Yeah, but I still prefer KSP more. Simply because it has more personality, with the little astronaut displays and three getting scared during explosions, etc.
It does show. That's the heart that's in KSP, also. That's why I see it as canon ksp 2. You can really see that something went wrong in that department with "official" ksp2. Money grab.
12:31 What you forgot over here is that engines are procedural in Juno. Also you can see the (L)sp on the right by clicking staging analysis and environment.
8:47 yes the moon gets blocked by our Earth (completely) from time to time, but in KSP the mun is on the same inclination to the sun and its orbit around Kerbin so that every „month“ there is a total lunar eclipse and on earth we have 2 times a year a „lunar eclipse window“ which is also a solar eclipse window where the moon can be blocked by the earth and vice versa. Side note: when the moon „misses“ the earth‘s shadow just a bit, the atmospheric refraction makes the moon red (blood moon)
22:00 that menu is hidden unless you click on the navcircle symbol in the side panel on the right. All of the orientation options are there, prograde, target, you name it. I know you don't want to hear it, but the tutorial would really help with stuff like that ;)
19:30 I get not wanting tutorials or hand holding, but at the same time, but at the same time a lot of things you struggled with or found frustrating... was a direct result of you not doing the tutorial.
Absolutely. Reinventing the wheel and banging your head against the wall is both a waste of time and gives false impressions to the viewers of what features the game Juno does or doesn't have. Also, it is difficult to properly compare the two games when you've got tremendous play time in one and are brand new in the other. Despite the criticisms, it's great to see him branching out to Juno.
I find most tutorials go by too fast. I used to not bother, but after all the videos I've watched in the last couple of years, I'm kind-of a convert. :) I've picked up so much from tutorials and elsewhere. I still don't know where to find tutorials which really work well for me, (other than one channel for KSP whose name escapes me,) but watch enough videos and you pick stuff up. The trouble is I don't think there are enough videos for JNO. I've picked up a lot of it, but... Well, chat rooms and forums can be a useful alternate resource.
@@eekee6034of you pick career, there are tutorials covering all the basics in Juno. From building rockets, to steering. There is no DEDICATED mode known as tutorial. All this stuff is covered in career mode.
If you press the button on the top right that looks like a miniature of the circles around the craft, all your radial/prograde/etc lock options are revealed
I see your point about wanting numbers for engine performance un the selection, but i think there is a good reason why they're missing: The available engines are basically just useful presets, that you are expected/ its useful to modify. Therefore, all the performance indicators change once you modify the engine. I see that it is a steep learing curve to optimise your engine, i think the most useful parameters to start with are size and nozzle length. As an aside, i like pinning the planning panel in the map view after setting the maneuver node and switching back to the main view to have all the infos ( and the looks)
All your engine performance data is in the drop down menu on the right side of the screen, you can also analyze engine performance for different planets and atmosphere density. Also, it really doesn't matter what engine you grab from the menu because engines are 100% procedural. I could drop a srb on my rocket and then edit it to be a high ISP vacuum optimized liquid engine
The eclipse in this video is a total lunar eclipse. And yes, they happen more often than total solar eclipses because the shadow of the Earth is larger than the shadow of the moon. Although, since the orbit of the Mun is in the same plane as the orbit of Kerbin around the sun, eclipses happen every orbit in KSP whereas they happen far less often in reality.
@@DavidEdwards9801 That is a common misconception. The New Moon is when we see only the night side of the Moon from Earth. It has nothing to do with eclipses.
15:14 Juno actually adapts the interstage to the engine automatically. You can of course always change it if you like, but it otherwise adapts to the perfect length for the engine you have.
More Juno gameplay!! Also i think paying the career mode in juno is the best way to learn without "tutorials" as its the same in KSP. Can't wait to see more missions and crafts and comparisons
There is a counterpart to SAS. Click on the controls at the upper right and you'll see a lock symbol. That'll stabilize the vehicle. JNO has similar delta-V needs to KSP but can vary. Procedural parts throughout. Think laterally than vertically for building (wider stages, like a Saturn V). In Career mode you'll be limited based available pads on Droo. The little moon T.T. is in a retrograde orbit, plan carefully. JNO's engines have efficiency types like real engines (gas generator, pressurized, etc). All you need to do is size up. You did a great job! Keep it up...but study a little more. The dialogs in the editor and flight tell you much of what you need--a built-in Kerbal Engineer. Droo atmosphere: 80 km.
ksp vet also playing juno lately here - the size of an engine can be adjusted in juno, too, but Isp remains constant (if only size is changed). You can also tweak nozzle type, and its throat size, as well as the bell length to change Isp, thrust, and ofc resulting delta-v. So many engines overlap in performance and it seems cost is the main thing to concern yourself with (great for career, imo). In sandbox mode, though i'd just go with the first engine that has enough thrust by default and then adjust to max its isp and delta-v result within the constraints of my build. Also: the top right nav panel during flight is the ksp SAS equivalent, which might help with stability, but don't forget to dedicate space for gyroscopes or increase their power (command discs / capsules respectively). i've been really liking jno and imo it's canon ksp 2 (we don't talk about ksp 2 - sigh).
If you had played through the career, you would not be confused about which engine to use. But in practice, just plop any on and then change the type in properties until you are satisfied, you don't have to pull the engine off and put a new kind on.
Once in orbit, you can use the top button in the right panel to pick orientations. While suborbital, you have cardinal directions there, but radial in and out become available once your periapsis is high enough.
I was confused about JNO rocket engines until I tried adjusting one. I guess the ones in New Parts are just presets because you can change *everything* about an engine. I started with a bell which looked vaguely like a Space Shuttle engine and ended up with an incredibly pointy aerospike much longer and narrower than any you've ever seen, all in a quest for vacuum delta-V. Droo's atmosphere stops at 78 point too-many-decimal-places kilometers. :) To be honest, it's hard to remember. Oh, landing in JNO is going to be difficult!
(16:22) you can scroll down the design info and theres a slider on one of the sub page there where you can see the performance of the vehicle at each and every planet and body at all altitude, you can also see the performance of each stages
Every time there is a lunar eclipse on the Earth, there is a solar eclipse on Moon. Every time there is a solar eclipse on the Earth, there is a geo eclipse on Moon.
@@ky4nn894 Holly... is actually on the Google Store. I hope it can be purchased though because I won't accept the version with ads. It's a shame it's not on GOG, but I already have the Steam version.
