shdwlrd

I'm happy but disappointed that KSP2 will be EA. I understand the reasons for EA beyond what Nate said. But I was hoping for colonies to be available on release. (EA or not) All well, c'est la vie.

I'm thinking the same thing, but without the whole cart idea. I'm thinking they are going to give us just enough parts to make effective rovers and ground vehicles for exploration and resource hauling for the base game. And a DLC with an expanded selection of parts to make all manner of ground vehicles from cars to buggies to large trucks, with the possibility of dedicated courses or the ability to make dedicated courses. My only real hope is that they make the construction of ground vehicles easier and more inline with the proper scale for such vehicles.

That's funny. I guess that they are paying attention to some of our suggestions.

You can always do it the hard way, ship Kerbals in from Kerbin.

Or possibly that they realize the severe lack of rover and ground vehicle parts in their catalog and want to design some real ground vehicle parts for release.

He should start studying the LPL YT videos. At that point only a botch will fail.

I'll throw my $0.02 in even though I don't personally don't know anyone that is willing to play KSP. I would rather have the choice for the tech tree. The play style would really depend of the players involved. And no, I don't see anyone I would play with going off on their own. They will get very bored if there isn't a true end goal or some type of competition. If there isn't, they will start trolling the other players.

Only if Jeb can talk... we can find out what is in the file.

If you're selling game engine/3D modeling add-ons, that is exactly how you market them. Game marketing usually will show that type of stuff when everything is finalized and the release date is near, rarely before. Put yourself in Intercept's shoes for a moment. Think how it will kill the morale of the teams involved when they keep seeing negative comments about how they are running development. I'm not talking about constructive criticism, pointing out mistakes, or expressing your general negative opinion. I mean attacking what they are doing that doesn't remotely pertain to the topic on hand. How would you feel if someone always had a negative comment that has nothing to do with what you're currently doing or current accomplishments?

Do not open... nothing to help there...

Or add the ability to add the appropriate mass for your Kerbals to the crewed parts while in the editor. That way you can balance the CoM and get better DV numbers.

Does that include the learning of the new material and the group practice time. That has to be done before even doing the recording sessions? Even professional musicians need time to learn and practice the pieces that they preform.

Or the next feature video is coming soon?

So pretty. Going to love having Jool as a backdrop for colonies in the Jool system.

Yes, well more phrased; we're trying to find the best size cut off for rock colliders. I don't have the patience find the thread. It's in the one of the S&T or dev diary where they are showing a rocket on the Mun with scatter everywhere. Nate mentioned that not all the scatter shown will have colliders. Someone pointed out that not all the rocks are causing shadows. So speculation at the time was anything that didn't cause a shadow doesn't have colliders. Ninja'd by @The Aziz; and thanks for posting the thread.

Are you expecting rovers to behave like the Snowrunner vehicles? The smallest rock send the rover flying? No, I don't see that happening. It's been confirmed that only the larger scatter will have colliders.

Since the colony parts will be on stilts, it shouldn't be necessary. But it’s KSP, so there's nothing to stop you trying.

I was thinking "another music thread?! Thought this is a settled matter." Asking about live recorded music, that's different. I tend to agree, music recorded live does offer some differences to composed music by mixing tracks. There's a life to the music (when preformed live) that's hard to replicate when created in a synthesizer only. I can't see that happening though. Orchestras are expensive to hire. (Same goes for even a small group of musicians.) I would think that it's financially not theisible to take that route. I would love it if they did use live recorded music, but they most likely don't have the money to do so.

Welcome to the forums. There have been several threads where this has been discussed either as a side conversation or is the point of the thread. And no, there is no confirmation for relative effects either way.

I hate to break it to you, nothing said on the subject of base/colony building suggests that you will need to be EVA to build them. (Maybe the initial start of a base you'll need to be EVA, but afterwards you'll be using the building assembly editor (BAE) for construction.) The games you are referencing are all manual place objects in 1st person view. That's not how KSP2 is going to do it. It's already been determined that the BAE will be the method of building anything larger than a "space tent" or space camp site. Luckily it's already been confirmed that you can edit existing bases to how you want them. That has already been confirmed. It's been said that colonies are subservient to the idea of building and flying rockets. So I don't expect anything more than is needed to serve that purpose. With multiplayer, I haven't thought about it to much. I'd expect some consideration will be given for multiple players working on the same colony. I have no thoughts on specifics though.

Considering that it's confirmed that procedural wings and radiators will be in the game, there is a small chunk of KSP1 parts removed from the parts line up. If at least fuel switching is planned, there is another large chunk of parts removed too. So there are probably more new parts than we would expect. But overall, I'm not expecting too much variety with the part profiles. But a tantalizing thought is that ~600 part figure isn't including a majority of the recycled KSP1 parts. How many truly new and unseen parts are there going to be?

Can't argue that point, not everything in KSP is scientifically accurate. But does it make sense to have every different star type in such close proximity to each other? I'm sure somewhere in the universe that can happen. But the odds are against it.

Oh, it would be easy to create different types of stars, art wise. But being scientific accurate to what we know about star distribution, the smaller cooler dwarves are much more common than giants. I mean a total of about 4% is much higher than the .000001% for giant stars. Just food for thought.

I doubt that the devs will have a different types of stars for each star system. I can see a possibility for a brown dwarf or a red giant for some variation, but I'm expecting mostly the typical yellow/white dwarf stars. I can't see a neutron or a singularity, or white giants.

Does anyone want to hazard a guess to how many celestial bodies will be in each star system? Everybody is talking like there will be a dozen or more CB per system. Which is definitely possible, but doesn't seem likely. Let's say there's 50 planets/moons. There can be a few large systems (10+ cb), or several smaller systems (<10 cb), or a mixture of the two. So it really depends on what the devs want to do. Do they want only a few external star systems or many star systems. Or they can surprise us with more CB and star systems than we ever would expect.