shdwlrd

Unless it's multi-threaded and you have a Ryzen. I think it shouldn't be much of a problem. Of course, there is always water cooling.

That's the way I took it. Could be different though. The point I'm trying to make is you don't have to deal with the progression of the colonies. In KSP1, the sandbox has a feature that automatically recruites new Kerbals for your crafts. Why can't that be expanded to include colonies? You can control the population of the colonies the hard way, transporting them there. Or the easy way, selecting the colony and telling them the number of Kerbals you want to add or subtract. As for the resource costs related to colonies, you can handle that the same way you test out new base mods in KSP1, infinite resources toggle.

Your guess is as good as mine. I would think that you would be able to switch editors and launch spots on the fly. So you could build the skyscraper sized ship in the orbital vab and launch it on the pad for grins. Or build a space plane in the sph and have it spawn in orbit somewhere around kerbin if an orbital colony isn't available. (Lat/Lon of 0, Alt of 80,000m. Basically the same way the set orbit does now without having to use the debug menu.) Again, that is just a guess. Nate Simpson mentioned not having the sandbox players spoiling the new star systems for the career players in an early interview with either ShadowZone or Scott Manley.

I can't understand how sandbox being implemented is an issue. As long as you have all parts available, and the normal progression systems are either bypassed or limited, how it's done is moot.

The items you will need is available to use. As for the rest of your statement, using KSP1 as a guide, I would have to guess that you would have to use the items the same way as you would in the "adventure" mode of the game. So if you want, sending the items to where you want them, gathering whatever resources you need, and building them. Or not and use the cheat/debug menu to place them where you want and using infinite resources to build them immediately. For the Kerbals manning them, I can't say. Maybe you will have to ship them there? A slider for the population after the colony built? An automatic transfer of kerbals button? But in sandbox kerbals are free, so who knows. PS, Yes, I'm purposely being vague about the actual items. We don't know enough about the game items to say what will be in the game.

I took that as the other solar systems would be hidden and you would discover them before traveling to them. But that's my opinion. I'm under the opinion that colonies would be available in sandbox.

That's one of those requests that won't be honored. Everyone has the right to ask the same questions over and over. Even if people find it annoying.

I'm really tempted to go find all the requests for RSS and throw them in one thread. Then throw in all the links stating that the original kerbal system won't be touched, just visual updates.

Ooo... a mini grabber. Been wanting one of those for awhile now.

What he said. This topic has been discussed a few times already. I would be happy to have the Sol system in KSP2, but as an easter egg. You can go visit it, but you can't start from it.

It's good to see that. I'm not a huge proponent for a super realistic simulation in KSP. But in the edge cases like Rask and Rusk, where it is actually necessary, it's awesome to see that they are adding the possibility to use advanced physics in a limited fashion. It also confirmed a suspicion I had. There still will be different levels of detail for the KSP universe. My question is how many levels will there be.

I like what I'm seeing so far. But I do see an opportunity to add some new solar panels into the game.

A) Love "Dudes and dudesses" and hope this is what they're called, concision be damned. And I agree there should probably be a stock of general workers that are auto-selected to fill greenhouses and VABs and the like as they're built to cut down on staff-management time. You'll probably also need to be able to manually move crews around depending on your situation. B) I also like the idea of Kerblings, i: because they would be cute af and ii: because it sounds like there will be some form of non-punishing LS and I like the idea that after a "boom" you'd have a hot second to catch up on your LS volume before they mature. Otherwise you'd feel like you needed to overproduce LS before a achieving a goal and you wouldn't necessarily know how much to plan for. C) Recruitment to the major professions (scientists, engineers, pilots) is the last bit. Im cool pulling from the general pool mainly cause I like to pick the best sounding names. The first question is should recruitment come with a cost in terms of time, energy, and/or facilities? I think there needs to be be some limiting factor but I'd prefer if it was controllable. Again Im of the probably controversial mindset that we should ditch individual kerbal experience because it takes too much time to fuss over with that many crew members. From my experience you spend more time touring them around to level them up than doing almost anything else. It's fine if touring them around earns them cosmetic ranks but giving big bonuses creates grindy incentives. Just make perks and abilities purchasable and generalized. D) This also begs questions about what is the progression from first landing to ISRU to building a self-sufficient colony. Im guessing by now the devs have some specific ideas about this, but generally I imagine first it's about producing fuel and LS and then grows to allow for the building of new and more complex modules and new vessels from scratch. I think it's okay if a max-tech colony capable of producing and supporting interstellar vessels is a little complicated to orchestrate so long as that complexity builds slowly enough to not overwhelm or bog down gameplay. I'd also like if there was some flexibility and strategy to how you allocate resources, workers included. Like you could devote a colony more heavily toward fuel production or science collection or rocket manufacturing or buoying population depending on the resources available on site and how you combine them with supply routes. It be nice if it wasn't just a rote, linear, A leads to B leads to C build for every situation. To add flexibility it would also be nice if we could recycle and convert parts and resources in order to adapt over time, much like the way you can convert water and carbon to rocket fuel and back irl. Both ideas do seem to fit what the devs envision for colonies. Minimal management and simplicity for using Kerbals as a resource for furthering your career. The only thing I would like to see is Kerbals recruited from colonies have a higher skill level than the Kerbals recruited from Kerbin. This would be a nice bit of fluff to help flesh out the colonies some. You don't even have to have the Kerbals go outside. It could be nothing more than an animation of figures moving around in corridors or in the domes. Different lights turning on and off at different times. An occasional generic vehicle coming and going from the colony if a supply line as been created with the colony.