Juno is indeed amazing. If you invest some time in the game you can do amazing things The community is also great, one time there was a new player on the discord server and at least 5 people were trying to help them 😅
At 13:10: If you want to change the size of a tank with an attached engine, you can still use the part shape tool (click cursor icon on the top left, then the blue rectangle with the arrows). Once the selection is at the centre of the fuel tank, you can change the length in the menu on the left. Still, I agree it would be nice if there was a more graphical way to achieve the same. At 15:15: The size of interstages by default auto-resizes to match the size of the engine when you attach the interstage, so you don't have to do that manually. If you don't want it to auto-resize, you can turn it off in the interstage's settings. At 16:00: The engines are mainly just starting presets, which you can then modify using the settings menu to best suit your needs. No matter which (rocket) engine you start with, it is possible to reach any other preset just by changing the settings of your engine. I cannot recall the last time I had a rocket which actually launched with even a single engine which I hadn't modified any property of. At 19:00: The atmosphere of Droo starts at 78.1 km according to the wiki. Usually I use 80 km as my safe altitude, just because it is a simpler number to remember, and then you have a tiny bit of margin to manoeuver. At 22:00: To access the "SAS modes", click the button on the top right with the blue and orange circle. Here you can toggle the visibility of the nav gizmo, as well as set prograde, radial in, etc. At 23:40: If you pin any window (click the thumb-tack icon next to the close button), it will stay visible even when you switch views. That being said, I really enjoy these video's. It's a lot of fun seeing these side-by-sides having played both games myself as well. Amazing work!
I have spent a very, very long time playing JNO, so I have never really realized how poor the beginner experience is. This game is incredibly detailed, but not every option is obvious to a beginner. Just about every complaint you had about the game has a solution-for example: all engines are completely procedural and the engine you chose out of the parts menu doesn’t matter-you can change it to be anything you want through the menu. This is the case for quite a few parts that you may feel don’t work as desired from the start-almost all of them have a detailed option menu. Second, if you click the “environment” tab on the info menu in the builder, you can change the atmospheric height the info reflects similar to Kerbal Engineer Redux in KSP
@@kuba_marI agree the tutorials are helpful, but they do still leave a large portion of the many options in the game uncovered, though I guess that’s the drawback of building such an amazingly detailed game
Mostly a beginner to JNO, coming from a long time in KSP, and I gotta say I am /loving/ JNO. I went in as a skeptic and spent hours trying to find things I didn't like or to complain about (too good to be true usually is mindset etc - but beside the point), and by doing my due diligence to figure things out, I found that I couldn't really find anything I didn't like. New, strange in some aspects, but not disappointing. I've been telling everyone that JNO is true canon KSP 2 imo.
As soon as I saw the Kerbal craft my first thought was 'The delta V margins are going to be really tight' I think a new player might want to add a couple SRBs to the first stage and slightly extend the second. Also, this includes some parts that are a decent way down the tech tree. So although the basics would be the same, the actual craft a new player would build might look different unless they are learning the ropes in sandbox mode.
a tip with Juno's engines: every engine available is a preset, not a full setup. I'd suggest taking something like the Gnome and messing around with settings while looking at the design info. the design info panel will tell you everything you need to know about your engine setup such as thrust, ISP, and even nozzle pressure. try mixing and matching nozzles, combustion cycles, and otherwise to figure out what you like. also, hovering over settings will give you a tooltip in case you didn't know
21:35 you can tweak a setting called "star brightness" which basically changes the opacity of the skybox. A lot of players prefer to either dial that down or straight up change it to 0
Imagine he gave the game a quick run over (5-10 minutes) learned the features before giving the game a review saying “it’s missing this, or missing that”
just like anything else engines are as well fully customizable. All the different types you see in the builder are just presets. You can take any engine and change it to whatever you want.
@@xionix4 the gimbal range is restricted by engine cycle. If you set them to the same engine cycle, they will have the same gimbal range. They’re obviously a far departure from the original engines at that point. But you can transform one into another. They’re the same actual part under the hood.
16:06 These values are not fixed because the engines (like all the other stuff) are procedural in JNO and so you can change this along with the parameters. The engine itself is only defined via fuel type and fuel cycle. 21:00 Juno is a hypothetical type of star, a blue dwarf. So it is possible to match his low gravitational parameter with reality (which is not the case in KSP, Kerbol can not exist as a G-type star with his mass).
Personally I find Juno way more fun for building launch vehicles and KSP way more fun for building spacecraft (although I’m only halfway through Juno’s career mode). The custimizability of the engines and fuel tanks means there’s way more to it than slapping bigger boosters and engines on a rocket just to make it work. On the other hand the communications stuff and cuter aesthetic makes actually exploring planets way more interesting. Looking at the achievements in Juno for the amount of people that have explored certain planets shows how interesting most players find it
You do have radial in, radial out, prograde, retrograde etc controls on the right hand side of the screen. If you click the button that looks like a picture of the control gizmos it pops up a panel with them all
11:43 in the select part tool (on the left, second button then first button from the top), there's a toggle for attaching to the surface of parts additionally, there's a part attachment tool (same section, sixth button) where you can toggle individual (or all) attachment points for the selected part but I do miss being able to just hold alt for that also, heading lock can be found in the first button below the speed controls in the top right. and you can toggle it by pressing T like you would in ksp. using the nav circle also implicitly enables it. unlike in ksp though, trying to pitch or yaw resets it to your current heading.
Since the engines are procedural, a thing I haven't found is a way to save your own engine designs, so I don't have to reconfigure my first and second stage engines every time I design a different rocket.
but you can't see what's going on on the mun, the more important part because not only is is darker on the mun than on kerbin at night, but you also need to maneuver on the mun wheras you just need to plop out you parachute on kerbin
Ok, I am happy having this series, I hope we get other planets as well. Surely Duna(Mars) would be the next destination, mostly cus Minmus doesn't exist in Juno. Look forward to seeing more.
When the earth blocks sunlight from reaching the moon, you get a lunar eclipse. About every 6 months, the moon's orbital plane aligns with the earth, and a lunar eclipse will occur. Depending on the precise timing of the event, the eclipse may be partial, total, or "penumbral". A total lunar eclipse is one where the sun is completely obscured by the earth over the entire surface of the moon. A partial lunar eclipse is where the sun is blocked out completely fro. only part of the surface of the moon. A penumbral eclipse is where none of the moon is blocked entirely, but where some or all of the moon has some amount of sunlight obscured by the moon.
being a beginner is 100% okay. please, do show us what needs to be more clear. but stop passing judgement about the game! you admit you know very little, but instead of saying "i hope it is somewhere" you keep saying "the game isnt great without it" its fine if its not clear. you can say all you want about lack of clarity. but the game isn't bad T^T
Juno already seems better than KSP2. Hopefully they make the building a bit more user friendly, and hopefully work on the flight a bit more. Might be a game I pick up once there's a few more QoL changes. The few things with the graphics shouldn't be too hard to fix either, and I don't care about that aspect as much, as long as the game plays well.
