 related since then, yours will likely be bounds better. I'll be learning this stuff in a lot of detail one of my coming semesters, but until then.

8 months ago
• Congratulations!

2.0 years ago
• I would love to see it just to mess around with it alone.

3.4 years ago
• @XjayIndustrys, maybe about 2.5 minutes. I haven't tested it scientifically. :)

3.5 years ago
• @XjayIndustrys lol. Just stick a hotdog out the window for about 3 minutes, and you have lunch (just mind the lack of breathable oxygen).

3.5 years ago
• It does though. I am able to do aerobrakes using cylero's atmosphere.

3.5 years ago
• @pedro16797, really! I thought that the devs would have used a prop system to make the launch site. I might look into making my own replicas then and putting them in the game when modding support comes out (assuming it hasn't already came out).

3.5 years ago
• nothing, because of school.

3.5 years ago
• @pedro16797, yeah. what I meant to say was launch sites with runways and buildings.

3.5 years ago
• glad to hear you love it.

3.5 years ago
• all of these would be nice, especially the dummy PoV. I am always one for first-person flying.

3.5 years ago
• I have never seen that. It could very well be a glitch.

3.5 years ago
• definitely

3.5 years ago
• it can be moved. if you click and hold in between the minus and plus sign, you should be able to move it around as you please.

3.5 years ago
• This is likely an issue over the center of lift and center of mass. If the center of lift is above the center of mass, then your rocket will flip head over toe until it crashes. the simplest solution to this, like Sumeee said, is to add fins to your second stage. if you are unsure if this is the problem, click the eye icon in the editor and then the red and blue indicators (center of mass, and center of lift respectively). As long as you keep your CoM, and CoL in their respective places, your spacecraft should never barrel out of control unless you bank or yaw to hard to one side or something.

3.5 years ago

3.5 years ago
• lol

3.5 years ago
• fascinating!

3.5 years ago
• I hope so.

3.5 years ago
• @donwea thanks

3.5 years ago
• @donwea. This could be very nitpicky, but the color pallet that You chose, with all the orange hues and such, doesn't really match the overwhelming amount of blue that I see in when playing simplerockets 2. I am not a graphic designer by any stretch, but I found it odd to see a lot of orange in the poster when the game it's promoting doesn't have a lot of orange in it. Don't get me wrong though, I love the colors on this. If this poster was advertising for any other space game, I would have absolutely no problems. all of that to say this, I feel that the colors should be changed to match more the colors that the game typically displays like light blues, greens, and grays. great work so far. Again, I love the design. it's very appealing to the eyes. also, I wouldn't mind seeing a vector file. I hope all of that made sense. I can try saying it in another way if there is something that I need to clarify.

3.5 years ago
• I like it. i am glad you thought of this; However, are you open to some constructive criticism?

3.5 years ago
• here's a rendition of the plane that I made to add to the all-important pool of truth: