pandaman

Personally I doubt the IVA options will be much more than KSP1s - you can sit in a cockpit and look around and fly with that viewpoint, maybe with interactive controls or buttons. But fully interactive interiors would be a huge undertaking.

But the spheres don't just 'touch' they always intersect fully. With the 'most powerful' one taking control in the overlapping area. Just like The Mun SoI is entirely within Kerbin's. The Mun gets control once you get close enough.

Fair point, and I don't fundamentally disagree with it. But I would add that, from my point of view, the ocean floor is essentially no different from 'dry land' it just has what is basically an extra, denser 'atmosphere' layer between it and the vacuum of space. By ignoring ocean exploration and parts you rule out exploring ocean worlds and even the majority of Laythe. Why not add more detail to those areas at the initial design stage, and include a few parts to help with exploration. It's the equivalent of adding wheels to enable us to traverse the landscape after all.

I respecfully disagree. To me the under water environment is just as valid a place to go and explore as anywhere else. Sure, it presents a different set of problems, but so does going to any 'new place'. You may need special parts like ballast tanks, but that's only the same basic principle as sandbags on hot-air balloons. If it was Kerbal Ocean Programme would you be against getting off the boat and exploring an island?

Hmm. Personally I doubt it. Integrated at release, yes absolutely. Designed as a primarily MP game, no. MMO ? Can't even see that working at all. Race cars are all in the same place at the same time. No different to a co-op with no time warp. Where was that 'promised' exactly?

Not in KSP2. That's a mod for KSP1, but I expect there will be a KSP2 equivalent at some point if the feature is not in stock.

In principle I certainty don't disagree. But I do think that for some of them it's just not practical due to the work needed to implement them well enough and the operating resources needed.

Great idea, but unfortunately I doubt it will happen, apart from the composer playing a keyboard. In the grand scheme of things I don’t think many of us would actually notice anyway, unless we were specifically told.

That should work by placing a local regolith coloured 'scenery tile' on top of the existing terrain. In the same way as the KSC runway and building surrounds etc are applied. That way the underlying terrain mesh won't be altered. My guess is that is how the road sections etc for colonies we have seen will work. Creating an indentation in the mesh for craters is a much more difficult proposition.

Well, a radical thought I know, but... You could just buy it from the KSP store and NOT get it through Steam at all, then the problem won't even exist.

I could accept this approach to 'discovering advanced tech' as it doesn't in itself give instant knowledge or high tech parts. It could give you the chance to develop something that simply wasn't possible before due to lacking the right materials.

This is one of those not bad and nice to have ideas that would most likely prove impractical and not worth the drain on resources. Both to implement/program and run if it was. Saving a crater as a 'vessel' may work, but how often do most of us crash things? To look believable it would need a decent amount of detail which would just eat up operating resources.

In principle sea floors etc are just as valid targets for exploration as anywhere else, they can just pose a more difficult challenge. So yes they IMO they should be as interesting as anywhere else and appropriate 'tools' made available at appropriate points in the tech tree/progression .

On release I'm going to take a guess at 3. So 2 additional systems, One of which will be 'older' and more established/stable with more bodies than Kerbol. The other quite 'new' with fewer more quirky and challenging bodies.

Can't say this appeals to me much. It feels too much like unlocking 'magic' items, rather than researching and developing better tech. I just don't think it fits.

In my experience, if it's a crack in the terrain mesh that you can see stars through (looks a bit like a floor tile is lifting) then yes. Even if you survive falling through it's not good news. The Mohole, at Moho's North Pole, is an exception. But you can get stuck at the bottom.

Or you could build a colony right next to KSC for practice, and to effectively get extra launchpads.

No product, of any type, however often it may be 'promised' is ever guaranteed to actually get released until it hits the shelves. Sometimes stuff just 'goes wrong', maybe beyond the makers control, and sometimes the maker realises that they can't make it work or it just isn't good enough, so pulls the plug. I don't disagree that an 'Oops sorry, but we can't deliver after all' would have been nice, but can you imagine how many pitchforks with 'But you PROMISED ' notes attached would be flying around. And for all we know they could have been trying to get it to work until the end. Disappointing I know, but that's life, poo emojis happen. @PDCWolf have you ever made a promise or commitment that you later discover you can't fulfill? It sucks, for all parties.

With respect... 'Working on it' and 'planned' is not a promise that they can actually deliver, whatever their wishes or intentions may have been. It is exactly what it says, nothing more, nothing less. I don't doubt for a minute that they would have liked to get MP working and included, but for whatever reasons they didn't. I plan or work on lots of things that end up not working or proving practical.

How come? MP in KSP1 was NEVER promised, merely mentioned at best as something in mind that they would like to do.

Just chill. Even if it gets canned (which I don't see happening at all) it's just a game, for which you have paid nothing.

Voted no to both. Even if there are 'in house semi-official back stories/lore' that they have in mind when placing Easter Eggs and anomalies etc I like that it is not stated anywhere. Take KSP1. We have crashed UFOs, Vall Henge, Desert Temple etc. As well as the Monoliths. These could be connected by one story arc, or several, but just like the weird ancient 'anomalies' on Earth (various pyramid types all over the world, and stone circles to mention just a few) we don't actually know the whole truth behind any of them or if there is a connection.

Erm. No.... They would have an original rough estimate based on what they wanted to include, and how long they think it was likely to take of course, but how long it was 'actually' going to take is always a bit of an unknown. Also the scope expanded quite a lot, and 'other stuff' happened, so all original estimates were useless anyway.

The logic behind 'that seat is empty, let's put our snacks on it' makes perfect sense. So an empty seat can either hold 1 kerbal or maybe upto 2 cargo. No 'conversion' needed, it could be a standard 'feature' If however 'conversion' were allowed and seat were to be removed before launch then the cargo space should be more, maybe 6 to 8 cargo due to extra space and the fact that it's not restricted by having to be strapped to a seat. I would suggest that a seat shouldn't be able to be retro-fitted later though.

I agree... As long as the right tools are included to manually adjust and detail things properly.