Well, KSP2 left a huge vacuum, but KSP1 is still very polished at this point. I believe that if another game manages to offer not only as much, but more than KSP1 then they might have a chance, otherwise the whole genre might suffer from a hiatus if content creators feel that KSP1 is not worth to continue investing on. Would it be fun to make a new series adding a lot of mods and thinking about a new set of objectives in KSP1, or could it feel stale?
Lunar eclipses I believe happened more frequently than solar eclipses. Or perhaps they are observable over most of the earth compared to solar eclipses, which are only observable over a small part of the earth. Edit: it looks like it is the latter. Both solar and lunar eclipses happen about 2 to 5 times per year, but lunar eclipses are visible from a much larger area on earth so it feels like they are more frequent.
I urge you to just experiment off camera and look at tutorials on customization of parts and design techniques of crafts. You seem to have a lot of criticism of how the game looks and the limitations of things but all that can be solved by just looking a tutorials and other community threads. You say you want to learn by yourself abd not lean on feedback and tutorials but the thing about this game is everything is customizable and even with tutorials theres a lot that still requires trial and error. Visuals are amazing if you learn how to color your parts and change the properties of the colors (smoothness, metallic-ness, light emissions, etc) Can also change the way your engine plumes look in the XML (advanced part editor) under advanced properties and much more.
But no I’m not a Juno fan boy but I’ve played it for years. Bros gonna loose validity here bc: He obviously didn’t even give the game a quick brush over, or at the most a tutorial. And paints the game in a bad light, just bc he has no clue what he’s doing
Funny how before, UA-camrs would mock Juno (formerly simple rockets) for being a KSP rip-off and now UA-camrs are saying that Juno is the best alternative to KSP due to the lay-offs.
21:34 In Juno, you _can_ produce vehicles that look better than KSP2 -- but it requires an enormous amount of time clipping non-functional parts and similar to get there. If you don't invest the time, however, you end up with _very_ generic vehicles that look worse than KSP1. 23:53 As long as all of your burns are retrograde, the cost to land (in delta-v) exactly matches your surface velocity. This assumes you perform a perfect hover slam (at 100% throttle) so in practice you will need more than that, but that's the theoretical minimum. In short, there is no penalty associated with zero'ing velocity (with a retrograde burn) and then falling straight down.
"As long as all of your burns are retrograde, the cost to land (in delta-v) exactly matches your surface velocity. " That's not true (or only if your orbit has a height of 0.0 meters above sl). The velocity results in a kinetic energy, but you also have potential energy to kill. Otherwise it would cost you less dV when landing from higher orbits (which is not the case). The vis-viva equation helps you to calculate the resulting orbital energy. Normally the landing-dV in all dV maps for celestial bodies without an atmosphere contains the dV for this orbital energy correctly. And yes, this is very theoretical and is not achievable in normal cases.
@tabbycat6802 Yeah, you ate correct. The total energy required to land (which scales linearly to delta-v) is set when you enter the SOI of the target. As long as your orbit doesn't intersect with the surface of the planet any retrograde burn "pays off" part of the cost to land at a 1:1 ratio. Once your orbit *does* intersect with the surface of the planet, only burns tangent to the surface of the planet but otherwise retrograde are 100% efficient. To minimizing gravity losses it is necessary to eliminate the vertical component of velocity at the last second (e.g. perform a suicide burn). Bottom line: Delta-v wise, there is no penalty (nor advantage) in performing a large deorbit burn (resulting in a mostly vertical drop) vs a small deorbit burn (resulting in a large horizontal velocity component after the burn).
@@jmr5125 1st part can be possible when you make an direct descent (from an hybolical flyby). But then you go for only ONE suicide burn. It is definetally wrong when you land from an elliptical (or circular) orbit (which reqires two burns). 2nd part is definitely wrong. You can calculate that easily, the "large deorbit burn" case give you two penaltys: orbital velocity + free fall velocity equals more than the vis-viva orbital energy. And then you cancel out the free fall velocity with a radial out burn and that includes the maximum of gravitational losses (the "small deorbit burn" results in two burns and both are retrograde without that losses). In case of the mun in KSP from an 15 km circular orbit: "Large deorbit": 550 m/s + 221 m/s, for an TWR of maybe 3 you gain additionally 110 m/s gravitational loss = 881 m/s. (Maybe more, because you need a perfect timing) "Small deorbit": 10 m/s to lower your periapsis to the surface + 581 m/s for landing = 591 m/s. (Maybe more, because you need a perfect timing too)
@tabbycat6802 Canceling out the free fall velocity in the large deorbit burn _will_ be a retrograde burn. Retrograde is defined using the velocity vector, after all. I haven't done the math to prove it, but I did test this a long time ago in KSP1 using MechJeb to perform all the burns and landing (in the "Land Anywhere" mode), and the tests indicated a nearly constant cost, with the variation most likely caused by variation in the landing site altitude. It also makes sense from a pure kinetics point of view -- when you enter the SOI, you have a certain amount of kinetic energy (velocity) and potential energy (altitude). To land, you need to zero out both of these numbers, but it doesn't matter in what order you do so. For clarity, in the "Large deorbit burn" case, I am assuming that you thrust tangent to the surface of the planet rather than strictly retrograde. If you track the velocity vector during the deorbit burn then yes, you'll waste some delta-v due to opposing the acceleration due to gravity. It is important that zero delta-v be spent opposing gravity until the last possible instance, as rhe longer you spend falling the more velocity you will have at the end. If the orbit is fairly circular, simply burning orbital retrograde will produce the desired tangential burn vector until tangential velocity gets quite small (for Luna, say a total velocity of 50 m/s?). This is because the acceleration due to gravity is small and the initial velocity in the planet radial direction will also be very small. Furthermore, due to the limitations of the maneuver node widget then the planned burn won't take acceleration due to gravity _during_ the burn into account, so it will match the ideal case if the initial orbit is circular.
@@jmr5125 In the "Large deorbit burn" case (cancel out the orbital velocity first completely, "resulting in a mostly vertical drop" - according to you) you will fall vertical to the surface. You are right, in fact this radial out burn for landing safely is also an retrograde burn - not only retro against your vector, but also against the gravitational field. I can not understand how this can happen tangential. However: This two cases are based on an stable orbit in advance. Not from "entering SOI".
Whenever there is a Lunar eclipse on earth, the earth is blocking the sun to the moon, so a solar eclipse on the moon happens as much as lunar eclipes on earth hehe
do you not have waterfall configs for restock? the engine plumes on the ksp side look like they're using realplume's particle effects rather than waterfall's meshes
Kerbal Annihilation Program against JUNO, truly the battle of the first gen spaceflight simulators. I say first gen because we all know some guy will eventually make one that hopefully is better than both
A comment on engine plumes. They look much less impressive in space than in KSP. I can't find the link... But somewhere there is a video of the Space Shuttle Main Engine as viewed from the SRB during separation and it is basically a white disk. Still - KSP (with mods) has prettier ones if one isn't too worried about reality!
