pandaman

No. A decent 'Progression' mode will be a great format, and may well be the 'normal' way to play. There is no reason why the two cannot and should not coexist. We have been tainted by the late introduction and very poor implementation of 'Career' and 'Science' modes in KSP1 which channelled many of us to Sandbox.

I really don't think it will be as much of a problem as you fear. When you arrive at another planet, or maybe even the Mun for that matter, can you guarantee achieving a near zero inclination capture without making any adjustments en-route? In practical terms it's not much different. An equatorial orbit ony really helps if you want to land near the equator anyway. I often want a polar (90 degree inclination) orbit and need to tweak my approach to get close to that and avoid Dv costly maneuvers anyhow.

I think, whatever it is called or the details of its implementation, some form of 'sandbox' is needed. As has been pointed out. It can be an invaluable tool for testing ideas or designs, or just doing wacky stuff for fun. Why remove that option? Yes, the game as intended should function perfectly without it, so in that context it is not 'needed' , but that doesn't mean it is not a viable or desirable option.

I suppose the question really is 'How much sand do you put in the sandbox?' As has been pointed out, even default KSP1 sandbox isn't without limits of some sort (fuel capacities, isru resources etc).

Personally I don't think axial tilt will prove as big a problem as some may think. Especially if it is not extreme within the majority of the Kerbol system. If it is there it will just be 'the way it is', and effectively no different to how inclined orbits are already 'how it it is'. Players will just learn to deal with it because it's there and they have to.

But aren't 'stages', by their nature, one time sequential events? That could be a bit inconvenient for things like solar panels. Surely an Action Group is a better solution for them.

IMO there is definitely a 'place' for boat and submarine parts. They are effectively just rovers that traverse and explore the 'wet' bits, as opposed to dry land, after all.

Hopefully I won't feel there is a 'need' for any. The only reason I would 'want' mods is to change the nature of the game, not add things that are needed to make it playable.

You may be right, but that is assuming that players don't play unmodded versions from a separate folder. I know I probably would if I bought and downloaded from Steam. But then I deeply resent having to go online to play a solo game that I bought and paid for.

In practical gameplay terms the current KSP1 'recovery' system is the same as actual re-use anyway... ... Land it close, launch again at minimal cost. It's only the 'refund' dialogue that hints at it not being the same physical vessel that launches again. I do agree though that rather than 'refund' there could possibly be a 'recovery charge' relative to the distance and a 'refurbish' charge for replacing the broken bits. But it would need a reference to what you want it refurbished to to work that out. Whereas the current system can just be assumed to do that if you want, as it credits you for the surviving bits, not charges for the missing bits.

As players, they are probably not. But many of us didn't buy from steam. And many that did have said they save to, and play from, a separate folder and don't usually play from Steam itself to avoid 'auto update' breaking things. Which means that any data from Steam is likely to be incomplete even for Steam players, and therefore not really representative. Ok for a vague estimate I guess though.

Which ONLY gives data for Steam players playing online (of which, incidentally, I will NOT be one). So any extrapolation from that could be misleading.

Aaahh the beauty of pessimism. At least you set yourself up for a happy ending. As for me, I have no real doubt that it will release - sometime - probably next year - hopefully before the end of March. If it was going to be canned they would have done so long ago... Unless my 'theory' about Nate Simpson being a billionnaire prankster is actually true of course .

Yes, I agree, and I would like axial tilt, but I can't say that it would make a lot of difference to my enjoyment overall. If I want to land at a given location for whatever reasons, the conditions there are what I will deal with. If and how they would have been different due to axial tilt or not is of no consequence beyond interesting conjecture.

I think axial tilt would be a great addition, but I don't think it would ruin my enjoynent if it is omitted. Lets face it, how often do we enter an orbit flat to the equator anyway?

Even just visual effects can affect gameplay. Reduced visibility alone can provide 'interesting' challenges at times. So even if physical wind effects etc are not 'a thing' just the visuals would make a difference. I'd be happy to see it included.

For me, because an 'official' DLC is supporting the ongoing development more directly. And 'should' be supported and less likely to have compatibility issues as the game gets updates. I agree, as a stock inclusion in the base game definitely. IMO it needs it's own dedicated 'version' or 'add-in' to address all the part balance issues.

Tethers are a very useful safety feature, whether or not the Kerbal in question has a jetpack. Umbilicals can offer an alternative to back/jetpacks. And are a viable option that enables 'short range' EVAs without needing to use up storage space for bulky jet/backpacks.

I'm not against an abstracted 'simulation' of wind etc. as long as it seems logical and believable and not just random. I think it could add an interesting dynamic. But there would also need to be some 'tools' to assist the player such as... HUD indicator of wind speed and direction relative to ship. Deployable 'Weather Stations' that can broadcast wind data at that location. If practical, ambient visual clues such as waves and vegetation blowing about.

I voted NO. Not because I don't like the idea of a 'real scale' sized system, I do. I just don't think it is something that is particularly important to have in the 'stock' game.

If you assume his life 'starts' whenever you create a new save... there is your answer...

Hmm. Not for me. Two versions of the same basic engine (Raptor like), maybe. Vacuum or Atmospheric, and just maybe a mid point that's 'ok' for both, but as distinct parts, not options of the same engine/part.

To me the public 'open beta' option is not much more than a way to sell an unfinished product (and, hopefully, not get roasted for selling a clearly unfinished product), as a way to generate publicity and cash to continue development. KSP2 just doesn't need that. Any 'beta' testing needs to be done by a group of people that can generate quality feedback and reports. Most of us just don't have the time, skillset and/or patience for that. I have done software bug reporting (not games) as a side responsibility, and it can be very difficult and time consuming to identify how to recreate any given 'anomaly'. You then have to document it well enough so that the 'fixers' can have a fighting chance of identifying the underlying causes.

I think it is very unlikely, but if they think it is commercially viable then just maybe. As for the affecting the modding community, why would that be an issue?

Absolutely . As for your other points, I don't disagree with any of them. It is just that KSP2 is, in essence, no different to any other product. Cars models and most other products get 'improved' over the years, sometimes it's a facelift, sometimes it's a major redisign/replacement. In all cases, if they flop jobs are potentially at risk due to lack of sales etc. So yes, of course KSP2 'matters' an awful lot in that respect, but only to T2 and those individuals working on it. But to us as potential customers, it's ultimately no more than a 'shiny thing' we want, and are eagerly waiting for. The worst case scenario for us is we buy it and don't like it, but if it never arrives we lose nothing.