Without getting into colony mechanics or professions too much. I can see a few things happening. Kerbals won't out grow their colony or base. You can recruit from the colonists if you launch a rocket from there. You can manually add/remove Kerbals, or abandon a base or colony. You need a certain number of Kerbals to reach max efficiently. (Not including the metrics required for the colony itself.) This seems to be a distant possibility, but I will throw it out there. Kerbals have natural life spans. They are a long lived species. They can live hundreds of years before they die. Depending on the number of colonies, stations, and outposts you build, you can easily reach 100+ Kerbals off world. I really hope that they will add something to help find where your Kerbals are located. There's nothing worse than bouncing from craft to craft trying to find where you left Jeb at.

I haven't played with KFS for awhile. I didn't know about the station part. I've been waiting for Angel-125 to release the Excalibur before playing around with it again. Everything I stated is from notes I made.

LOL, very true. You can scoop propelium out of the oceans on Kerbin and Lathe. I've haven't tried Eve. It can also be created using Pathfinder. (I don't remember which module off the top of my head.) I'm guessing you already figured out you have to spam the static dissipation rods. They eat through Xenon like crazy when there's no atmosphere. To make the KFS parts viable for long-term space travel, I patched the static storage on the parts and Xenon usage rates. If you double or triple the storage amount, you can go longer without worrying about an unexpected shutdown. I've never figured out what would be a good ratio for the Xenon consumption. Also, while floating in the black, you can turn everything off to save resources and stop the Xenon usage. The fusion generators have a RTG type function. Once the Excalibur is released, you won't have to worry about that much. The Excalibur is the deep space carrier, where the Flapjack is the shuttle.

Its dependent on how much gravity waves and power you can feed it. Earlier in the thread I have an experiment that can lift about 600 tonnes off the ground with just one gravitic drive. I showed off a transport vehicle with 3 generators and fusion plants that can reliability get 30 tonnes of ore into orbit. I don't remember the exact math, but it works out about 30 tonnes per gravity wave generator and fusion plant. (I mean total craft weight, not dry weight.)

After looking through my posts again today, I realized that you ignored my remark about TTI acting in good faith. What's your opinion on this? What video are you referring to? There are at least 100 of them out there. And to why TTI didn't have a statement ready? They did. The statement that PD was opening a new studio was the public announcement. Even the video they released to the community with Nate and the crew stated that they went to a new studio to finish KSP2. When was that? February? Oh, here is the post on this forum with the date and the video links. Now this becomes a very hot issue because Star Theory had to close down. We should of realized that possibly then.

Or just messing around and doing whatever. I can't see a large scale public server working for KSP.

I did look for it a while ago. (Februaryish?) I didn't see it. My search-fu isn't really strong, plus it doesn't help that couldn't remember the title of the thread.

I wondered where this thread disappeared to. Thank for updating it.

@Jacke You claim that what TTI did was a EA grade move. It isn't. EA was brutal and deceitful in the '90s & 2000s. Check out what EA did with Westwood Studios. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westwood_Studios That's a BS move. If you want, you can check out how many studios that EA acquired and closed in their time in business and their history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Arts Compare that to TTI's history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Take-Two_Interactive I'll let you make your own decision on is TTI is as bad as EA.

Thanks very much for the catching the grammar faux pas. I really should download grammarly. You're absolutely correct, more goodwill is needed and should be practiced in the business world. But what you may see as a tactless move, may be the goodwill will gesture. In this specific case, the goodwill gestures was negotiating for a new contract and the purchase of Star Theory. From what I can see is that TTI/PD tried to come to an amicable agreement with Star Theory. It just didn't work out for reasons we aren't privileged to. So TTI/PD did what they had to to make sure their previous investment wasn't wasted and to reduce the loss of momentum for the development cycle. Typically when a dev team is replaced during development, the expected outcome isn't there, or the project is canceled. This was the best case scenario for the completion of KSP2 in the vision that everyone expects.

A handful of stock submersible parts would be nice. But it's not something I would expect on day one.

I'm laying out a case without moral judgement and opinions. I couldn't care less about the size of the companies involved. The goals are the same for all companies, regardless of their annual profits. All companies want to make money, period. All companies want to save money where they can, period. All companies want the best employees for what positions they have availible, period. If a company needs to do something that may be considered morally wrong, but within the laws of the land (or not, in some cases) to meet the three points above, they will do it. Large companies like Apple, Microsoft, Boeing, GE, Intel, AMD, EA, Google, Ford, GM, Daimler, VW, BMW, Foxconn etc, can care less about the reputation hit (and fines) as long as all the goals are met. Smaller companies that do care about their reputation will do the same things, but in a more subtle fashion. It can bite you in the butt later if you run across an old employer or colleague in a hiring position. You may not like the new company and be stuck there for awhile. If you're a big name in that field, you can get a negative reputation and find it hard to find employment if you somehow end up unemployed within that field. Please see my response above to Numberyellow for the broad strokes. But a more detailed answer is this, I don't know the exact reason why they went this route. All I can do is speculate from business theory and the info I read about different business dealings and failures. The business world is a cold hard place. Some companies can meet the objectives morally. But the larger you get, the harder it is to meet the above objectives without leaving the moral high ground.