Yeah, that's the problem. An even better way to see the problem is to watch a Falcon-9 launch during second stage -- even with the camera extremely close, the exhaust plume is nearly invisible. I'm pretty sure that Juno"s exhaust plumes are realistic and the modded KSP1 exhaust plumes are designed to "look good." An "Unrealistic exhaust plumes" option would be nice... :) With that being said, a large enough engine _does_ produce a visible exhaust plume in a vacuum, but a simple lander doesn't require a sufficiently large engine.
Be careful with Restock. It changes the physics of the parts from original settings. Mostly affecting drag and atmospheric flight. VAOS had trouble with this, it was affecting his ssto's and larger rockets.
You have that slightly wrong. It has no effect on large craft. It was the world’s smallest SSTO that was able to get to orbit with restock but couldn’t with fully stock.
It wlways amazes me how little Rocket you actually need to get Places in KSP. I always think I need more and pack way too much delta-V Better too much than too little.
12:36 My brother in Christ. Look over to the right side of your screen, ALL of the information that you are saying you don't see is displayed right there!!
Yes, AFTER I place the engine. I want to see basic info BEFORE clicking on a part, placing it in the editor and then finding out that I maybe should have better picked another one. KSP shows all that info in the part selector.
@@ShadowZoneOK but you don't really need that when the opportunity of customising your engines to fit your expectations is something you can do, it's rare to ever have the presets be what you need
@@ShadowZone Your problem comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of what JNO is, or more accurately what it isnt, KSP. Its not about "picking the right part" for what you need, thats how its in KSP but not JNO, theres just a single part youre supposed to customize into what you need, the game just gives you it already customized into some general archetypes, but as for what you can make them into theres no difference, you can start with any of them and end up with the same part. That is why the game doesnt give you that info there, because its actually just useless
@@ShadowZone I agree with this, but I also feel like there's a certain simplistic charm overall (considering all the tweakability you could ever want is under the surface) that I don't want to vie too strongly against, lest it be corrupted / lost. That said, it would be nice to see at least default Isp xD
That's what I was just thinking after seeing Juno for the first time. It reminds me of that crappy 2-D rocket building game that kids were raving about.
Juno could really use either steam workshop integration or a ckan-like tool for modders. I see they've worked with at least one KSP modder (Linx) to port over mods in the past, but unlike KSP it's far less clear how easy or hard modding is and where to look to install them. And there's just far fewer Juno mods, though there is one for designing marginally better engine plumes, at least. Might be worth at least installing a couple popular mods to compare apples to apples...
Installing mods in Juno are extremely easy though if you just look. There's a download button when you go to your side menu that will take you directly to the games website where you can search and download crafts and mods with ease directly into your game. There's also a whole thread teaching you how to mod. It's very direct as is and you don't need the steam workshop at all.
JNO is a game made by passionate devs, and it shows. Lovely game.
Yeah, but I still prefer KSP more. Simply because it has more personality, with the little astronaut displays and three getting scared during explosions, etc.
Simpleplanes bias
Ksp off brand but it's good off brand tho
@@user-ix6gx1gp6k I like that it constrains my imagination less, but I get you.
It does show. That's the heart that's in KSP, also. That's why I see it as canon ksp 2. You can really see that something went wrong in that department with "official" ksp2. Money grab.
12:31 What you forgot over here is that engines are procedural in Juno. Also you can see the (L)sp on the right by clicking staging analysis and environment.
Lsp? Specific angular momentum? .-.
@@xionix4 Litres per second
Heyyy @potatoincanada201 wassup!
@@ky4nn894 Hi
@@Potatoincanada201Liters second per...
8:47 yes the moon gets blocked by our Earth (completely) from time to time, but in KSP the mun is on the same inclination to the sun and its orbit around Kerbin so that every „month“ there is a total lunar eclipse and on earth we have 2 times a year a „lunar eclipse window“ which is also a solar eclipse window where the moon can be blocked by the earth and vice versa.
Side note: when the moon „misses“ the earth‘s shadow just a bit, the atmospheric refraction makes the moon red (blood moon)
This happened to ne yesterday and It is stunning
I think if I remember correctly they made the Mun have the same inclination as Kerbin to make it easier for newer players to go to
22:00 that menu is hidden unless you click on the navcircle symbol in the side panel on the right. All of the orientation options are there, prograde, target, you name it. I know you don't want to hear it, but the tutorial would really help with stuff like that ;)
19:30 I get not wanting tutorials or hand holding, but at the same time, but at the same time a lot of things you struggled with or found frustrating... was a direct result of you not doing the tutorial.
Absolutely. Reinventing the wheel and banging your head against the wall is both a waste of time and gives false impressions to the viewers of what features the game Juno does or doesn't have. Also, it is difficult to properly compare the two games when you've got tremendous play time in one and are brand new in the other. Despite the criticisms, it's great to see him branching out to Juno.
I find most tutorials go by too fast. I used to not bother, but after all the videos I've watched in the last couple of years, I'm kind-of a convert. :) I've picked up so much from tutorials and elsewhere. I still don't know where to find tutorials which really work well for me, (other than one channel for KSP whose name escapes me,) but watch enough videos and you pick stuff up. The trouble is I don't think there are enough videos for JNO. I've picked up a lot of it, but... Well, chat rooms and forums can be a useful alternate resource.
@@eekee6034of you pick career, there are tutorials covering all the basics in Juno. From building rockets, to steering. There is no DEDICATED mode known as tutorial. All this stuff is covered in career mode.
@@just_archan Thanks! But I can do all those :)
@@kuba_mar broo, I did the same thing 😂
If you press the button on the top right that looks like a miniature of the circles around the craft, all your radial/prograde/etc lock options are revealed
I see your point about wanting numbers for engine performance un the selection, but i think there is a good reason why they're missing:
The available engines are basically just useful presets, that you are expected/ its useful to modify. Therefore, all the performance indicators change once you modify the engine.
I see that it is a steep learing curve to optimise your engine, i think the most useful parameters to start with are size and nozzle length.
As an aside, i like pinning the planning panel in the map view after setting the maneuver node and switching back to the main view to have all the infos ( and the looks)
All your engine performance data is in the drop down menu on the right side of the screen, you can also analyze engine performance for different planets and atmosphere density. Also, it really doesn't matter what engine you grab from the menu because engines are 100% procedural. I could drop a srb on my rocket and then edit it to be a high ISP vacuum optimized liquid engine
The eclipse in this video is a total lunar eclipse. And yes, they happen more often than total solar eclipses because the shadow of the Earth is larger than the shadow of the moon. Although, since the orbit of the Mun is in the same plane as the orbit of Kerbin around the sun, eclipses happen every orbit in KSP whereas they happen far less often in reality.
