pandaman

No argument there, but a prominent, if not critical, bug in a beta release could have serious PR consequences. Not everyone would be as accepting as you or I. Or as understanding that a 'beta' is not finished product so problems are to be expected.

I would prefer playing with bugs rather than not playing at all KSP 1 had alpha and beta versions, so I see no problem doing that with KSP 2 But what if those bugs made it unplayable for you? As many claimed some of the KSP1 bugs frequently did. Personally I found some very annoying, but not really 'unplayable', although some were quite close, but then again I'm a pretty easy going type. Also, unlike KSP2, KSP1 needed the alpha/beta early access model to get attention and prove it's viability, and bugs were expected as a result. The sequel needs to hit the ground running with a decent quality product or flop through bad reviews.

Would you want an 'exact' date that may well end up moving? Or sticking to with major bugs that they had to leave to make the deadline?

Sounds like an English summer . So call it Summa.

If course the ideal solution would be to have it load up so fast that you don't need, or have time for cinematics or animations... Click icon, KSP logo blinks, and boom ready to play.

Hmmm , I can see it now... Bob gives Jeb the 'shaking bottle' gesture, Val laughs, and Jeb sulks and walks away.

We shall just have to find out....

It has that effect on most of us... Welcome to the forums.

I seem to recall reading that they came up with a special solution if some sort for Rask and Rusk, but it's patched conics otherwise.

I like the idea. I guess by adaptive you mean something along the lines of a specific 'base track' or 'theme' for each body. This then gets certain elements (such as instrument voices, tonal qualities, tempo etc) added or subtracted depending on the situation (cold feeling for the poles, or a bit ethereal when you reach orbit etc.) Not unlike in many movies e.g The Lord of the Rings 'Fellowship' theme. The basic tune stays the same, but the 'atmosphere' changes depending on which, and how many, members of the team are present by adding in or taking out certain instruments. The 'fuller' the sound the more complete the fellowship is.

I agree that control surfaces and landing gear etc do, obviously, draw power of some sort. If not electrical etc. then hand power if they use cables and winding handles. So it's not a silly suggestion to have that reflected in game somehow. But I do think it could just be an extra layer of 'clutter' as we would need some way of defining what method is used for any given craft or even each part on the craft.

What I want from the 'aero model' is that it behaves in a believably realistic way. Exactly HOW they achieve that doesn't really concern me greatly, beyond just being quite interested in what method they use. They could use a perfect full voxel type model and still cock it up with the implementation. KSP1s method 'works' ok, it is obviously not overly realistic, but it does the job and is adequately useable. Whether they use FAR, a refined version of the KSP1 model, or something else entirely isn't the issue for me, it is how it plays.

Hmm... Multiple monitor support. That one caused a heated debate a little while ago. Not highest priority, but yes I would welcome it.

I'm not a 'realism is king' guy, but with the ability to continue burns in timewarp, then I think it would make perfect sense to reduce their thrust to a more realistic level. As they are we get a very false impression of what they can do.

I can understand that. I'm very much a 'function over form' guy though.

Hmmm, this feels a bit like 'It's different to what's familar to me, therefore I won't like it'. However well designed any new 'thing' is it always meets some opposition initially. Same as when the UK went to a decimal currency in 1971. The old (L,s,d) system was more than a bit 'funky' to work with unless you grew up with it. Just like the 'Imperial' weights and measures system, compared to metric. Hopefully there will be some configuation options to suit individual requirements and preferences, but I think retaining the 'original look' for no practical reason would be a mistake.

You could try sticking a drawing pin point up on the F12 key. It won't stop it working, but it will discourage you a bit. Seriously though, if that is your 'style of play' and you enjoy it, what's the problem? I often use 'Set Orbit >Rendezvous' as a substitute for 'automated' launches for repetetive refuelling runs.

There is, it's called 'willpower'. I find it useful personally. For testing stuff in a sandbox save, where I 'pretend' it's an R&D simulator. And for recovering from glitches/bugs etc.

Well, I recieved my 10th anniversary medal today. And it's exactly as I expected it would be. With the addition of a nice clear plastic display box with magnetic closures. That is taking pride of place on the shelf above my computer desk.

Exactly this^^ Assuming that problems and general maintenance issues occur and get fixed all the time by those nameless, but nevertherless essential, background staff to the point that gameplay can just ignore it makes perfect sense.

The thing is, with getting to orbit, rendezvous and docking there is usually a large margin for error and/or time to 'finesse' the delicate bits. If you get within a few Km of the target you can fiddle about for a while, getting in position to dock. With landings you often don't have the luxury of being able to take your time fine tuning your approach.

Find the coordinates. Can't recall them off the top of my head, but 'spoilers' on here somewhere should help with that. Then just Alt+F12 > 'Set Position' a kerbal to the location.

Sorry, but I disagree. I don't want to have to perpetually 'nurse' all my comms and survey sats (70+ currently). I just 'assume' orbital decay happens, but that a team back at KSC constantly monitor and make minor tweaks to keep them all stable. Ok I know fuel should deplete over time if that were actually simulated, but it's a game, and I want to do 'cool stuff', not housekeeping.

Mine's not 'that' low compared to someTBH, but not high end by any means. It runs ok on full graphics settings, but it suffers from the usual 'yellow timer' issue a fair bit. I know many will likely have lesser machines than mine, and there have been a lot of posts enquiring about minimim specs etc so I though that may be one way to put minds at rest, or encourage us to save up.

Just, WOW! Stunning. Presumably those images are on max settings, but even on lowest I expect them to look awesome. @Nate Simpson any chance of a low, med, high graphics setting comparison? That may help those of us on lower end machines to stop worrying so much.