I was going to point out that every lunar month there is a "new moon" where it's in Earth's shadow
@@DavidEdwards9801 That is a common misconception. The New Moon is when we see only the night side of the Moon from Earth. It has nothing to do with eclipses.
@@gptiede OMFG are you that dumb that you don't know that the "New Moon" is nothing more than a total eclipse of the Moon by Earth??
@@gptiede obviously I shouldn't have wasted my fking time telling a flat-earther why the orbits are round !
21:34 you can change the intensity of the skybox in the settings
Juno definitely is a lovely game ❤
15:14 Juno actually adapts the interstage to the engine automatically. You can of course always change it if you like, but it otherwise adapts to the perfect length for the engine you have.
More Juno gameplay!! Also i think paying the career mode in juno is the best way to learn without "tutorials" as its the same in KSP. Can't wait to see more missions and crafts and comparisons
There /are/ tutorials in jno career, but you can opt-out and just figure it out yourself if you want
There is a counterpart to SAS. Click on the controls at the upper right and you'll see a lock symbol. That'll stabilize the vehicle. JNO has similar delta-V needs to KSP but can vary. Procedural parts throughout. Think laterally than vertically for building (wider stages, like a Saturn V). In Career mode you'll be limited based available pads on Droo. The little moon T.T. is in a retrograde orbit, plan carefully. JNO's engines have efficiency types like real engines (gas generator, pressurized, etc). All you need to do is size up. You did a great job! Keep it up...but study a little more. The dialogs in the editor and flight tell you much of what you need--a built-in Kerbal Engineer. Droo atmosphere: 80 km.
Brother, honestly, just play the Juno tutorials in the campaign missions. This is painful to watch :P :D
ksp vet also playing juno lately here - the size of an engine can be adjusted in juno, too, but Isp remains constant (if only size is changed). You can also tweak nozzle type, and its throat size, as well as the bell length to change Isp, thrust, and ofc resulting delta-v. So many engines overlap in performance and it seems cost is the main thing to concern yourself with (great for career, imo). In sandbox mode, though i'd just go with the first engine that has enough thrust by default and then adjust to max its isp and delta-v result within the constraints of my build.
Also: the top right nav panel during flight is the ksp SAS equivalent, which might help with stability, but don't forget to dedicate space for gyroscopes or increase their power (command discs / capsules respectively). i've been really liking jno and imo it's canon ksp 2 (we don't talk about ksp 2 - sigh).
If you had played through the career, you would not be confused about which engine to use. But in practice, just plop any on and then change the type in properties until you are satisfied, you don't have to pull the engine off and put a new kind on.
Thanks for showing off a bit of Juno, I did not know it was that polished!
Comparing a massively modded version of KSP1 to basic Juno isn't very fair
Once in orbit, you can use the top button in the right panel to pick orientations. While suborbital, you have cardinal directions there, but radial in and out become available once your periapsis is high enough.
31:22 you can lock on nodes by clicking the first of the five symbols below the timer i n the upper right section
I was confused about JNO rocket engines until I tried adjusting one. I guess the ones in New Parts are just presets because you can change *everything* about an engine. I started with a bell which looked vaguely like a Space Shuttle engine and ended up with an incredibly pointy aerospike much longer and narrower than any you've ever seen, all in a quest for vacuum delta-V.
Droo's atmosphere stops at 78 point too-many-decimal-places kilometers. :) To be honest, it's hard to remember.
Oh, landing in JNO is going to be difficult!
(16:22) you can scroll down the design info and theres a slider on one of the sub page there where you can see the performance of the vehicle at each and every planet and body at all altitude, you can also see the performance of each stages
Every time there is a lunar eclipse on the Earth, there is a solar eclipse on Moon. Every time there is a solar eclipse on the Earth, there is a geo eclipse on Moon.
Juno looks like how I would imagine KSP2. Maybe except for the hangar and general graphic. I must have it :D
imo, jno is canon ksp 2
Absolutely worth it, and it's available on mobile and runs really well for a full 3d space sim (runs fine on my crappy Motorola)
@@ky4nn894 Holly... is actually on the Google Store. I hope it can be purchased though because I won't accept the version with ads. It's a shame it's not on GOG, but I already have the Steam version.
Juno is indeed amazing. If you invest some time in the game you can do amazing things
The community is also great, one time there was a new player on the discord server and at least 5 people were trying to help them 😅
At 13:10: If you want to change the size of a tank with an attached engine, you can still use the part shape tool (click cursor icon on the top left, then the blue rectangle with the arrows). Once the selection is at the centre of the fuel tank, you can change the length in the menu on the left. Still, I agree it would be nice if there was a more graphical way to achieve the same.
At 15:15: The size of interstages by default auto-resizes to match the size of the engine when you attach the interstage, so you don't have to do that manually. If you don't want it to auto-resize, you can turn it off in the interstage's settings.
At 16:00: The engines are mainly just starting presets, which you can then modify using the settings menu to best suit your needs. No matter which (rocket) engine you start with, it is possible to reach any other preset just by changing the settings of your engine. I cannot recall the last time I had a rocket which actually launched with even a single engine which I hadn't modified any property of.
At 19:00: The atmosphere of Droo starts at 78.1 km according to the wiki. Usually I use 80 km as my safe altitude, just because it is a simpler number to remember, and then you have a tiny bit of margin to manoeuver.
At 22:00: To access the "SAS modes", click the button on the top right with the blue and orange circle. Here you can toggle the visibility of the nav gizmo, as well as set prograde, radial in, etc.
At 23:40: If you pin any window (click the thumb-tack icon next to the close button), it will stay visible even when you switch views.
That being said, I really enjoy these video's. It's a lot of fun seeing these side-by-sides having played both games myself as well. Amazing work!
I have spent a very, very long time playing JNO, so I have never really realized how poor the beginner experience is. This game is incredibly detailed, but not every option is obvious to a beginner. Just about every complaint you had about the game has a solution-for example: all engines are completely procedural and the engine you chose out of the parts menu doesn’t matter-you can change it to be anything you want through the menu. This is the case for quite a few parts that you may feel don’t work as desired from the start-almost all of them have a detailed option menu. Second, if you click the “environment” tab on the info menu in the builder, you can change the atmospheric height the info reflects similar to Kerbal Engineer Redux in KSP
Thing is, the tutorial does teach you that stuff, the beginner experience isnt that poor as long as you, well, experience it.
@@kuba_marI agree the tutorials are helpful, but they do still leave a large portion of the many options in the game uncovered, though I guess that’s the drawback of building such an amazingly detailed game
@@JSO18while that is true. Everything shadow complained about was explained as necessary
Mostly a beginner to JNO, coming from a long time in KSP, and I gotta say I am /loving/ JNO. I went in as a skeptic and spent hours trying to find things I didn't like or to complain about (too good to be true usually is mindset etc - but beside the point), and by doing my due diligence to figure things out, I found that I couldn't really find anything I didn't like. New, strange in some aspects, but not disappointing. I've been telling everyone that JNO is true canon KSP 2 imo.
@@xionix4 honestly it should be. It has everything ksp2 should be just lacking graphical depth due to obviously being mobile too
Do career mode bro, it's the best way to learn whilst having a nice progression
As soon as I saw the Kerbal craft my first thought was 'The delta V margins are going to be really tight'
I think a new player might want to add a couple SRBs to the first stage and slightly extend the second.
Also, this includes some parts that are a decent way down the tech tree. So although the basics would be the same, the actual craft a new player would build might look different unless they are learning the ropes in sandbox mode.
in juno you really should play career or the challenge levels to get the hang of the controls and the mechanics
a tip with Juno's engines: every engine available is a preset, not a full setup. I'd suggest taking something like the Gnome and messing around with settings while looking at the design info. the design info panel will tell you everything you need to know about your engine setup such as thrust, ISP, and even nozzle pressure. try mixing and matching nozzles, combustion cycles, and otherwise to figure out what you like.
also, hovering over settings will give you a tooltip in case you didn't know
Droo atmosphere starts around 79,000 M
For any who don't know, you can get precise atmosphere height for any body from inside Vizzy (programming solution that comes stock in vanilla)
21:35 you can tweak a setting called "star brightness" which basically changes the opacity of the skybox.
A lot of players prefer to either dial that down or straight up change it to 0
Imagine he gave the game a quick run over (5-10 minutes) learned the features before giving the game a review saying “it’s missing this, or missing that”
just like anything else engines are as well fully customizable. All the different types you see in the builder are just presets. You can take any engine and change it to whatever you want.
All the JNO engines except ion are just the same part but with different presets. You can modify engine preset A into B.
Not quite, but there is overlap. e.g. I can't set gimbal range to 10 degrees for a dragon engine like i can for a mage engine etc
@@xionix4 the gimbal range is restricted by engine cycle. If you set them to the same engine cycle, they will have the same gimbal range. They’re obviously a far departure from the original engines at that point. But you can transform one into another. They’re the same actual part under the hood.
yay more JNO content :3
16:06 These values are not fixed because the engines (like all the other stuff) are procedural in JNO and so you can change this along with the parameters. The engine itself is only defined via fuel type and fuel cycle.
21:00 Juno is a hypothetical type of star, a blue dwarf. So it is possible to match his low gravitational parameter with reality (which is not the case in KSP, Kerbol can not exist as a G-type star with his mass).
Personally I find Juno way more fun for building launch vehicles and KSP way more fun for building spacecraft (although I’m only halfway through Juno’s career mode). The custimizability of the engines and fuel tanks means there’s way more to it than slapping bigger boosters and engines on a rocket just to make it work. On the other hand the communications stuff and cuter aesthetic makes actually exploring planets way more interesting. Looking at the achievements in Juno for the amount of people that have explored certain planets shows how interesting most players find it
Shadow zone discovers lunar eclipses:
You do have radial in, radial out, prograde, retrograde etc controls on the right hand side of the screen. If you click the button that looks like a picture of the control gizmos it pops up a panel with them all
Almost like the tutorials in game would pointed that out to him
@@KneeGrowLoveryeah.. I know
16:15 in juno you normaly make your own engines with all the diferent settings those who you can pick are just examples whitch you custemize
11:43 in the select part tool (on the left, second button then first button from the top), there's a toggle for attaching to the surface of parts
additionally, there's a part attachment tool (same section, sixth button) where you can toggle individual (or all) attachment points for the selected part
but I do miss being able to just hold alt for that
also, heading lock can be found in the first button below the speed controls in the top right.
and you can toggle it by pressing T like you would in ksp.
using the nav circle also implicitly enables it.
unlike in ksp though, trying to pitch or yaw resets it to your current heading.
a combination opf both games would be perfect
All the nav ball locking buttons are behind the top button on the top right.
Since the engines are procedural, a thing I haven't found is a way to save your own engine designs, so I don't have to reconfigure my first and second stage engines every time I design a different rocket.
Just grab the configured engine to the top left corner and it will be saved as a new subassembly
Going on the Mun during or near an eclipse is a blessing in disguise because it means you return on Kerbin on the day side instead of the night.
but you can't see what's going on on the mun, the more important part because not only is is darker on the mun than on kerbin at night, but you also need to maneuver on the mun wheras you just need to plop out you parachute on kerbin
KSP is about having a lot of fun and exploring, while JNO is about pain, physics and a little bit of exploring...
Ok, I am happy having this series, I hope we get other planets as well. Surely Duna(Mars) would be the next destination, mostly cus Minmus doesn't exist in Juno. Look forward to seeing more.
When the earth blocks sunlight from reaching the moon, you get a lunar eclipse. About every 6 months, the moon's orbital plane aligns with the earth, and a lunar eclipse will occur. Depending on the precise timing of the event, the eclipse may be partial, total, or "penumbral". A total lunar eclipse is one where the sun is completely obscured by the earth over the entire surface of the moon. A partial lunar eclipse is where the sun is blocked out completely fro. only part of the surface of the moon. A penumbral eclipse is where none of the moon is blocked entirely, but where some or all of the moon has some amount of sunlight obscured by the moon.
Brigo is literaly the deathstar as a rock (17:36)
Thanks!
If I am correct. Mun is in orbit around Kerbin regardless. Sun, Kerbin Mun. Unless there's another Kerbalstar. Correct? April 8th experience.
All the info about the engines is on the design info tab
W part 2
Hii :3
@@DaMartian hi :3
being a beginner is 100% okay. please, do show us what needs to be more clear. but stop passing judgement about the game! you admit you know very little, but instead of saying "i hope it is somewhere" you keep saying "the game isnt great without it"
its fine if its not clear. you can say all you want about lack of clarity. but the game isn't bad T^T
Yeah this shines us Juno players in a bad light and the game as a whole.
Juno already seems better than KSP2. Hopefully they make the building a bit more user friendly, and hopefully work on the flight a bit more. Might be a game I pick up once there's a few more QoL changes. The few things with the graphics shouldn't be too hard to fix either, and I don't care about that aspect as much, as long as the game plays well.
Parallax is a very good (officially endorsed!) graphics mod that competes with maxed out KSP 1
@@xymaryai8283 Lynx made a version for Juno? Thats pretty cool, also need Waterfall for Juno, cus those plumes are a bit sad.
I'd recommend just trying it now anyway. I'm loving it.
@@xionix4 naw I will wait. I still play Ksp all the time and want to let this one bake a bit longer.
@@GutigwolfeThey Used To Look AWFUL, Well, In Most People's Eyes. Search It Up!
Well, KSP2 left a huge vacuum, but KSP1 is still very polished at this point. I believe that if another game manages to offer not only as much, but more than KSP1 then they might have a chance, otherwise the whole genre might suffer from a hiatus if content creators feel that KSP1 is not worth to continue investing on.
Would it be fun to make a new series adding a lot of mods and thinking about a new set of objectives in KSP1, or could it feel stale?
J:NO was here before KSP 2 was even announced! it released around the same time as KSP 2 and KSP 2 stole OUR thunder >:( i am bitter, so what
JNO is canon KSP 2 imo - ofcl ksp 2 is a money grab
@@xymaryai8283 a lot of us are bitter. ksp2 was a blight. JNO is awesome, though, and people are noticing.
@xymaryai8283 what do u mean by the 2nd part of that comment
I'd love to see some "Reentry" play by my favorite zone of the shadow
99 percentage of information he say are absent are available the game teaches you in the tutorial
(No hate)
Lunar eclipses I believe happened more frequently than solar eclipses. Or perhaps they are observable over most of the earth compared to solar eclipses, which are only observable over a small part of the earth.
Edit: it looks like it is the latter. Both solar and lunar eclipses happen about 2 to 5 times per year, but lunar eclipses are visible from a much larger area on earth so it feels like they are more frequent.
Very interesting comparison for someone coming from KSP.
I really really want a full series on JNO, at least a couple big missions
Different space game fun, hm... I really like space engineers, it's physics are a bit questionable, but it's pretty accurate to the survival in space.
KSP 1 does it best but JNO is certainly better than KSP 2
I will always love KSP. JNO is certainly competitive, though. I'm treating it as my ksp 2.
they should sell ksp2 for the juno devs at this point
12:44 use environment to view altitude performance of the engines hope this helps
THE BEST PART ABOUT JUNO IS YOU CAN ENJOY IT ON THE GO THERE IS A MOBILE VERSION 😁
I urge you to just experiment off camera and look at tutorials on customization of parts and design techniques of crafts.
You seem to have a lot of criticism of how the game looks and the limitations of things but all that can be solved by just looking a tutorials and other community threads.
You say you want to learn by yourself abd not lean on feedback and tutorials but the thing about this game is everything is customizable and even with tutorials theres a lot that still requires trial and error.
Visuals are amazing if you learn how to color your parts and change the properties of the colors (smoothness, metallic-ness, light emissions, etc) Can also change the way your engine plumes look in the XML (advanced part editor) under advanced properties and much more.
So you are a Juno fan boy cool. Shadows been doing this long enough to not care.
@@bigbcor lmao since when does explaining something to someone make you a fan boy.
@@bigbcorsays the guy with a cartoon for pfp
But no I’m not a Juno fan boy but I’ve played it for years. Bros gonna loose validity here bc: He obviously didn’t even give the game a quick brush over, or at the most a tutorial. And paints the game in a bad light, just bc he has no clue what he’s doing
Wack ah review, no two ways around it
I suggest you to try out the carrier mode, it's a very fun ! Also it start with a tutoriel that teach you very usefuls stuffs and functionalities
Juno engine don't need to pick. They are the same after adjusting them.
I tried landing the starship HLS in juno 😅😅 id intresting to say the least 😅😅
Funny how before, UA-camrs would mock Juno (formerly simple rockets) for being a KSP rip-off and now UA-camrs are saying that Juno is the best alternative to KSP due to the lay-offs.
Not really, most YT just went back to playing KSP1
@@bigbcorbro has a insecurity against Juno ☠️
21:34 In Juno, you _can_ produce vehicles that look better than KSP2 -- but it requires an enormous amount of time clipping non-functional parts and similar to get there. If you don't invest the time, however, you end up with _very_ generic vehicles that look worse than KSP1.
23:53 As long as all of your burns are retrograde, the cost to land (in delta-v) exactly matches your surface velocity. This assumes you perform a perfect hover slam (at 100% throttle) so in practice you will need more than that, but that's the theoretical minimum. In short, there is no penalty associated with zero'ing velocity (with a retrograde burn) and then falling straight down.
"As long as all of your burns are retrograde, the cost to land (in delta-v) exactly matches your surface velocity. "
That's not true (or only if your orbit has a height of 0.0 meters above sl). The velocity results in a kinetic energy, but you also have potential energy to kill. Otherwise it would cost you less dV when landing from higher orbits (which is not the case). The vis-viva equation helps you to calculate the resulting orbital energy. Normally the landing-dV in all dV maps for celestial bodies without an atmosphere contains the dV for this orbital energy correctly. And yes, this is very theoretical and is not achievable in normal cases.
@tabbycat6802 Yeah, you ate correct. The total energy required to land (which scales linearly to delta-v) is set when you enter the SOI of the target. As long as your orbit doesn't intersect with the surface of the planet any retrograde burn "pays off" part of the cost to land at a 1:1 ratio. Once your orbit *does* intersect with the surface of the planet, only burns tangent to the surface of the planet but otherwise retrograde are 100% efficient. To minimizing gravity losses it is necessary to eliminate the vertical component of velocity at the last second (e.g. perform a suicide burn).
Bottom line: Delta-v wise, there is no penalty (nor advantage) in performing a large deorbit burn (resulting in a mostly vertical drop) vs a small deorbit burn (resulting in a large horizontal velocity component after the burn).
@@jmr5125 1st part can be possible when you make an direct descent (from an hybolical flyby). But then you go for only ONE suicide burn. It is definetally wrong when you land from an elliptical (or circular) orbit (which reqires two burns).
2nd part is definitely wrong. You can calculate that easily, the "large deorbit burn" case give you two penaltys: orbital velocity + free fall velocity equals more than the vis-viva orbital energy. And then you cancel out the free fall velocity with a radial out burn and that includes the maximum of gravitational losses (the "small deorbit burn" results in two burns and both are retrograde without that losses). In case of the mun in KSP from an 15 km circular orbit:
"Large deorbit": 550 m/s + 221 m/s, for an TWR of maybe 3 you gain additionally 110 m/s gravitational loss = 881 m/s. (Maybe more, because you need a perfect timing)
"Small deorbit": 10 m/s to lower your periapsis to the surface + 581 m/s for landing = 591 m/s. (Maybe more, because you need a perfect timing too)
@tabbycat6802 Canceling out the free fall velocity in the large deorbit burn _will_ be a retrograde burn. Retrograde is defined using the velocity vector, after all.
I haven't done the math to prove it, but I did test this a long time ago in KSP1 using MechJeb to perform all the burns and landing (in the "Land Anywhere" mode), and the tests indicated a nearly constant cost, with the variation most likely caused by variation in the landing site altitude. It also makes sense from a pure kinetics point of view -- when you enter the SOI, you have a certain amount of kinetic energy (velocity) and potential energy (altitude). To land, you need to zero out both of these numbers, but it doesn't matter in what order you do so.
For clarity, in the "Large deorbit burn" case, I am assuming that you thrust tangent to the surface of the planet rather than strictly retrograde. If you track the velocity vector during the deorbit burn then yes, you'll waste some delta-v due to opposing the acceleration due to gravity. It is important that zero delta-v be spent opposing gravity until the last possible instance, as rhe longer you spend falling the more velocity you will have at the end.
If the orbit is fairly circular, simply burning orbital retrograde will produce the desired tangential burn vector until tangential velocity gets quite small (for Luna, say a total velocity of 50 m/s?). This is because the acceleration due to gravity is small and the initial velocity in the planet radial direction will also be very small. Furthermore, due to the limitations of the maneuver node widget then the planned burn won't take acceleration due to gravity _during_ the burn into account, so it will match the ideal case if the initial orbit is circular.
@@jmr5125 In the "Large deorbit burn" case (cancel out the orbital velocity first completely, "resulting in a mostly vertical drop" - according to you) you will fall vertical to the surface. You are right, in fact this radial out burn for landing safely is also an retrograde burn - not only retro against your vector, but also against the gravitational field. I can not understand how this can happen tangential.
However: This two cases are based on an stable orbit in advance. Not from "entering SOI".
I am 99 percent sure that its got a lock to whatever
You landed near the Neil Armstrong memorial
I think you have proved that Juno is a good replacement for KSP.
Whenever there is a Lunar eclipse on earth, the earth is blocking the sun to the moon, so a solar eclipse on the moon happens as much as lunar eclipes on earth hehe
You do realize you can edit the stats of all the engines right?
do you not have waterfall configs for restock? the engine plumes on the ksp side look like they're using realplume's particle effects rather than waterfall's meshes
Kerbal Annihilation Program against JUNO, truly the battle of the first gen spaceflight simulators. I say first gen because we all know some guy will eventually make one that hopefully is better than both
I don't even use maneuver nodes for the mun or minmus
A comment on engine plumes. They look much less impressive in space than in KSP. I can't find the link... But somewhere there is a video of the Space Shuttle Main Engine as viewed from the SRB during separation and it is basically a white disk.
Still - KSP (with mods) has prettier ones if one isn't too worried about reality!
Yeah, that's the problem. An even better way to see the problem is to watch a Falcon-9 launch during second stage -- even with the camera extremely close, the exhaust plume is nearly invisible.
I'm pretty sure that Juno"s exhaust plumes are realistic and the modded KSP1 exhaust plumes are designed to "look good." An "Unrealistic exhaust plumes" option would be nice... :)
With that being said, a large enough engine _does_ produce a visible exhaust plume in a vacuum, but a simple lander doesn't require a sufficiently large engine.
@@jmr5125 Yep. Though it is a game, so "look good" has some weight. 🤣
@@kendallsmith8860 Tesla car with flames going out of the exhaust also looks good, doesn't it? *cough Asphalt cough*
@@MrMichalMalek ::shrug:: there is actually a plume in this case (even if you wouldn't normally see it). It's fine to take some artistic liberties.
I prefer my space game with space frog type creatures. Kerbal 4 life
I can respect that, fellow ksp-er. I do think JNO is worth trying for one's self, though.
Be careful with Restock. It changes the physics of the parts from original settings. Mostly affecting drag and atmospheric flight. VAOS had trouble with this, it was affecting his ssto's and larger rockets.
yay another VAOS follower too :D
You have that slightly wrong. It has no effect on large craft. It was the world’s smallest SSTO that was able to get to orbit with restock but couldn’t with fully stock.
You should try the new RC game.
OK but now show how to do a moonshot in Juno from the starting launch pad for under $1M
W voice
AGAIN!
There's some nice features there in JNO but, call it familiarity bias, it just seems like discount KSP at the moment
Calling any rocket building game a ksp discount is dumb...
very nice
I though juno was an email provider?
It wlways amazes me how little Rocket you actually need to get Places in KSP. I always think I need more and pack way too much delta-V Better too much than too little.
it's a lunar eclipse!!
Spaceflight Simulator ngl
12:36 My brother in Christ. Look over to the right side of your screen, ALL of the information that you are saying you don't see is displayed right there!!
Yes, AFTER I place the engine. I want to see basic info BEFORE clicking on a part, placing it in the editor and then finding out that I maybe should have better picked another one. KSP shows all that info in the part selector.
@@ShadowZoneOK but you don't really need that when the opportunity of customising your engines to fit your expectations is something you can do, it's rare to ever have the presets be what you need
@@ShadowZone Your problem comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of what JNO is, or more accurately what it isnt, KSP.
Its not about "picking the right part" for what you need, thats how its in KSP but not JNO, theres just a single part youre supposed to customize into what you need, the game just gives you it already customized into some general archetypes, but as for what you can make them into theres no difference, you can start with any of them and end up with the same part.
That is why the game doesnt give you that info there, because its actually just useless
@@ShadowZone I agree with this, but I also feel like there's a certain simplistic charm overall (considering all the tweakability you could ever want is under the surface) that I don't want to vie too strongly against, lest it be corrupted / lost. That said, it would be nice to see at least default Isp xD
@@kuba_marso the game is fake basically. Randomly create an engine to specs that doesn’t or may not physically be able to be created…..nice realism..
KSP is a much more consistent quality and experience. Juno has some good, some bad, but most of it is just done better in ksp.
That's what I was just thinking after seeing Juno for the first time. It reminds me of that crappy 2-D rocket building game that kids were raving about.
@@StrangeScaryNewEngland i ensure you it is nothing like SFS
8:35 dude ?!? :-))))
Like every Month. rofl
its called Nov or new moon.
Mun is Dat..
Juno could really use either steam workshop integration or a ckan-like tool for modders. I see they've worked with at least one KSP modder (Linx) to port over mods in the past, but unlike KSP it's far less clear how easy or hard modding is and where to look to install them. And there's just far fewer Juno mods, though there is one for designing marginally better engine plumes, at least. Might be worth at least installing a couple popular mods to compare apples to apples...
Installing mods in Juno are extremely easy though if you just look. There's a download button when you go to your side menu that will take you directly to the games website where you can search and download crafts and mods with ease directly into your game. There's also a whole thread teaching you how to mod. It's very direct as is and you don't need the steam workshop at all.
Idk how to play juno